Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CANC 04-02
o �? TA BUTTE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: NDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: Nicolaus/Liptrap Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract DEPARTMENT: DDS DATE: 10/10/05 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 11/8/05 REGULAR X CONSENT CONTACT: Dan Breedon; Principal. Planner PHONE: 538-7629 DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel --See Attached Agenda Report-- ACTION REQUESTED: Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199, Instrument No. 0052839, recorded December 22, 1999), subject to .the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee, and recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, with the findings pursuant to Government Code Section 51282 as shown in the attached. i l 1 ' I � AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND TWELVE (12) COPIES TACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY 6 getary Impact: Yes No X CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No X Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on Administrative Office Staff Contact back. Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda • BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . AGENDA REPORT — November 8, 2005 Applicant: George Nicolaus Supervisor District: 3 File #: Cane. 04-02 Request: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. APN: 047 -260 -199 - Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. Zoning:. SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels), O (Open Space) General Plan: AgriculturalResidential Parcel'Size: 52.72 acres Planner: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Attachments: A. General Plan and Zoning Map B. Application for Cancellation C. Liptrap Williamson act Contract D. Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee Minutes.of June 30, 2004 E. April 26, 2004 Letter From the Department of Conservation F. Initial Study, G. Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors act to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Immediately Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap, with the findings required by the Government Code. ANALYSIS Project -Description 1. A petition to Immediately Cancel a Williamson Act Contract has been received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn,C. Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2. This Williamson Act Contract was entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999 (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3. The contract covers a parcel of 48.23 acres currently planted with a walnut orchard. • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page 1 of 11 0 4. The property is located within the 'North. Chico Specific Plan and is zoned for residential development. 5. The applicant has also applied for a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 04-11, Kittyhawk Park) to create 48 residential parcels of approximately 1 -acre each in size, consistent with the SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zone. 6. This proposed Map is currently considered incomplete for purposes of mitigating flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed Map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. Cancellation Process 1. In order to consider contract cancellation, the county must give notice of, and hold a public hearing on the landowner's petition for cancellation. 2. Notice has been provided to all landowners with land under contract of which any portion is within one -mile of the exterior boundary of the property subject to the cancellation request. 3. Additionally, notice of this hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition has been mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to this hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). 4. Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the County must forward a copy of the published notice of the decision to the Director of the Department of • Conservation. Williamson Act Cancellations 1. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act contracts are not intended to_ be cancelled and in fact,. cancellation is reserved for unusual, "emergency" situations. Therefore, the nine-year nonrenewal process has been identified as the legally preferred method for terminating a Williamson Act contract. 2. The Supreme Court has stated that cancellation is not appropriate where the objectives served by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal, (See Siena Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 852-853). 3. The State of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that cancellation is ; impermissible "except upon extremely stringent conditions", (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, (1979). The Attorney General has also 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 section 51245." (54 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 90, 92 (197 1).) • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 2of11■ 4. Williamson Act Contracts may nevertheless be Immediately Cancelled in • circumstances when Cancellation Findings can be made and a cancellation fee is paid in accordance with the Williamson Act and as discussed in the following three sections. Williamson Act Cancellation Findings 1. The Board of Supervisors may grant tentative approval for Cancellation of a Williamson Act contract only if it makes either public -interest or consistency finds. In some cases, the contract or local government may require both public interest and consistency findings to be made in order to cancel the contract. This is the case for the Liptrap Cancellation. The findings that must be made to cancel this contract are as follows - In order to find that the cancellation is in the public interest (GC 51282 (a). the Board of Supervisors must find: (1) That other public concerns substantially- outweigh .the objectives of the Williamson Act; and, (2) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c)). • • In order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, the Board of Supervisors must also find: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. (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 proposed use or that development of the confracted`land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). 2. 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 (GC §51282(b)). . ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 3of11 0 3. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the applicant's request for • cancellation on June 30, 2004. The Committee reviewed the above referenced findings and acted to recommend approval of the Cancellation to the Board of Supervisors with the required findings. Summary of Findings 1. The. Department of Conservation comments in their attached letter that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided that the Board of Supervisors may have sufficient supporting evidence to make the required findings for cancellation. 2. The Department of Conservation points out that this area is currently bound by the North Chico Specific Plan, which is a planning area identified by the General Plan for development. 3. The North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the County in 1995, and the Liptrap Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1999. 4. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the implementation of agricultural land and Williamson Act Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or -specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. 5. Further, the Department of Conservation points out that the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural • land. r 6. Staff agrees with the Department of Conservation on this issue. Since this property was designated for residential development and not agricultural uses by the North Chico Specific Plan, the initiation of a Williamson Act Contract in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land, and was contrary to . the intent of the North Chico Specific Plan to develop this area with suburban residential uses. 7. The landowner has now filed a Tentative Subdivision Map with the County to divide this property into 48, 1 -acre parcels, a use that is consistent with the North Chico Specific Plan. 8. It is important to note, however, that the North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future development in this area; and the Plan supports the residential development proposed by the applicant. 9. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee discussed this information at their meeting as well as reviewed the information presented in the application (see attached June 30, 2004 minutes). 10. The Committee provided instruction to staff to formulate findings supporting cancellation based upon information contained within the record. • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant. 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 0 Page 4 of 11 ■ 11. The findings set forth by staff supporting the Cancellation are summarized below. • (please refer to the. complete findings located under the Action for Consideration Section for more detailed information): a. That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. • Conformance of the project with the North Chico Specific Plan, the County's vision for development in this area. • The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North Chico Specific Plan is found to be in the general public's interest. • Development of this area will result in the connection of SR -99 with Kittyhawk Drive, a major county arterial intended to serve the Plan area and that will have a larger public benefit. b. That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c)). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. • Much of the property in the vicinity of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by development pursuant to, the North • Chico Specific Plan. c. That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. • A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant in accordance with the Government Code. d. That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. • The pattern for development of this area set by the North Chico Specific Plan, the. General Plan's Greenline policy, and the Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback requirement greatly reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this property would result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. • Infilling this area with residential development in accordance with the North Chico Specific Plan will promote amore regular urban pattern. of development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. e. That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 5of11 ■ • The applicant has filed an application with the Department of Development • Services for a subdivision map (Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map) that conforms to the North Chico Specific Plan's zoning and the General Plan. f. That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development • The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to. the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. Cancellation Fee 1. The cancellation fee is payment made to cancel a Williamson . Act contract that provides a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(f)). 2. Prior to any action by the Board of Supervisors approving tentative cancellation of any contract, the county assessor must determine the current fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contractual restriction (GC §51283(a)). 3. According the Butte County Assessor the cancellation valuation for this property is • $1,372,250.00 4. The landowner shall pay the cancellation fee that is equal to 25 percent (12.5 percent State and 12.5 percent County cancellation rate) of the cancellation valuation of the property for Williamson Act. (GC §§51283(b) and 51297(c)). The Cancellation fee for this property would therefore equal $343,060.00. 5. This amount was determined by the Assessor's Office under Appeal #04-020. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION The Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee and Development Services recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: I. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings: a. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Said study identified significant environmental effects and included mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant levels; a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ - ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 6 of 11 ■ b. The Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with comments received during the review process. C. On the basis of the whole ' record before the Board of Supervisors, including the Initial Study and any ' comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Immediate Cancellation for George Nicolaus, Planning Division File No. Canc 04-02, would have a significant effect on the environment. The custodian of the record is the Department of Development Services. The location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965. d. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. U. Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199, Instrument No. 0052839, recorded December 22, 1999), subject to the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee, and recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, with the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 51282: a. Find that the cancellation is in the public interest as follows: (1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. • The subject Williamson Act Contract was entered into on December 22, 1999 upon review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. This approval was based upon the viable agricultural use established.on the property and the ability to continue agricultural operations within the North Chico Specific Plan, which allows all existing orchards to continue operations without interference or interruption by development. However, since this property was designated for residential development and not agricultural uses by the North Chico Specific Plan, the initiation of a Williamson Act Contract in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land, and was contrary to the intent of the North Chico Specific Plan to develop this area with suburban residential uses. • The North Chico Specific Plan was approved on March 28, 1995 by the Butte County Board of Supervisors as a broad reaching site planning tool to allow for large scale planning of mixed-use development. The cancellation will allow for residential development consistent with the North Chico Specific Plan's goals and SR -1 (Suburban Residential, I - acre minimum parcel size) zoning. Although this property is developed with a producing walnut orchard, and agricultural uses are allowed under one of the Plan's policies, the Plan more specifically indicates ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 0 Page 7 of 11 0 . that this area is intended for residential development at a 1 -acre • minimum parcel size, as proposed for this site under the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted. The Williamson Act was enacted to guide urban development as well as preserve agricultural land. . The County's approval of the North Chico Specific Plan provides explicit direction on where residential development is desirable. The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North Chico Specific Plan and as proposed under this Cancellation is found to be in the general public's interest. The petitioner also set forth additional justification for finding this cancellation in the public's interest as follows: • The residential development as proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and other subdivisions in the vicinity will result in the completion of the Kittyhawk Drive arterial connection to SR -99. This connection and arterial road is designated by the North Chico Specific Plan for area -wide circulation and will benefit the residents of the Plan area. The connection will also benefit emergency vehicles and response times as the connection will provide the Plan area with direct access to SR -99. The enhanced circulation to the Plan area as a result of subsequent development that would be allowed under this Cancellation is also found to be in the general public's interest. . • Nuisances that are related to agricultural activity such as harvesting, chemical spraying and application, dust, ash, smoke and noise, would be minimized if the property is developed with single family residences. The Cancellation would allow for the implementation of the residential development envisioned for this site by the North Chico Specific .Plan. The continued use of the property for agricultural activity is allowed by the North Chico Specific Plan, but this site is more specifically designated for residential development. The continued use of the propertyfor commercial agriculture will result in nuisances and compatibility problems to neighboring residential properties to the north and south as these properties develop, and to the east where the existing Autumn Park Subdivision lies. Infilling this area with residential development in accordance with the North Chico Specific Plan will promote a more regular urban pattern of development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. (2) That there is no proximate, noncontract ed land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c)). • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page 8of11 ■ • Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is not • available in the vicinity. Lands lying west of SR -99 are restricted to a 20 or 40 -acre minimum parcel size under the applicable agricultural zoning. Much of the property in the vicinity of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject property is the only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be inkeeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. b. Find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act as follows: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. • • A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant in accordance with the Government Code. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. • Lands adjacent to this parcel are located within the North Chico Specific Plan, which designates lands surrounding to the north, south, and east for residential development. Lands located to the west are separated from this parcel by SR -99, and are located outside the boundary of the North Chico Specific Plan. SR -99 provides a physical barrier between the two uses. The Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan (Program 2.2) requires the maintenance of an agricultural setback on the subject property that will limit residential development from taking place within 300 feet of the agricultural lands west of SR -99. The setback would be applied to the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. SR -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenline at this location, which allows for urban type development east of SR -99 and agricultural uses to the west. The pattern for development of this area identified by the North Chico • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 9of11 ■ Specific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline policy, and the • Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback requirement greatly reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this property would result in the removal of adjacent land 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. • The applicant has filed an application with the Department of Development Services for a subdivision map (Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map). Although this Map is still under review, the proposed 48, 1 -acre parcel sizes are consistent with the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan's SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zoning and the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. • The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous i patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to. the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. (5) That there is no.proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). • Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is not available in the, vicinity. Lands lying west of SR -99 are restricted to a 20 or 40 -acre minimum parcel size under the applicable agricultural zoning. Much of the property in the vicinity`of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject property is the } only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a Williamson Act Contract. . The development of This parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 10 of 11 0 r residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development • to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates, the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. • y Z:\LCA\liptrap\Board Report.doc • P ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 11 of 11 ■ r JJ • 9 .7 SR 1'/OS^ ;ApR:,� • September 7, 2003 ,1 Butte County Planning Dept #7 County Center Drive ®roville, CA 95965 Re: APN 047-026-199 13822 Hwy 99 N Chico, CA 95973 Approx 52 Acres Lot A Autumn Park Subdivision • 1 would like to remove this property from the W' illiamson 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 2 PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT • (Submit Original and 4 Copies) To the Bozvd of supervisors of the County of Butte. 1 -he undersigned hereby petition(s) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte to Cancel the Lane! Conservation Agreement executed between the County of Butte and L— t p i p a p on J a `' as it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve No. Yof the County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said agreement described as follows: 1"J � `� — �0 (9 — Cl —000 LE&AL, SciliP /OAj • 2. That Cancellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (Government • s Code 51200 et seq.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that:* f E/ -t- Tl �'� G i+i The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury Executed this day of v� at ehf160 California. Pcti tioner(s) APPENDIX E • Date Filed: Environmental Information Fonn (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Evr-1-) I P TRAP 331 W�� (+ica 9CA r5 �a� - 2. Address of project: ��/}Si- t w`f g i /I;P&K .3000' 14, Assessor's Block and Lot Number: ' 41 - OL O - i ?,I - C) o 0 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: �lpp[CAN—,-�N� � � 2G £ "jCCL,tuS && JhI� 27�3t[� �' RANG ] C t+ 1 C o C A GL S' Ci Z 4. Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivisi ) W 121- J A i'v1 � X04 E£P) k rlirD"Je- To St%(3'1)i�'isj ��V 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, inclu 'ng those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: V _ Sv3DiyiIfv ru (1'1APU �r-r CDL —AJ (;. Existing zoning district: R ` I W (.� .l 1J �C,� jZ Tf'1- It (C J �� ej j4 [ c PLA N �. Proposed use of site: t2g S t V � !y TI .AyVtik ;FS t T- f s PROJECT DESCRIPTION �. Site size. A 9 Square footage of building(s). 10. Number of Doors of construction. H. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach site development plan. /+ t`Tf}G l -t £- 1> 13. Proposed scheduling. S P P-/ AJ C a" 14. Associated projects. i 15. Anticipated incremental development. 016. ff residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household size expected.3 R (`� �/ 1 A t_ s� i� i L D/ N C— d—C= i S 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 13. If indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the- major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, lowing facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. • 20. if the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES —'� NO. 21. Change in existing features of.any beaches, lakes, or or substantial alteration of ground coutours. hills, 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Significantly change pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or Odors Ill vicinity. V/ 26. Significant change in_lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of cxisting drainage patters. .27. >� 28. 29 30. etc.). 31 • Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicintiy. Site on filled land or on slope of 34 percent or more. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. Substantial.change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, . , Substantially increase fossil fuel 'consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) 5 32_ Relationship to part of a larger project or series of projects. FNVTRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic saspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type oflanduse (residential, eo�and scale et of intensity of land use (one-farnily, apartment houses, shops, department), development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.). CERTIFICATION: 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the present the data and information required facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date O D (Signature) Abcdev 1 \doeumcnt\appendixE.doc For January 29, 2004 Attachment to "Petition to Cancel Land ConservationAgreement" addressing Item 2 under Government Code Section 51282 It is the intention of the Petitioner to show compliance with all government codes and identify. the corresponding public interests served by (a) cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject property. Government Code Section 51282 requires two general areas to be addressed: (A) 'Public Interest' will be covered first, followed by (B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest Public interest will be served by cancellation of the Land Conservation • Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services, (2) Contiguous Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continues within the area designated as the "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995" (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a). consistent. with the existing zoning (SR -1), b), providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Planarea by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehicles better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drive, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane, and several additional smaller streets in the area • east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire station located across from the proposed Kittyhawk and Highway 99 intersection. 7 Emergency personnel would gain access to rapidly growing • residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much more direct route than the existing drive south to the Garner Lane intersection or north to the Keefer Road intersection. This road, as it is already shown on the Plan map, a from Keiffer allows for additional, non -emergency so routes t Road, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing for the enhancement of general traffic circulation. As discretionary funds aerene to . Butte County are very limited, hawk Driveletion of and may not be realized community benefits of Kitty anytime soon. Cancellation of the Land Conservation Act on the subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed, which in turn will provide for private funding for the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. 2. Conti ous Growth Pattern a); The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and for 'subsequent application for the WAEEP contract will all ow contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an express desire • within Butte County to provide for contiguous growth patterns as evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resucost�g orderly growth of residential neighborhoods allows for the effective addition of various support services, ranging from utilities to emergency services. b). The subject property is contiguous on the east border with an existing subdivision and contiguous on the south borbdeittedtito proposed 50 unit subdivision de almond arecentlysubmitted contiguous planning• Butte County planning staffo with and to the north of the subject property was cleared of all trees within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR -1 and is located within the Plan area, will likely be the subject of development pressure in the near future. Additionally, an existing subdivision lies to the north of the recently removed almond orchard. 3. A ricultural Element Issues a). Butte County adopted the Agricultural Element mcuitur 1 • While the Element's express purpose is to preserve agr 8 • land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "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." (Emphasis Added) The subject property was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in 1995 with SR-1 zoning. By placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. That the subject property is rapidly being "surrounded" and "substantially encroached upon" is clearly the case at hand. Following extensive planning and research on the part of Butte County with the aid of citizen input, this property was designated for residential development nearly 10 years ago. b). The issue of "limited continued productive use" as .noted above is the result of several factors which are also pointed • out in the Agricultural Element. Under Goal 2, Policies, Programs, Item 2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot "BUFFER BE ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES FROM INCOMPATIBLE USE CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already been waived on the east border of the subject property and appears that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to the south of the subject property. Granted, the Element allows for the 300 foot standard to be "adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Those "unusual circumstances", specifically, the legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation of the subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting multiple health and safety hazards at worst to neighboring residents. The following points are part of the Environmental Information Form that accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review at this point • as legitimate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an urban setting: 3 I Item 25.. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals. 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. . (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. In summary, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue of Contiguity for efficient growth and development, and (3) conforms to the spirit and intent found within the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is the express purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. As an additional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exchange requires the California Department of Conservation to review this petition, to be in substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department can agree is acceptable and • suitable for the exchange. 4 10 • In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found to be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to effect a WAEEP plan. If, however, the Petitioner can find no acceptable WAEEP property for an exchange within a reasonable time, it is the desire of the Petitioner to proceed with the cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and to. pay the cancellation penalty fees as determined by the Land Conservation Agreement recorded on December 22, i999. Part B Five Findings Consistent with the Purposes of the Code Subsequent to the issues regarding Public Interest as described, Code Section 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the following • findings: 1. Notice of non -renewal has been submitted in a timely manner 2.. Cancellation / exchange will not result in adjacent lands being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands adjacent to the subject property are located within the North. Chico Specific Plan's designated area for development and are not currently in agricultural use or are already utilized as suburban residential. Any area to the west of the subject property. (across Highway 99 to the west) which might be considered'adjacene is outside of the North Chico Specific Plan s scope and may not be considered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the subject property would therefore not be a substantive, cause for any adjacent property to be removed from agricultural use. 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject property being used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Chico Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a precise guideline for growth and development over and above the General Plan, cancellation of • the Land Conservation Agreement brings the subject propertyinto conformity with the Specific Plan and its long-range goals. 5 I I • 4. Cancellation / exchange will not result in discontiguous development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous with existing residential development as well as land currently in the development review process with Butte County 5. There is no "proximate non -contracted land" which is both "available and suitable", and even if land was found which could be considered "available and suitable"; it would not provide for a. "more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land." The subject property is currently surrounded on two of three possible sides by urban development. The fourth side is across Highway 99 and falls outside of the Specific Plan area and is therefore unsuitable for urban development. The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons for cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. • Petitioner LCAExchanggeDraft103 • Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Information Item 22. As seen from SR -99, the property has a minimal wire fence along the highway and the southerly boundary. When completed, residential 6' high decorative sound walls along SR -99 and Kittyhawk Drive and/or fences will be constructed surrounding the project. The orchard will still be seen from the highway as well as may rooftops of the homes, once constructed. Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of . necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should -be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. Items 30 & 31. Any substantial. change in demand for municipal services or increased fossil fuel consumption would be in accordance with and in compliance. to the intended uses of the area as defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. • 13 Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of • the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is part.of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result of the approved Plan. A "Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. Item 33. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan), as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a 30 year old 93 +/- acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly on Garner Lane and westerly on SR -99. Two earlier phases of division (1999 and 2000) on the easterly end created Autumn Park Subdivision, the divisions of which created 40 one acre home sites and a remainder of 52.72 acres. The remainder parcel is the project site. The site slopes uniformly from approximately 186' on the northeasterly boundary to approximately 181' on the southwesterly boundary. The soils are stable and are categorized as vina loam. There are no rare or endangered plants or animals on the property and no known cultural, historical or scenic features. There is one existing agricultural accessory" structure (approximately 24'x 60') on Lot 39 which will remain. The structure is shown on the attached tentative map. (Please see attached photographs) Item 34. The properties to the west are primarily agricultural in nature. The property to the south, owned by Guernsey, has been submitted to Butte County for subdivision into 50 lots. Southeasterly and directly east of the project site are single family residential home sites ranging in various sizes and ages. The property to the north and northeast has been cleared of the remaining remnants of an old almond orchard. It has been vacant and continues to be vacant of any use other than two home sites. Within these immediate areas there are no known rare or endangered plant or animals, nor are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. Each proposed lot and home, when built, will meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department) (Please see attached photographs) • KtyHwkLCA CXL_102 14 GARNER — WESTERLY DOWN KITTYHAWK DRIVE SOUTHERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE _-- NORTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE EXISTING STORM EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND DRAINAGE POND VIEW OF PROPERTY SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTH FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE NORTHEAST FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE VIEW OF PROPER'15 .NORTH VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ON LOT 39 • NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 • 16 BASIS OF BEARING I THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, \ \ \ 150 LEACH - AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL FIELD FREE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14, TAKEN AS SETBACK LINE NORTH 89"37'19" EAST. ,/B 4 \ FROM WELL 18.1 IT4 185 ICO /off BD \ \ \ \ N89.97'1 2703.37' LL) 1 LOTS 0 89 0 AC 1 LOT' \ LOT 16 LOT 14 1.t0S 47) \ LOT 36 1 MA01 LOT LOT 22 t nnn? All 1 Mtn A7 11.0641) / r (O.0 l lil I LOT 31 U.9889 U U.YVYB AU 0 9850) (0.9687) ' LOT ss 1.os7a 4c ( Z A . ZONE X (0.9645) (0.9845) 0.8641 AC (/.0188) �• 1.1224 AQ 1 (0.7646) LOT 7 0 8574 AC (1.0814) LOT 5 LOT A 0.8330 AC ? . I \ 0.8480C � � / ' (0.8288) Y LOT 29 L - 164.10 \ \ I((I 0.9522 AC LOT 24 LOT 21 LOT 18 LOT 19 �1 SCALE: 1" = 1��'-�" D=15'1140' \ (0.8488) 0.83153) \� \ / 0.8315AC .8337AC\ / (0.7413) R = 618.60 \ \I LOT 32 (0.7383) I I (0.7383) (0.7613) I I (0.7413) LOT 38 1.0398 AC I I LOT a 1.3189 AC \ (0.9522) 0.8838 AC1 - (1.1oez) T ET I \ (0,8035) ST 'EI D SIS LT I ^4)T SR _ I II gT LOT, LOT 26 LOT 25 I " I LOT 20 LOT 17 I I LOT 12 8886 I (0.8183) LOT 39 \ 0.9522 AC 0.AC 0.8966 AC 0.8988 A 0.8968 AC PROJECT \' (0.8509) (0.8012) I I (0.8012) (0.8012) I I (0.8012) 08LOT 830 AC I I _ ' _ •.„ '' 1.0589 AC SITE - ^v), (0.9666) �p91 F� \ I LOT 33 (0 5) I ' I •1 _ `• O \ 137754 AC I ' i ^�sA (0.8762) I I "1 ' LOf 3 ® V• cP' G �I.5 1 \\ I I I I I I I \ I I- I' . 0 6357AL y: J4 L(oe4e,) ,a ..: T.A LOT 21 LOT 28 LOT 78 LOT 18 LOT 119 LOT 70 ' S LOCATION MAP \ \ I I 0.8980 AC 0.9980 AD I I \ 0.9980 AC 0.9990 AC I 0.89604) 09898 A0 f sT \ l (0.7694) (0.7694) (0.7694) (0.7684) l (0.7684) 10.7547) •q1e \ STREET n �.'LOT2 `% L \ 1.1350 AC c ,1 LOT 40 LOT 43 ` -C'- �_ .1. 2 - LEGEND: 1.0001 AC I 1.ODD3AG I - - - - - - fir - t777 (0.8729) ,I (0.7659) I \ I - - LOT NUMBER LOT 100 FEMA X ET �1 GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE, \ �! ^� LOT 44LOT 46 LOT 46 LOT 47 L\048 LOT 48 LOT 50 LOT 61 LOT 62 LOT B3 I " NET ACRES (0.8496) \ d 0.8889AC\ 0.8763 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6763 AC 0.8701AC I ' (0.6867) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6009) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6565) 2 A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, , \ ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND 1LOT 61 LOT4z 00 ) LOT "C" \ .0001 11 0LOT AC 00 I \ LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE \ $ (1.0001) \ (0.8876) CONSTRUCTED. _ f t kr EXISTING PA. EXISTING PA _-60 41TTYflAW4 DRIVc- - - CA.ROAOWAr- i'- CSA 87 SD AREA %jjFIRE HYDRANT -- (TO BE MOVED) Ali ♦ \ h % �� y �� , . • sag 4m1w z1ez.91 ZONE A ZONE X T%.'. \ 'NOTA PARTY I: GENERAL NOTES SUBDIVISION INFORMATION Tn an �•N 1zn 124 an 7n \ ' \ 1. THIS TaNTIN A MAP HAS BEEN DE 610NBD AND i6 BEING PRO- ,.w.•,� Cesseo IM ACC OROA NCE WITH THE AP PROY ED 6R•1 20 NINO OWNERS AND O7HaR PROVIB IO NB OF THE NORTH CMICO SPECIFIC PLAN. SUBDIVIDER: EVELYN UPTRAP vua SOn 2. THE INTERIOR 6UBDIVIB ION BTR SETS SMALL B! CONE TRUC TSO 331 WALL STREET R.OW. T LOCAL TYPE L -V APPLIES 10 SL Y D. E. F,- 8 M 5D 6A�tmn� NN`4M1��8'�A q SA e a. Son R.O.W. 4 LOCAL TYPE L-111 F %bj APPLIES TO STREETS A, 8 8 C E0.o0A R.O.W ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV APPLIES TO KRn'HAWK DRIVE lCITTY�I��V1� P�IZIC. VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP A DIVISION OF REMAINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 11, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 - LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE LEAST, M.D.B. & M. - BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR EVELYN C. LIPTRAP JANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL TYPE L•III OR TYPE L•V OF THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN, YET SMALL ReMA IN PRIVA TB STRe ET6 AND SMALL NOT BE OFFERED OR DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. TME EX Te NSION OF KITTYHAWK CAN SMALL BE CONSTR UC TE0 AS AN ARTERIAL TVPE A•IV IN ACCORDANCE WITH TME NORTH CHICO SPEC IF IC PLAN AND a FPe REO FOR DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. 3. THEPROP OSeo LOT AREAS SHOWN ARE GROSS LOT AREAS ANO INCLUDE THE PROPO9 PRIVATe BAS6MBNTS AND THB NeT LOT AREAS ((.0374) eXA MP LEI ARE EXCLUSIVE OF eA9e Me NTS. THE TOTAL AREA FOR SUB GIVE ION IB 02.7239 ACRl9. A. THE METHOD OF BE WAGE DISPOSAL AMC' LOT AREAS PR OF GEED MEETS ALL RSO UIRa MCNTe OF APPENDIX VN OF THe BUTTS COUNTY CODE. BEE a.D MEMO •SO1L6 WAIVe R• I 6. ALL DRAINAGE RUNOFF :MALL Be RETAINED IN THE Re Te NTION BASIN PROVIDeO. 6. A PRIVATELY OWNED COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM SMALL 09 FORMED TO PROVIDE DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE TO THE LOT: OFTME SUBDIVISION, INCLUDING PROVIDING THE 500 GPM WATER ReGUIRED FOR FIRE PROTECTION. T. STORM WATER WILL BE RETAINED ON-SITE IN ROADSIDE LEACH T RSoCMe:. I 0. TMESUBDIVISION HAS AN AVERAGE LOT AREA OF 0040 ACRES. AND THE DENSITY OF THE SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN BASED UPON THE OA0SO AREA FOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AND THa 8,1 30 NIN 0. 0. AS SHOWN. THE EXISTINGSDR AREA WILL Be REMOVED AND I WILL BE RECONSTRUCT OD ON TMe OUS R NBeV PROJECT TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT. 10. IN LIEU OF LOT DIMENSIONS ON EACH LOT, AS RBO UIReo BY THE APPLICATION. WE NAVE PROVIDED ORO:: AND NET LOT AREAS NO WILL PROVIDE LOT DIMENGIONB ON TM e FINAL MAP. CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 ENGINEER: 808 FEENEY 1250 EAST AVENUE, SLATE 10 ' CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95973 LAND USE: PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: SR -1 UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAS B ELECTRIC TELEPHONE:SBC WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK AND LEACH FIELDS APN: 047.260.197 AND 047-260.199 11AY5 � ASSOCI4TES HOI IQfYNNQfQIQ RALSSASSOCIRM17 OCO.G9f93A 400E BF9-0090 III:V•��6•IPKI'NNT'll vAN�1Alsnxawrzs.coM 1 COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION CORDING REQUESTED BY: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Clerk of the Board 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 D IIi illl l� 11 1111 l 11 11 lli ill 111 11 111 Recorded I REC FEE .GSD Official Records I CONFORM .BO County Of BUTTE I CANDACE J. GRUBBS I Recorder ROSEMARY DICKSON 1 Assistant I Myles 10:23AM 22 -Dec -1999 I Page 1 of 13 . t Title(sl ocumen . Land Conservation Agreement Evelyn C. Liptrap r r, • THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION (Additional recording fee applies) LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 14thday of December L99-9--, by and between hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and the County of Butte, a political subdivision or ule Mate of California, hereinafter referred Was "County". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain real property hereinafter described located within County; and WHEREAS, said property is devoted to agricultural uses; and WHEREAS, said property is located within AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. C heretofore established by the County; and WHEREAS, both Owner and County desire to limit the use of said property to agricultural; and compatible uses in order to preserve a maximum amount of agricultural land, to conserve the State's economic resources, to maintain the agricultural economy, and assure a food supply for future residents, to discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, recognizing that such land has public value as open space and constitutes an important physical, social, aesthetic, and economic asset to the County, to preserve the natural characteristics, t' 1 h b't t for wildlife and beauty, or to provide essen to ata , 19 l WHEREAS, the placement of said property in an agricultural preserve and the r execution and approval of this Agreement is a determination that the highest and best use of said property during the term of this Agreement or any renewal thereof is for agricultural uses; NOW, THEREFORE, both . Owner and County in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained and the substantial public benefits to be derived therefrom, do hereby agree as follows: 1: This Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as amended (Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the ' Government Code of California commencing with Section 51200), including Article 3 of said Act. entitled "Contracts". U: During the term of this Agreement, or any renewal thereof, the said property shall not be used for any purpose other than agricultural uses for producing agricultural commodities, for commercial purposes, and uses compatible with such purposes, which uses are set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. III: The Board of Supervisors may from time to time and during the term of the Agreement or any extensions thereof, by resolution, add to those compatible uses authorized in the resolution establishing the preserve within which the land is located; provided however, said Board shall not eliminate, without the written consent of Owner, a compatible use during the term of this Agreement or any renewals thereof. The provisions of this Agreement and any resolution supplementing the uses listed in Exhibit "A" is not intended to limit or supersede the planning and zoning powers of the County. IV: In the event all or a part of the land subject to this Agreement is taken in an action in eminent domain or is acquired in lieu of eminent domain for a public improvement, this • Agreement shall be null and void for the land or interest in the land actually taken, but shall remain 20 2 in full force and effect as to the remainder of the land or interest in the land not so. taken or acquired. i The date an action in eminent domain is filed shall be the date this Agreement is deemed null and void as to any land or interest in land subject to the Agreement which is taken by eminent domain. V: This Agreement shall be effective as of the day and year first above written and shall remain in effect for a period of ten (10) years therefrom. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed on the first day of January of each year for a period of ten (10) years from the date of said renewal, unless notice of non -renewal is given as provided in Section 51245 of the Government Code of California. VI: The Owner understands that he/she is not entitled to any public funds by reason of the execution of this Agreement or any renewal thereof although the use of said property is limited as aforesaid. VII: This Agreement may only be immediately canceled if, upon petition by Owner,. the Board of Supervisors of County, under the provisions of Government Code Section 51282; finds: (a) that cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; and (b) that cancellation is in the public interest. Upon cancellation, Owner shall pay to County a cancellation fee determined and certified by the Board of Supervisors of County in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 51283 and Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 99-124 Said cancellation fee may not be waived except as provided in Government Code Section 51283 and shall be a lien upon the property described herein until paid. The amount of the fee shall be an amount equal to 25% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, and one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124. • 21 • • • VIII: Owner agrees, during the term of this Agreement, to provide County, upon written request, with information relative to the income and expenses derived from and incurred in connection with the use. of the land subject to the Agreement for agricultural and compatible uses. IX: (a) The Owner agrees that he/she, his/her successors, and assigns shall not divide by sale, gift, or financing, the property which is the subject of this Agreement into a parcel or parcels under separate ownership having less than _%. acres. However, if the division is for purposes of transfer to immediate family members, then the property may be divided into a parcel or parcels under separate ownership having no less than AD acres, in accordance with the acreage standards in D-1, Column 1, of Resolution 99-124, provided that a Joint Management Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 51230.1 is executed. (b) A parcel division may occur at less than the minimum sizes specified in . subsection (a) above if it is pursuant to a use permit for parcel segregation for agricultural processing and the remaining contracted lands conform to the above minimum sizes. (c) Partial cancellation of this Agreement for a'homesite segregation may only be considered for an existing residence which has been in existence for at least 5 years and the. land has been owned for at least 10 years by the owner, as specified in Government Code Section 66474.4 (b)(2), and if a permanent restriction prohibiting residential development is recorded on the balance of the land. Such homesite segregation must be effected through a lot line adjustment, lot merger, or tentative parcel map approved pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code and the Subdivision Map Act, and provided that the minimum lot size of the base zoning district is maintained. (d) Partial non -renewal of this Agreement is subject to the following requirements: the portion of the property subject to the non -renewal, and the portion of the property not subject to the non -renewal, must each have not less than Ab acres. 4 22 X: This Agreement shall run with the land described herein and shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and assigns of the Owner and County. XI: In the event of forced sale of lands subject hereto for the settlement of a tax lien, this Agreement is null and void as to such land actually sold for that purpose. No penalty as provided for in section VII shall be charged for a cancellation under this paragraph. XII: This Agreement shall be canceled without payments or public hearing if it is replaced by any other enforceable restriction authorized by Section 8 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, including, but not limited to, an open-space , easement agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 51255, or whenever there is no operative legislation implementing said Article with respect to assessment practices. XIII: The property of the Owner hereinabove referred to and to which the provisions of the Agreement apply is situated in the County of Butte, State of California and is particularly. described as follows: SSEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LIPTRAP PROPERTY that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: A portion of Remaining Lands as shown on that certain map entitled "Autumn Park Subdivision Phase 1", which map was recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, on August 12, 1999 in Book 147 of Maps, at pages 99 through 102, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwesterly corner of Lot "A" as shown on said "Autumn Park Subdivision Phase1"; THENCE along a line parallel with and 60.00 feet northerly of the southerly line of said Remaining Lands, South 89°42'01" West, a distance of 1868.22 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of California State Highway 99 E; THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" West, a distance of 209.82 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line, North 63019'53" East, a distance of 367.87 feet; THENCE North 26010'00" West, a -distance of 185.43 feet; THENCE South 62°16'40" West, a distance of 370.91 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of. California State Highway 99 E; THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" West, a distance of 302.30 feet to the �eginning of a tangent curve having a radius of 618.80 feet, concave to the southwest, with a chord earing of North 34°35'25" West, and a chord distance of 165.97 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line and northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 15°24'50", an arc distance of 166.47 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line, North 42017'50" West, a distance of 216.97 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line and along the northerly line of said Remaining Lands, North 89037'19" East, a distance of 2,743.37 feet; THENCE leaving said northerly line, South 00017'59" East, a distance of 718.63 feet to the northeasterly corner of said Lot "A"; THENCE along the northerly line of said Lot "A", South 89042'01" West, a distance of 325.00 feet to the northwesterly corner of said Lot "A"; THENCE along the westerly line of said,Lot "A", South 00017'59" East, a distance of 200.00 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Lot "A" and the Point of Beginning; Containing 48.23 acres, more or less. . QRpFESS/p4, 'fit s. No. 33381 .r .4. Bruce A. Nash R.C.E. 3338124 Registration Expires 06/30/02 • XIV: If the Owner breaches the terms of this Agreement in a manner which results _ in all or any portion of the property which is the subject of this Agreement not being used for the agricultural or open space uses contemplated by this Agreement, the parties agree that the County would suffer damages, but that such damages would be extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Therefore, the parties agree it is reasonable to determine that the amount of the damages which will be suffered by the County and payable to it by the Owner in such event shall be based upon the following calculation: $100 per month for any month or portion thereof in which such a breach exists, multiplied by the percentage of the property affected by said breach. Provided, however, that in no event shall the amount of such damages exceed $10,000. The parties further agree that either party may give notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal in accordance with this Agreement and the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as to the property or portion'thereof affected by the breach, and no damages shall accrue pursuant to this section XIV upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to said notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner and County have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. ATTEST: JOHN BLACKLOCK, Chief Executive Officer and Clerk of the Board BUTTE 1.1 an Dolanv, Chair Butte ounty Board of Supervisors 25 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss. COUNTY OF J ►_- On l ► =a - G S.. , before me, personally appeared �� �- �-� -► j n `�r'� �' � 9 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 instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature �= sCiiO�`L� COMM.#1156547 > CnCK s MITARY PUSUC-IMPHlA (y 91b,a s COUNTY OF BUTTE w . EAq Comm. ExpNec Ott.14'2001 (This area for official notarial seal) Title of Document Date of Document Other signatures not acknowledged No. of Pages 3008 (1/94) (General) First American Title Insurance Company • State of California County of Butte On December 14. 1999 before me, Marion A. Reeves, Notary Public Name and Title of Officer (e.g., 'Jane Doe, Notary Public") personally appeared Jane Dolan Name(s) of Signegs) ® personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(/_4,___W_hose name(g is/atesubscribed to the within instrument and awledge to me thathe/may executed the same in ly' er/their authorized capacity(04-and that by hWAer / signatureoon the instrument the person .or the entity upon behalf of which the person(cted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature oftary Public MARION A. REEVES Commission # 11 7Ga4O Z Notary Public Califomia D Z Butte County My Comm. E�ires Jan 24, 2002 Title of Document: LCA Agreement, Evelyn C. Liptrap Date of Document: December 14, 1999 Number of Pages: 12 plus this page 1* • EXHIBIT "All COMPATIBLE USES The following uses are hereby determined to be compatible uses on all'contracted lands, and all other uses are prohibited: 1. Permitted Uses: a. One single family residence for each legal parcel within the contracted lands pursuant to minimum acreage standards in D1 - Column 2, of Resolution 99-124, except for family members which may be pursuant to Column 1. • ACREAGESTANDARDS Column 1 Column 2 Type of Activity Incoming Contract Minimum Acres Building & Selling minimum acres Orchards (vineyards, kiwi, fruit, and nut crops 20 40 Field Crops • 80 80 .Irrigated Pasture/Riceland 80 80 Wetlands/Prime Hunting 80 80 Dry Land Grazing 160 320 Open Space 160 320 b. General farming, horticulture, commercial livestock production, commercial poultry production, and similar activities. C. Open space for: 1. Wildlife & biotic habitat. 2.' Scenic values. 3. Scenic highways and byways. • d. Any other use determined by the Board of.Supervisors to be a compatible use in all .agricultural preserves. 298 e. Housing facilities (including trailers), to accommodate.only agricultural employees and their families who are employed by the owner or operator to work on their contracted lands. f. The drilling for hydrocarbon, including the installation and use of such equipment, structures, and facilities as are necessary or convenient. 2. Accessory Uses: a. Warehousing and storage of agricultural products. b. Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses including agricultural processing plants. C. A stand or a display for sale of agricultural commodities produced on the premises including the incidental sale of agricultural products produced off-site. d. Water storage reservoirs and irrigation areas. e. Hunting and hunting clubs. f. Private airport or aircraft landing facilities. g. Public Utility services. 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public and Quasi -Public uses, including structures and buildings. b. Veterinary hospitals nd/oi clinics. C. Sand and gravel mine, not including asphalt and concrete batch plants. I Mines, mineral extraction, and quarries in Agricultural Preserve Numbers 7, 8, and 9. K:\L.CAWGUSES.AGR t • 0 y n x z y d 0 LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE 0 1 . MINUTES-- JUNE 30, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the 3A County Center Conference Room, #3 County Center Drive, and Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Yvonne Christopher, Development Services, Chairman Joe Connell, Farm Advisor David Skimier Clarence Daley Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Blake Bailey, Assessor's Office Lewis Johnson Also Present: Rob MacKenzie, Deputy County Counsel Fred Holland, Assessor's Office Dan Breedon, Principal Plamler Yvonne Christopher introduced herself and explained why she is now the Chairman of this Committee and asked the public members to state their expertise and how long they have been on the • Committee. Lewis Johnson said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee for some time now. Joe Connell said he was taking Bill Olsen's place from the Farm Advisory Agency. Clarence Daley said he is a cattleman and has been on the. Committee for 15 years. Dave Skinner said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee approximately 6 years. II. Applications for immediate cancellation: Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 Mr. Breedon gave a brief summary of this project. He explained the Williamson Act Easement Exchange. Program (WAEEP). He briefly read the findings necessary to cancel a contract. He said he would like input from the Committee before developing findings which could be handled by the Committee giving instruction on each finding for staff to develop the findings and bring them back to the Committee, or take the finding to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lewis asked if the area in question fell under the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). • Mr. Holland said just the property on the east side of Highway 99. 31: ■ Land Conservation Committee u Minutes a June 30; 2004 a Page 1 a. .Mr. Lewis said it is hard for farmers to deal with the intrusion of residential dwellings and their animals. Chairman Christopher said there is a 300 -foot agricultural buffer on the residential property Mr. Lewis questioned the impact to the Highway. - Mr. Breedon said that would be looked at in subsequent development actions. Mr. Skinner asked about Kitty Hawk Drive being completed to Highway 99 Chairman Christopher stated the road is planned, -but not built. Mr. Breedon said it is a proposed alignment and is supported by the NCSP. The discussion was opened to the public. George Nicholaus said the property is bounded on the east by residential. He said the property to the south is proposed for 50 residential units. He said to the north of the project site is approximately 68 acres of what use to be an almond orchard and is now bare land. Mr. Price asked how long before farming stops on the Liptrap property. • Mr. Nicholaus said the plan is to farm up to the time of development. He said he talked to Mr. Levey about his orchard that is not being taken care of. Mr. Skinner asked where the 300 -foot buffer was applied. Chairman Christopher said the buffers are applied on the new development side. Mr. Lewis asked what was located on the west side. He noted that there is a dust situation. Mr. Price said there are almonds. He said the highway is wide and helps with the buffer. Mr. Nicholaus said the north boundary is SR -1 zoning. Mr. Lewis asked what is entailed with the trading of contract lands. Mr. Breedon explained that it is a very lengthy process. He said there is no application for trading lands at this time. Mr. Hays asked if the $625,000+ figure was a penalty fee. He said it was his assessment that the $625,000 was the valuation of the 43 acres. • ' Mr. Bailey said that the $625,000 is a 25% fee based on the current fair market value if unrestrictive. He said the memo submitted should read "fee" and not "value." ' ■ Land Conservation Committee n Minutes s June 30, 2004 n Page 2 v n 32 • Mr. Holland explained how to figure the penalty fees which are based on the fair market value of land. Mr. Hays asked about an appeal period. Mr. Bailey discussed appealing the Assessor's evaluation. Mr. Holland added that he would have to check to see if this evaluation could be appealed. Mr. Hays said he wanted to be on record that he wants to appeal the fee amount and he did not know how to do that. Mr. Breedon went through the justification for making the findings submitted by the applicant. He read Part A — Public Interest, and Part B — Five Findings consistent with the purpose of the code. Mr. Connell asked on the points made by the applicant, who responds to the yes or no questions. Mr. Breedon explained that the yes and no questions are from the environmental findings. He said he has to perform an environmental review of this project. Mr. Holland said it was important to note that all of the findings have to be made to approve this cancellation. He said all findings have to be made consistent with the Code. He said the Public • Interest findings have within them a mutual finding which is that there is no other proximate non - contracted land available or suitable for development, or the cancellation would provide for more contiguous patterns of growth. He said within the framework of this contract, all of these findings must be made, not the least of which is the timely filing of a Notice of Non -Renewal, which did not occur in this case. Mr. Breedon asked that the findings be taken separately in order. He said the first finding is that this cancellation is in the public interest. Mr. Bailey said the pubic concern is arguable. He said prime agricultural land is being taken out of production. He said 4 `/z years ago in 1999, this Commission placed the property in the Williamson Act four years after the adoption -of the NCSP. He said it is hard to say it was in the public's best interest 4 '/z years ago to put this property into the Williamson Act and now say it is in the public's best interest to take the land out. He felt the proper way to cancel this contract was through the Notice of Non -Renewal process. Mr. Breedon pointed out that the NCSP allows for agricultural uses. Mr. Holland argued that an almond orchard was proposed in 1999 to be under contract for a minimum of 10 years. He said the Committee has to balance out what was done 4 '/2 years ago against what they do now. • Mr. Hays said that Ms. Liptrap was told by Mr. Reimers, Assessor that the land was going to be re- assessed at $50,000 an acre. He said Ms. Liptrap informed Mr. Reimers that she would not be able 33, ■ Land Conservation Committee n Minutes s June 30, 2004 ■ Page 3 s •to afford the taxes and was told she could put the property into the Williamson Act. He assured the Committee that the only reason Ms. Liptrap put the property under contract was because she was advised to do so by the Assessor's Office. Mr. Bailey said according to the minutes of 1999, the Williamson Act conditions were explained to Ms. Liptrap and she agreed to thein by signing the Agreement. He felt she should be bound by the contract she signed. Mr. Nicholaus discussed the letter from the Department of Conservation as to the advisability of this land going into a contract. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation commented in their letter stating "The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 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 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when land designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restrictions to • agricultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation believes the NCSP is a residential plan and that the area is designated for future residential use. Chairman Christopher noted also that the exchange proposal of land is not before the Committee today, only the cancellation process. Mr. Nicholaus said the Department of Conservation questions the viability of tlus property going into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell said it states in the letter that one of the findings is that there is no other property available to be developed in a similar manner. He said in looking at the map, this does not seem to be the case. He said the property is not surrounded by urban development; it is surrounded on the west by Highway 99, on the north by an open area, and is bounded on the south by an open area. Mr. Holland said one question is would development of this parcel provide for a more contiguous pattern of development versus anything around it. He felt the answer was no. Mr. Hays said there is currently a map proposed to the south for 50 parcels. He said to the east there are two subdivisions. He said there are two subdivisions to the east and the south is already built out. • Chairman Christopher asked if there was a feeling from the Committee on whether this property should stay in the Williamson Act. 34 a Land Conservation Committee a Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 a Page 4 • Mr. Price said he understands that this property wi I1 be developed eventually. Chairman Christopher said the question is whether it is appropriate to cancel this contract or should it go through the 10 -year non -renewal process. Mr. Ski Tier said at this time the land is not contiguous and there are open areas both north and south of this property. He said until the southern development is approved the applicant is in limbo here. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel to discuss what is considered contiguous. Mr. MacKenzie said there is no definition for contiguous. He said regarding the second half of Finding 5; it does not seem that there is an argument that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, because there is a parcel on the north and a parcel on the south. He said they are looking at the question of whether the development of the contracted land would provide a more contiguous pattern of urban development. Mr. Hays said when the County first approved the Specific Plan area, LAFCo and the County attempted to set up areas for urbanization. He said he had a problem with why this property was allowed into the Act when there was a Specific Plan in place. Chairman Christopher said Mr. Hays makes a good point on development inside a plan. She reminded the Committee that why this property came into the Act is not the focus of this hearing. She said they need to determine if it is in the best interest to release the property from its contract quickly or long term and if the Committee can meet the findings to release it quickly. There was a brief discussion regarding Finding #5 on contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Skinner said the Committee needs to decide if #5 is agreeable or not. Chairman Christopher said the key word in #5 for her is in the second part: "The contiguous patterns of urban development." She asked.if the Committee felt this needs to be a focus parcel to parcel or did the plan.itself create continuity because it recognized urban development. Mr. Breedon added that the County entered into a 1V1 emorandum of Agreement (MOA) to insure the area was developed in cooperation with the City of Chico so that urban -type development standards were applied in this area. He said the vision for this area is urban. Mr. Lewis asked how much more LCA property is within the NCSP. Mr. Breedon said he thought that this property was the only one. He noted that the NCSP allows existing orchards to continue without interference by development. It was moved by Mr. Skinner that the Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee to detennine that • there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use and that the development of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard would provide a more contiguous pattern of development, seconded by Mr. Daley. 35 ■ Land Conservation Committee o Minutes s June 30, 2004 ■ Page 5 • The discussion continued: Mr. Skinner said he feels the applicant has satisfied the requirements and addressed the issues. Mr. Bailey said he would disagree, that the NCSP has been in effect for 10 years and in those 10 years very little of the land designated SR -1 has been developed off of Highway 99. He added that there are two properties surrounding this property that are cglisidered proximate and are available and can be developed prior to this parcel being developed. Mr. Skinner said there were arguments that the whole area is proposed for development. Mr. Bailey said with significant SR land available, this property should not be taken out for emergency purposes; it should come out with a Notice of Non -Renewal that takes 10 years. Mr. MacKenzie said he did not think that the Comm ittee could make the first half of the findings for #5. He said, however, on the second part of the finding, "development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pattern of urban development" it sounds like this parcel is being compared to the parcels on either side and the Committee is making a finding that it would make a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other two parcels. He said the question is what would make this parcel more contiguous than another and the applicant has offered that this development would put Kittyhawk all the way through. • Mr. Breedon said the State has commented on this project and they agree with the second half of the finding. Chairman Christopher concurred that this meets the second part of Finding 45. Mr. Skinner amended his motion to state that this meets the second half of Finding #5, seconded By Mr. Daley. Mr. Hays said that when you are talking about urbanization, the NCSP itself urbanized the whole area. Mr. Nicholaus asked if .the 300 -foot buffer would make the development non-contiguous. Brief discussion. Motion on the floor and a second, vote as to Finding #5, that the development of the Liptrap orchard would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development'. Mr. Connell discussed surrounding development. Mr. Breedon asked if they wanted to add to the motion that there is the NCSP, and that there is a'. MOA with the City of Chico. • 36 o. ■ Land Conservation Committee ® Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 a Page.6 Mr. MacKenzie said there needs to be facts in the motion that define why it is that this particular parcel would provide for a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other parcels on the north and south. Chairman Christopher asked Mr. Skinner, if this finding passes, would he be comfortable with staff detailing out the reasons for a yes vote on the find i ngs. Mr. Skinner said he would be comfortable with staff delineating out the reasons for approval. AYES: Mr. Skinner, Mr. Daley, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Price NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Discussion on #1 — "That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. " Mr. Bailey said that the Contract is dated 12/22/99; the Notice of Non -Renewal was recorded 5/28/04. He said per Government Code 51245 the Notice of Non -Renewal must come at least 90 days prior to the adversity date of the contract, which meant it would have been required, to be submitted September of 2003. • Mr. Holland said that technically they do not have a timely filed Notice of Non -Renewal. He said the property was not in non -renewal for the 2004 assessment roll. Mr. Breedon said it is for the 2005, assessment roll. Mr. Holland said it means that the contract does not terminate in 2012; it terminates in 2013, so the form is wrong. He said technically the Committee can not make this finding... Chairman Christopher asked if the information and dates need to be changed and Mr. Holland said yes. She asked if the forms were corrected, could the finding be met. Brief discussion. Mr. Breedon said the finding is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel if the Committee could be hearing an issue for non -renewal in next year's tax rolls today at this meeting. Mr. Mackenzie said the question is when the Board can make the requisite findings that something has been voted on before January 2005. Chairman Christopher asked what the law says about this notice being in a timely manner. • Mr. Breedon said the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served pursuant to Government Code 51245. 37 ■ Land Conservation Committee ® Minutes a June 30, 2004 u Page 7 Mr. Mackenzie read Government Code Section 51245. Brief discussion. • Chairman Christopher asked if the local ordinance stated recorded or served. She asked if the Code, law, or Resolution tells her when to do this. Mr. MacKenzie said the statute says serve, does not say recorded. Mr. Johnson asked if the Committee can deal with this for 2005. Chairman Christopher said she will talk to Counsel whether this decision has to wait until after January 2005 or does it not matter and the Board can look at things in advance. Finding 42 "That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use." Chairman Christopher said they recognize that the NCSP goes up to Highway 99 and does not cross west of Highway 99. She said to the north they are General Plan designated and zoned for development, and to the south designated for urban development. The east is already developed in urban development. She said the question is, "... would moving this property into development likely impact further removal of adjacent agricultural land." She said the only adjacent lands in agricultural use are the lands to the west across Highway 99. • Mr. Johnson said that we need to go through the information submitted by the applicant for taking this property out of the Williamson Act, with public interest of spraying and dust, notice, etc. He discussed the effect on the property across the street. Chairman Christopher said a discussion should have occurred at the point the parcel was rezoned and re -designated in the NCSP area, and hence with the Agricultural Element they recognize that there will be urban interface issues with agricultural land use and, therefore, make it necessary toIcreate a buffer of 300 feet. She said the County already made a decision that this land will eventually develop. It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Connell, and carried to find that whereas there is a 300 -foot setback, there is agricultural land to the west which would be protected by this 300 -foot setback, recognize that this cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Mr. Breedon reported back to the Committee'that the letter requesting non -renewal of the Contract • was dated September 7, 2003. He said the request was sent to the Board of Supervisors which the Board acknowledges and then the Notice is recorded. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes n June 30, 2004 ■ Page 8 a • Chairman Christopher asked how a non -renewal was handled in the past. Mr. Breedon said that basically a member of the public provides a Notice of Non -Renewal 90 days prior to the contract's anniversary date. He said.the department then prepares the Notice of Non - Renewal which will be recorded. He said no later than 20 days after the department receives the Notice of Non -Renewal, the Clerk of the Board shall record with the County Recorder a copy of the Notice of Non -Renewal. Mr. Holland said the 20 days did not occur in this case. He said the letter did not get to the Assessor's Office and since it did not get to the Assessor, they do not know whether to establish non- renewal calculations. Chairman Christopher asked if there was some law, State law, Govenunent Code, etc., that tells us in black and white a procedure different than what the department has been following. Mr. MacKenzie said that in the evidence code there is a section called "Service by Mail" which, means that you are deemed served 5 days after someone mails you a letter. Finding #1— vote. Chairman Christopher recapped that a letter was received 9/7/03, that was more than 90 days less than the contract date in December. It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to find that the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: Noone ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #3- vote It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to find that cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or County General Plan. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #4 — vote It was moved by Mr. Price, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried to find that cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development. •AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one 39 ■ T.and Conservation Committee v Minutes v June 30, 2004 a Page 9 • ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Findings under Public Interest. Finding #1 —Vote . It was moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to reconunend that the Board'of Supervisors find that other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williainson Act. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #2 - Vote It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors find that there is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patters of urban development (GC §51282(c)) as above under #5 finding. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: Mr.. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher It was also moved by Mr. Skinner; seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried that the Committee recognize September 7, 2003, as the application date. Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee discussed the fair market value by the Assessor's Office. He said he did not want the applicant's representatives to leave this room today thinking that there is an appeal to that decision. He said there may not be an appeal process.because this is a contractual situation. Mr. Lewis asked what the fees were based on, the, 2012 or the 2013 dates as the final date. Mr. Holland explained that the difference in one year would not affect the evaluation. BREAK - 11:25 to :11:35 a.m. ..40 _ r a"A CnnzPrvat;nn Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 10 0 0 DEPARTMENT, Mr. Dan Breedon, Principal Planner LAND RESOURCE OF PROTECTION CONSERVATION Oroville, CA 95965 801 K STREET STATE SACRAMENTO OF CALIFORNIA 95814 CALIFORNIA PHONE 916/324-0850 Dear Mr. Breedon: FAX 916/327-3430 Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation April 26, 2004 B -U I F, CEYU!v`a"Y APR 2 8 2PJ4 DEArEeL0FIIAT,IN SRVICES DIVISION OF Mr. Dan Breedon, Principal Planner LAND RESOURCE Butte County Dept. of. Developmental Services PROTECTION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 801 K STREET SACRAMENTO RE: Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement; CALIFORNIA 95814 APN 047-250-199, Landowner: Evelyn Lipt ap PHONE 916/324-0850 Dear Mr. Breedon: FAX 916/327-3430 Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the above IN T E R N ET consrv.ca.gov referenced matter. The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract, on G A Y DAVIS approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres, currently planted with *A R N O R productive walnut trees, 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 -landowner entered into the land conservation agreement with Butte County on December 22, 1999. The subject site is located east of Highway 99, north of Wilson Landing Road in Butte County. Cancellation Findings The applicable Williamson Act contract (Section VII, page 3) provides that tentative approval for cancellation may be granted only if the Board makes both of the following findings: 1) cancellation is consistent with 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 Committee will make a recommendation on the proposed cancellation to the Board of • Supervisors. 41 • 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 25% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code §51283, and one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124." We request a 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 the petition for cancellation and information provided and provides the following comments. Cancellation is Consistent with the Purposes of the Williamson Act For the cancellation to be consistent with purposes of the Williamson Act, the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board) must make findings with respect to all of the following: 1) a notice of nonrenewal has been served, 2) removal of adjacent land from agricultural use is unlikely, 3) the alternative use is consistent with the County's General Plan, 4) discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result, and 5) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns 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 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 be the preferable method of contract termination for the Department. The subject parcel is contiguous to existing one acre rural ranchette development to the east on approximately 50 acres of land formerly owned by Ms. Liptrap. The Guernsey subdivision is proposed on 50 acres adjacent to the south. A request for a 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 42 • Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 3 of.4 for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to the east and south. The Department agrees that development of the subject parcel will not result in a discontiguous pattern of urban development. Evidence to substantiate a finding that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land does not appear adequate. In reviewing the County's Williamson Act map and the North Chico Specific Plan there appears to be noncontracted land within. the Plan available and zoned for residential use. These noncontracted lands are contiguous to existing urban development and lie to the north of the subject site and southeast of Mudd Creek. However, since the Liptrap property is adjacent to similarly developed property.to the east and southeast, and the Guernsey property to the south is scheduled for 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 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 all of the following: (1) other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate. noncontracted land. Our comments have already addressed the second finding required under public interest finding above. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and Government Code §51252. To pass constitutional muster, a restriction must be enforceable in the face of imminent urban development, and may not be terminable merely because such development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. (Lewis v. 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 contract cancellation serves the public interest because the developer offers Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Road thereby providing a more direct route for emergency vehicles. • Any decision to cancel a land conservation contract based upon a finding that the continued restricted use is contrary to the public interest must also investigate the 43 Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 4 of 4 • .criteria used for originally restricting a landowner's use of the land and allowing for a preferential tax assessment on behalf of the public interest. In enacting the Williamson Act, the Legislature deliberately required a landowner's long-term commitment to agriculture or other open -space use in exchange .for preferential taxation. The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte. County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 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 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restriction to 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 Board may have sufficient supporting evidence for making the required findings. Please provide our office with a copy of the Notice of the Public Hearing on this matter ten (10) working days before the hearing and a copy of the published notice of the Board's decision within 30 days of.the tentative cancellation pursuant to section 51284. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associate Environmental Planner at (916) 324-0869. Sincerely, Dennis J. O'Bryant Acting Assistant Director C. 44 A&Butte County Department of Development Services VONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * CIS * PLANNING Date: April 7, 2005 To: Responsible and Trustee Agencies Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT - To Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for an Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (CANC 04-02) The Butte County Planning Division has completed an Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), of potential environmental consequences anticipated in connection with the above-mentioned project, a copy of which is enclosed: This letter serves as a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow responsible and trustee agencies a 30 -day review period in accordance with -Sections 15072 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Please review the enclosed Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. This review should focus on your agency's area. of expertise and jurisdiction. Any, comments must be sent to the above address on or prior to May 16, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed. environmental document, please contact Dan Breedon at 530=538-7629, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. S'. e , Dan Breedon Principal Planner cc: IDR Committee Members (via email) City of Chico CalTrans K:\Planning\PROJECTS\LCA\liptrap\Neg Dec Cover Letter.doc 45 0 • E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) it Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF'DEVELOPMENT SERVICES W INITIAL STUDY FOR Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Evelyn Liptrap B. Staff Contact: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner, dbreedonnbutte.county.net, 530-538-7629 C. Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract D. Project Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Gamer Lane, and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. E. Type of Aaplication: Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract F. Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199 G. Proiect Site Size: 52.72 acres H. Current Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels); OS (Open Space) I. General Plan Designation: AR (Agricultural Residential) J. Environmental Setting: The property is currently developed with a walnut orchard. There are no other improvements. The terrain is flat, with no defined drainage courses. The property is'located within the North Chico Specific Plan. The western portion of the property fronts on SR -99. A county designated arterial, Kittyhawk Drive, would be developed along the properties south boundary from Hicks Lane to SR -99. The property is shown to be in a 100 year flood zone. K Surrounding Land Uses: The property's west boundary fronts on SR -99. A residential subdivision (Autumn Park) is located adjacent to the east. Other undeveloped lands lie to the north and south. L. Proiect Description: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. A Tentative Subdivision Map (Kittyhawk Park) has been submitted concurrently proposing to create 48, 1 -acre single family residential parcels. The Tentative Map application is currently considered incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts associated with the cancellation, but also discloses impacts that could be related to the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision. Note: This project has been reviewed for consistency with the Adopted North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) goals and polices and will utilize the adopted Certified Environmental Impact Report (CEIR) prepared for the plan as the basic environmental document. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. These documents were adopted by the • Board of Supervisors in March of 1995. Pursuant to Government Code Section 21083.3, if an EIR has been certified for the adoption of a Specific Plan, the application of CEQA shall be limited to ■ Butte County. Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 1 0 47 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior CEIR. M. Public Aeency Approvals: Butte County Development Services Department, Butte County Environmental Health Department, Butte County Public Works Department, Butte County Fire Department, and Butte County Air Quality Management District. 2.0 DETERNUNATION [ J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD have asignificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the, effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner -�-x . z;�-7v %3,obvw % Reviewed by: Stephen Streeter, Planning Manager Date Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) • 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] 4.1 Aesthetics [ ] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4,3 Air Quality [ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [X] 4.5 Cultural Resources [X] 4.6 Geologic Processes [ ] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [X] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use [ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing [ ] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Trdnsportation/Traffic [ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not, expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. . 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES: ould the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views X in the area? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The project is not located in an area considered to be a scenic vista, scenic highway or other special scenic feature. Visual Resource impacts are discussed within the CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan indicates that project elements of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) mitigate impacts to visual resources. These project elements include the provision of open space corridorsibuffers throughout the plan area and the inclusion of design standards in the Specific Plan that address issues of building size, mass, design, ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ 50 • • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) landscaping and other design components, as well as road standards, to help achieve development scale and appearance that blends with and contributes to the existing rural quality of the area. The proposed 48 lot residential subdivision would have light and glare impacts that are similar to the existing I -acre parcels located within the Autumn Park Subdivision adjacent to the east, and other land uses that are permitted in this area under the applicable SR -1 zoning. MitilZation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) i4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or - Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the X California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Impact Discussion: a. The Immediate Cancellation proposed would result in the conversion of farmland 'since the current walnut orchard would become available for the development of 1 -acre lots upon removal of the Williamson Act Contract, as proposed under the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision application. However, • the North Chico Specific Plan has designated this area for residential development at a 1 -acre density. This property is located in an area that has been designated by the County General Plan for urban uses not agricultural uses. • The CE1R for the North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the impact of the North Chico Specific Plan on agricultural land uses. The CEIR noted that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 475 acres of agricultural lands. However, because 213 acres of these soils are not considered prime agricultural soils and because the remaining 262 acres are substantially in conflict with adjacent residential development, and are located on the urban side of the Greenline, this is considered a less -than -significant impact. The CEIR further explains that the County's existing Greenline Policy establishes SR -99 as the boundary between urban/suburban to the east and agricultural to the west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use, and no impact would is anticipated. b. The approval of the Immediate Cancellation would remove the Williamson Act contract. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the findings required under the Government Code (Williamson Act) and has made a recommendation that the findings can be made in this instance. The Committee reviewed the impact of the Immediate Cancellation on surrounding Williamson Act Contracts and agricultural land and determined that the cancellation would not have a negative influence on these lands. C. See item a. above. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 is 52 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Impact Discussion: • Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment" if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PMto). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Butte County Air Quality Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate air quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the NCSP. These mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004; • showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ 53 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air qualityplan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which " exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? - Impact Discussion: • Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment" if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PMto). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Butte County Air Quality Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate air quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the NCSP. These mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004; • showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ 53 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 2. All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map showing the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. Timing: The landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final Map, whichever comes fust. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavation and Construction . Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle • movement damp enoughto prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds' 15 miles per hour. • 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation." ' 4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to.ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). 5. Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity: a.. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8v 54 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 0 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X X species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X X regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree X X reservation policy ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? G A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, X X threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, X X amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? L A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for X X foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident X X or migratory fish or wildlife species? k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could X X hinder the normal activities of wildlife? • ■ , Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■ 55 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map which has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted with respect to the presence of sensitive plants and animals and their habitats. According to the Natural Diversity Data Base, the project is not located in an area considered to contain these resources. GIS land coverage data supplied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention shows that the project site is designated as "Agriculture", not as any viable habitat type. The CEIR of the NCSP was also consulted concerning this project area. Figure 6-1 of the CEIR for the NCSP shows that orchards are the predominant vegetation type in this area. As described in the Project Setting section of this Initial Study, walnut orchards continue to occupy the subject property. The CEIR indicates. that orchards are -of little direct value to native biological resources other than insects, because agricultural practices keep plant species diversity to a minimum, and little nesting or foraging habitat is available to wildlife. Some of the species that can take advantage of agricultural habitats provided in the Plan area are deleterious to productivity and are consequently discouraged and/or prevented from foraging there. The CEIR also states that orchards can play a role in providing a lot -disturbance buffer between developed areas and biologically rich riparian habitat that is present in some locations of the Plan area. In the case of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map there are no riparian resources present. The CEIR indicates that there are several areas of potential impacts to biological resources as a result of NCSP implementation, such as impacts to riparian resources, vernal pools and other ephemeral wetlands; • disturbance to nesting areas of the black -shouldered kite and burrowing owl; California Department of Fish and Game Species . of Special Concern; loss of foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk, disturbance/removal of habitat used by the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle; and, disturbance to special status plants in the Plan area. The CEIR indicates that the NCSP contains many project elements that mitigate these impacts to levels of insignificance. There are impacts for which the CEIR recommends further mitigation, but the resources that these mitigations are for are not located on the subject property. Specifically, the CEIR requires Army Corps permits for impacts to wetlands. In the case of the subject property no Corps Permit is required because CEIR Figure 6.2 Wetland Resources does not identify any wetland resources in the project area. Pre - construction surveys are recommended for the presence of the black -shouldered kite. In the case of the subject property no pre -construction survey is recommended because CEIR Figure 6.1 shows that the property is not located near any trees known to be active black -shouldered kite habitat. Comprehensive rare plant surveys are recommended on all land designated for development. In the case of the subject property no rare plant surveys are recommended since this property is developed with an orchard, a vegetation type and use that preclude the presence of rare plants, due to the amount of disturbance associated with this agricultural activity as explained above. The design of the proposed project will not cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and a "de minimis" exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat is recommended. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5, is not required at this time. The project site is not known to contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting • biological resources; or, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■ 56 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02)' • 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as • rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. The NCSP CEIR indicates that the highest sensitivity areas within the Plan area are lands located within 100 to 200 feet from stream courses. A majority of these areas are already afforded protection by the 100 foot no -development setback required along Keefer Slough. The subject property is not located near any of these areas. Approval of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Immediate Cancellation would not result in an impact to archaeological resources identified by the CEIR (CEIR Figure 7-1). However, this finding does not necessarily preclude the presence of archaeological resources that may be buried and would only be uncovered during construction work and land clearing. For this reason, a mitigation measure has been set forth below that requires construction activity to cease if cultural resources are uncovered and that the area of the find be protected from further disturbance until a professional archaeologist determines the significance of the find and makes recommendations for mitigation. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a. note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.;. structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified 'immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in • determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ 57 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) •Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. • is ■ Butte County. Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■ 5 8 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault, located approximately 32 miles from the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975, resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill, approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. In the northwest comer of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short is faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ 59 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or , death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the X State.Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic, ground shaking? X 3. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X X C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, X and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or colla se? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal X system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault, located approximately 32 miles from the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975, resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill, approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. In the northwest comer of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short is faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ 59 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 6.9 in the area in 1892. There is some speculation as to the exact location of the historic earthquake epicenters and some question if they actually occurred on the Midland-Sweitzer fault (Butte County, 1977). The Butte County GIS Fault Lines theme shows that a possible fault with activity unknown is located approximately 1.4 miles to the east of the project site. This fault is a part of the Foothill Shear Zone and has not experienced any known movement during historical times. No impacts are anticipated since no rupture of a known earthquake fault exists in the project area. Like most of central California, the site is expected to be subjected to seismic ground shaking at some future time. Accordingly, all buildings, pipes, light poles, roadways, and other improvements would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building requirements. Because the project appears to be located such that the probability of significant ground shaking is low, and because the structures would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code standards for the appropriate Seismic Hazard Zone, potential geologic impacts would be less than significant. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates' that the site has a moderate potential for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map also indicates that the property is located within an area of heavy groundwater withdrawal and is'a potential subsidence area. Although so designated, this designation is general in nature, and is applicable to virtually all of the Central Valley area of Butte County. Although subsidence is a problem in all of the Central Valley in California due to groundwater withdrawals for irrigation, there has not been any documented incident that indicates a specific problem at this location. No impact is anticipated. . There is no soil erosion potential for this site, according to Butte County General Plan GIS data. The CEIR • for the NCSP indicates that implementation of the NCSP'will increase erosion and sediment transport into vicinity creeks and drainages, if proper erosion control measures are not implemented. The NCSP contains policies (Policy 7.2) concerning grading and erosion control. The requirements from this policy that are applicable to this project and is set forth below as a project Mitigation Measure. The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive soil designation. Standard construction practices as required under the Uniform Building Code address the impact of expansive soil on foundations and buildings. No impact is anticipated. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. Mitigation Measure #4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public. Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): 1. _ The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. • 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■ 60 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. . 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. • • b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15 m. 6.-1. Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 4. 7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) and is not near any listed sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the 46 Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ s'� Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people X residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuationplan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including X where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) and is not near any listed sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the 46 Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ s'� Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • Mitigation: None required. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. Although the applicant proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley • aquifers at this location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a, Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production the X rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pen -nits have been granted)? c. alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course X of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in . substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X' systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water uality? X g Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by Federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood X Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as X a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. Although the applicant proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley • aquifers at this location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) •This site is level and the soil type is not prone to erosion. The proposal could, nevertheless, affect surface water quality due to siltation resulting from erosion caused by land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. Mitigation concerning impacts from these development activities has been set forth below. The Butte County Department of Public Works has commented that the project is located within the 100 - year floodplain of Keefer Slough (FEMA Map 06007C0320D, dated April 20, 2000). The Department of Public Works comments that this area has been known to flood more frequently. The project design of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map has the potential to alter the floodplain, subjecting future residents and adjacent property owners to increased flood hazards. The Department of Public Works indicates that the applicant has not provided detailed design information demonstrating that it is feasible to develop within the floodplain, while providing adequate ingress and egress during flood events, and providing suitable building pads above the flood levels, without adversely affecting surrounding properties (Source: Department of Public Works Comments on TSM 04-11, February 25, 2004). In a letter dated December 10, 2004 the applicant indicates that drainage calculations will be provided to the Department of Public Works to address their concerns. No new information has been received at this time. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application also proposes to abandon an existing retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins to handle drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions. Any new storm water retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed and made operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to considering this item as complete. The Environmental Health Division has commented that'Lots 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map cannot be approved with the existing (Autumn Park Subdivision) storm drainage basin • shown. No residential lots can be shown on this area until the alternative storm drainage basin is approved and functional, and the existing storm drainage basin is abandoned and deemed suitable for residential uses. This item will remain incomplete until the Department of Public Works is satisfied with the drainage plan and alternative drainage is provided for the Autumn Park Subdivision. As discussed within the Project Description section of this Initial Study the Kitty Hawk Park Tentative Map application is considered incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts associated with the cancellation but also discloses impacts that could be related to the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision. Mitigation for flooding and drainage concerning the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map is not provided at this time because the application is considered incomplete. The property is not located in an area prone to mudflows or other natural disasters. No impact would occur with respect to these natural hazards. Mitigation Measure #4 Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): 1. The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street.. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■ 64 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best • Management Practices. After completion. of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the. design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second: y b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). • Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. ,w ■ Butte County Department of Development'Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■ 65 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.9 LAND USE: Impact Discussion: The proposal is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger residential, commercial and ' industrial developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. The concurrently submitted Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map contemplates development that is consistent with the SR -1 zoning implemented by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. The project does not have the potential -to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that the findings required by the Government Code for Immediate Cancellation of this Williamson Act Contract can be made in this instance. The County Board of Supervisors has not yet taken action on this request. The Board will hear this request after circulation of this Initial Study and taking action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. The proposal will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required LM ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■ . Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant 'Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general X plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X ]an or natural community conservation plan? Impact Discussion: The proposal is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger residential, commercial and ' industrial developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. The concurrently submitted Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map contemplates development that is consistent with the SR -1 zoning implemented by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. The project does not have the potential -to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that the findings required by the Government Code for Immediate Cancellation of this Williamson Act Contract can be made in this instance. The County Board of Supervisors has not yet taken action on this request. The Board will hear this request after circulation of this Initial Study and taking action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. The proposal will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required LM ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■ . Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ 6,7 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under. Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state? b. ' Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ 6,7 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) • 4.11 Min: Impact Discussion: a. — d. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with ' the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to the project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that an acceptable. outside noise level of 65 decibels CNEL (per the Butte County. General Plan) is achieved at a distance of 65 feet from SR -99. The proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any residential development in the area where higher noise levels, exceeding 65 decibels CNEL occur (>160 feet from SR -99). Residential development is proposed to be setback from SR -99 a total distance of at least 300 feet. Therefore residential development within this development would not be subject to noise levels that exceed community standards as provided for in the General Plan. Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. During construction, the highest noise levels would result from operation of power tools, which can be expected to generate noise levels of between 80 to 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Construction activities that would be associated with residential development at the project .site would be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan X or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X ground borne vibration or ground bome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in_ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without theproject? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working X in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: a. — d. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with ' the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to the project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that an acceptable. outside noise level of 65 decibels CNEL (per the Butte County. General Plan) is achieved at a distance of 65 feet from SR -99. The proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any residential development in the area where higher noise levels, exceeding 65 decibels CNEL occur (>160 feet from SR -99). Residential development is proposed to be setback from SR -99 a total distance of at least 300 feet. Therefore residential development within this development would not be subject to noise levels that exceed community standards as provided for in the General Plan. Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. During construction, the highest noise levels would result from operation of power tools, which can be expected to generate noise levels of between 80 to 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Construction activities that would be associated with residential development at the project .site would be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ ProjectName: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) . limited in terms of duration and do not represent a significant permanent change. to the • surrounding noise environment. e. - f. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal'Airport. Airports can be a source of significant noise impacts. However, the_ project is shown to be well outside the 55 decibel noise contour for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map has been found to be consistent with the 2000 ALUCP for the Chico Municipal Airport with no required conditions. Mitigation Measure: None required • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 23 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) a 0 4.12 HOUSING: • Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create housing impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or 1.1% per year. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create 48 parcels and thus has the potential to add an estimated 116 people to Butte County (48 units x 2.414 persons/unit — assuming all occupants are new residents to Butte County). This is not considered significant because this amount is consistent with what is planned by the North Chico Specific Plan for this area. The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 70 Potentially Less Than . Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating X the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create housing impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or 1.1% per year. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create 48 parcels and thus has the potential to add an estimated 116 people to Butte County (48 units x 2.414 persons/unit — assuming all occupants are new residents to Butte County). This is not considered significant because this amount is consistent with what is planned by the North Chico Specific Plan for this area. The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 70 • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park • Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to. be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impact of increased residential development in the County affects the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a note on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Butte County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, and drainage facilities from development as proposed under the Plan (County Service Area 87). These fees shall be collected at the time of application for building permits on the 48 individual parcels proposed by ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ 71 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered. governmental facilities, the construction of which X could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fireprotection? X C. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park • Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to. be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impact of increased residential development in the County affects the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a note on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Butte County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, and drainage facilities from development as proposed under the Plan (County Service Area 87). These fees shall be collected at the time of application for building permits on the 48 individual parcels proposed by ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ 71 Proiect Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) the I{ittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. These fees are intended to. off -set impacts to public • services from the residential development anticipated by the North Chico Specific Plan. Mitigation: None required. 4.14 RECREATION: " Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility X would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X . which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Discussion: a. - b. This project is not large enough to require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code. Impact Fees for recreation would be collected at that time of building permit issuance on each of the 48 individual residential lots within the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision. As a result of the size of the proposal and collection of impact fees no.impact to recreational uses is anticipated. Mitigation Measure: None required • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 26 ■. 72 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity. ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: A - g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional traffic from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to connect the existing Kittyhawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Garner Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Chico Specific Plan and would have the potential to enhance circulation to the plan area and provide a needed additional access point to SR -99 for this area. The proposed extension of Kittyhawk Drive would also benefit the proposed Guernsey Subdivision south of and adjacent to this project. The combined traffic impact (97 residential Iots with 10 trips per day estimated, equaling 970 potential average daily trips generated) of these subdivisions could nevertheless have impacts to area roads and SR -99. County staff and the California Department of Transportation therefore required the completion of a Traffic Impact Study concerning traffic impacts from these subdivisions, and from the proposed connection of Kittyhawk Drive with SR -99. This study is currently under review as a draft document and is not considered complete at this time. Further environmental review and analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map complete. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 27 ■ 73 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Impact Discussion: a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional utility and service system impacts from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Sewer service is currently not available at this location, and the applicant intends to provide individual on-site septic systems to handle sewage generated by the project. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. As a result, wastewater treatment requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be required. The applicant proposes to provide water service to the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map from the California Water Service Company and no on-site community system or production wells are proposed. The County requires will serve letters guaranteeing service from the California Water Service Company prior to accepting the Subdivision Map as complete. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page.28 ■ 74 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with . Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and . X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? . Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X dis osal needs? T . Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and X regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional utility and service system impacts from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Sewer service is currently not available at this location, and the applicant intends to provide individual on-site septic systems to handle sewage generated by the project. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. As a result, wastewater treatment requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be required. The applicant proposes to provide water service to the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map from the California Water Service Company and no on-site community system or production wells are proposed. The County requires will serve letters guaranteeing service from the California Water Service Company prior to accepting the Subdivision Map as complete. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page.28 ■ 74 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application proposes to abandon an existing • retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins to handle drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions. Any new storm water. retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed and made operational 'to the satisfaction of the, Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to accepting the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map as complete. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map would increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount. According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The projected capacity of the landfill anticipated the incremental growth represented by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: None required. • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 29 ■ 75 Project Name: Uptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) • 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (SECTION 15065): • a. The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study. b. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures 1-4 as set forth in Section 5. of this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. - c. The project does not have the potential to have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 30 ■ VA Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califiiinia history orprehistory? b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings, either directly or indirectly? • a. The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study. b. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures 1-4 as set forth in Section 5. of this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. - c. The project does not have the potential to have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 30 ■ VA Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement .shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as. Section A -A,, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map showing the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. • Timing: The landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final Map, whichever comes first. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavation -and Construction Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to'create a crust after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation." 4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule • 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 31 ■ 77 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • 5. Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity: a. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. , Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map: Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map . or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in .determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, • and building site development. Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid 'damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. Mitigation Measure #4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): 1. The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have.provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. • 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 32 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) planted, or otherwise protected; to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, . in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review • compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. • n Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 33 ■ 79 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Association of Governments. Regional Travel Demand Model. Information extracted in personal correspondence with Chris Devine of the Butte County Association of Governments staff. December 4, 2001. 2. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67- 178. Oroville, CA: , Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity MV. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities MaR. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County GIS Data. Oroville, CA: November 2001. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: C112M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Environmental Checklist Form Evaluation of Environmental Impact. File Number 93-15. Oroville, CA: February 8, 1993. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Man 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. • 9. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map.l 11-3. Safety Element. Orovi Ile, CA:. CH2M Hill, 1977. • 10.- Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 11. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 12. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 13. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Man V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: C112M Hill, 1977. 14. Butte County Planning Department. School District Man. Oroville, CA. 15. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, CA C112M Hill, 1977. 16. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 2000 All Traffic Volumes on California State Highway System. 2001. 17. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 1998 Truck Volumes on California State Highway System. 1998. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 34 ■ Y Project Name: Liptrap immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 18. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 1998 All Traffic Volumes on • California State Highway System. 1998. 19. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management ; Agency. 1989. 20. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 21. USGS Quad Maps. Additional Reference Material: 1. Butte County Planning Division. Certified Environmental Impact Report for the North Chico Specific Plan. Oroville, CA: Heritage Partners, March, 28 1995. 2. Butte County Planning Division. North Chico Specific Plan. Oroville, CA: Heritage Partners, • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 35 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: [X]. Environmental Health [X] Public Works [X] Building Manager [ ] BCAG [X] ALUC [X] LAFCo [X] Assessor [X] Development Services [ ] Chico Unified School Distr. [X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [X] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs [ ] City of Gridley [ J . City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise [ ] CA Department of Forestry [X] Caltrans (Traffic) [XJ Central Reg. Water Quality [ ] Department of Conservation [ ] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol [ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ J US Fish & Wildlife Service [X] Agricultural Commissioner [ ] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ } Oroville Union School Dist. [ ] Feather River Rec. Dist. [ ] El Medio Fire Dept.' [ J OWID [ ] LOAPUD ' [ ] PG&E [ ] Pacific Bell [ ] Palermo Union School Dist. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 36 ■ 82 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) s 8.0 PROJECT SPONSORS) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO PROPOSED PROJECT: I/We have. reviewed the Initial Study for the. Liptrap Immediate Cancllation of Williamson Act Contract (File #CANC 04-02, APN # 047-260-197, -199) application and particularly the mitigation measure identified herein. I/We hereby modify the application on file with the Butte County Planning Department to included incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study. � LcRrt�ct�• ' [s ��� rod Spon r/Project Agent Date Proiect SDonsor/Proiect Aizent Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ® Page 37 ei l • I e S-oc� BUTTE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AQENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: Nicolaus/Liptrap Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract DEPARTMENT: DDS DATE: 10/10/05 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 11/8/05 CONTACT: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner I PHONE: 53877629 I REGULAR X CONSENT DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Cod_ - Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. --See Attached Agenda Report= - ACTION REQUESTED: Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Adt Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199, Instrument No. 0052839, recorded December 22, 1999), subject to the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee, and recordation 6f a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, with th. findings pursuant to Government Code Section 51282 as shown in'the attached. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND TWELVE (12) COPIES TTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY g getary Impact: Yes No X CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No X Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on Administrative Office Staff Contact back. Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda R BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORT. — November 8, 2005 Applicant: George Nicolaus Supervisor District: 3 File #: Canc. 04-02 Request: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. APN: - 047-260-199 Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels), O (Open Space) General Plan: Agricultural Residential Parcel Size: 52.72 acres • Planner: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Attachments: A. General Plan and Zoning Map B: Application for Cancellation C. Liptrap Williamson act Contract D. Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee Minutes of June 30, 2004 . E. April 26, 2004 Letter From the Department of Conservation F. Initial Study G. Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors act to approve a _Mitigated Negative Declaration and Immediately Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap, with the findings required by the Government Code: ANALYSIS Project Description 1. A petition to Immediately Cancel a Williamson Act Contract has been received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn C. Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2. This Williamson Act Contract was entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999 (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3. The contract covers a parcel of 48.23 acres currently planted with a walnut orchard. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 1 of 11 0 4. The property is located within the North. Chico Specific Plan and is zoned for . residential development. 5. The applicant has also applied for a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 04-11, Kittyhawk Park) to create 48 residential parcels of approximately 1 -acre each in. size, consistent with the SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zone. 6. This proposed Map is currently considered incomplete for purposes of mitigating flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed Map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. ,Cancellation Process 1. In order to consider contract cancellation, the county must give notice of, and hold a public hearing on the landowner's petition for cancellation. 2. Notice has been provided to all landowners with land under contract of which any portion is within one -mile of the exterior boundary of the property subject to the cancellation request. 3. Additionally, notice of this hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition has been mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to this hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). 4. Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the County must forward a copy of the published notice of the decision to the Director of the Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Cancellations 1. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act contracts are not intended to be cancelled and in fact, cancellation is reserved for unusual, "emergency" situations. Therefore, . the nine-year nonrenewal process has been identified as the legally preferred method for terminating a Williamson Act contract. 2. The Supreme Court has stated that cancellation is not appropriate where the objectives served by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal, (See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 852-853). 3. The State of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that cancellation is impermissible "except upon extremely stringent conditions", (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, . (1979). The Attorney General has also 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 section 51245." (54 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 90, 92 (1971).) • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report - Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page 2of11 ■ . 4. Williamson Act Contracts may nevertheless be Immediately Cancelled in • circumstances when Cancellation Findings can be made and a cancellation fee is paid in accordance with the Williamson Act and as discussed in the following three sections. Williamson Act Cancellation Findings 1. The Board of Supervisors may grant tentative approval for Cancellation of a Williamson Act contract only if it makes either public interest or consistency finds. In some cases, the contract or local government may require both public interest and consistency findings to be made in order to cancel the contract. This is the case for the Liptrap Cancellation. The findings that must be made to cancel this contract are as follows: • In order to find that the cancellation is in the public interest (GC 51282 (a). the Board of Supervisors must find: (1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the e objectives of the Williamson Act; and, (2) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c)). • • In order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, the Board of Supervisors must also find: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served: (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 proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). 2. 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 (GC §51282(b)). 3 • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 0 Page 3 of 11 0 3. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the applicant's request for • cancellation on June 30, 2004. The Committee reviewed the above referenced findings and acted to recommend approval of the Cancellation to the Board of Supervisors with the required findings. Summary of Findings 1. The Department of Conservation comments in their attached letter that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided that the Board of Supervisors may have sufficient supporting evidence to make the required findings for cancellation. 2. The Department of Conservation points out that this area is currently bound by the North Chico Specific Plan, which is a planning area identified by the General Plan for. development. 3. The North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the County in 1995, and the Liptrap Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1999. 4. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the implementation of agricultural land and Williamson Act Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. 5. Further, the Department of Conservation points out that the Williamson Act was created to controland guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. 6. Staff agrees with the Department of Conservation on this issue. Since this property was designated for residential development and not agricultural uses by the North Chico Specific Plan, the initiation of a Williamson Act Contract in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land, and was contrary to the intent of the North Chico Specific Plan to develop this area with suburban residential uses. 7. The landowner has now filed a Tentative Subdivision Map with the County to divide this property into 48, 1 -acre parcels, a use that is consistent with the North Chico Specific Plan. 8. It is important to note, however, that the North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future development in this area, and the Plan supports the residential development proposed by the applicant. 9. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee discussed this information at their meeting as well as reviewed the information presented in the application (see attached June 30, 2004 minutes). 10. The Committee provided instruction to staff to formulate findings supporting cancellation based upon information contained within the record. • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 4of11 ■ 11. The findings set forth by staff supporting the Cancellation are summarized below. • (please refer to the complete findings located under the Action for Consideration Section for more detailed information): a. That . other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. • Conformance of the project with the North Chico Specific Plan, the County's vision for development in this area. • The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North Chico Specific Plan is found to be in the general public's interest. • Development of this area will result in the connection of SR -99 with Kittyhawk Drive, a major county arterial intended to serve the Plan area and that will have a larger public benefit. b. That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c)). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. • Much of the property in the vicinity of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. C. That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. • A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant in accordance with the Government Code. d. That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. • The pattern for development of this area set by the North Chico Specific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline policy, and the Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback requirement greatly reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this property would_ result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. • Infilling this area with residential development in accordance with the North Chico Specific Plan will promote a more regular urban pattern of development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. e. That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 5of11 0 • The applicant has filed an application with the Department of Development • Services for a subdivision map (Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map) that .conforms to the North Chico Specific Plan's zoning and the General Plan. f. That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development • The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. Cancellation Fee 1. The cancellation fee is payment made to cancel a , Williamson Act contract that provides a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(0). 2. Prior to any action by the Board of Supervisors approving tentative cancellation of any contract, the county assessor must determine the current fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contractual restriction (GC §51283(a)). 3. According the Butte County Assessor the cancellation valuation for this property is • $1,372,250.00 4. The landowner shall pay the cancellation fee that is equal to 25 percent (12.5 percent State and 12.5 percent County cancellation rate) of the cancellation valuation of the property for Williamson Act. (GC §§51283(b) and 51297(c)). The Cancellation fee for this property would therefore equal $343,060.00. 5. This amount was determined by the Assessor's Office under Appeal #04-020. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION The Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee and Development Services recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: I. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings: a. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental ..Quality Act. Said study identified significant environmental effects and included mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant. levels; a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page 6ofII ■ . • b. The Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with comments received during the review process. C. On the basis of the whole record before the Board of Supervisors, including the Initial Study and any comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Immediate Cancellation for George Nicolaus, Planning Division File No. Canc 04-02, would have a significant effect on the environment. The custodian of the record is the Department of Development Services. The location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965. d. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. II. Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (Assessor's Parcel. Number: 047-260-199, Instrument No. 0052839, recorded December 22, 1999), subject to the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee, and recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, with the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 51282: a. Find that the cancellation is in the public interest as follows: (1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. • The subject Williamson Act Contract was entered into on December 22, 1999 upon review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. This approval was based upon the viable agricultural use established on the property and the ability to continue agricultural operations within the North Chico Specific Plan, which allows all existing orchards to continue operations without interference or interruption by development. However, since this property was designated for residential development and not agricultural uses by the North Chico Specific Plan, the initiation of a Williamson Act Contract in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land, and was contrary to the intent of the North Chico Specific Plan to develop this area with suburban residential uses. • The North Chico Specific Plan was approved on March 28, 1995 by the Butte County Board of Supervisors as a broad reaching site. planning tool to allow for large scale planning of mixed-use development. The cancellation will allow for residential development consistent with the North Chico Specific Plan's goals and SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 - acre minimum parcel size) zoning. Although this property is developed with a producing walnut orchard, and agricultural uses are allowed under one of the Plan's policies, the Plan more specifically indicates • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ` ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page 7 of 11 0 that this area is intended for residential development at a 1 -acre . minimum parcel size, as proposed for this site under the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted. The Williamson Act was enacted to guide urban development as well as preserve agricultural land. The County's approval of the North Chico Specific Plan provides explicit direction on where residential development is desirable. The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North Chico Specific Plan and as proposed under this Cancellation is found to be in the general public's interest. The petitioner also set forth additional justification for finding this cancellation in the public's interest as follows: . • The residential development as proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and other subdivisions in the vicinity will result in the completion of the Kittyhawk Drive arterial connection to SR -99: This connection and arterial road is designated by the North Chico Specific Plan for area -wide circulation and will benefit the residents of the Plan area. The connection will also benefit emergency vehicles and response times as the connection will provide the Plan area with direct access to SR -99. The enhanced circulation to the Plan area as a result of subsequent development that would be allowed under this Cancellation is also found to be in the general public's interest. i• Nuisances that are related to agricultural activity such as harvesting, chemical spraying and application, dust, ash, smoke and noise, would be minimized if the property is developed with single family residences. The Cancellation would allow for the implementation of the residential development envisioned for this site by the North Chico Specific Plan. The continued use of the property for agricultural activity is allowed by the North Chico Specific Plan, but this site is more specifically designated for residential development. The continued use of the property for commercial agriculture will result in nuisances and compatibility problems to neighboring residential properties to the north and south as these properties develop, and to the east where the existing Autumn Park Subdivision lies. Infilling this area with residential development in accordance with the North Chico Specific Plan will promote a more regular urban pattern of development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. (2) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c)). • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 8of11 0 • Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is not • available in the vicinity. Lands lying west of SR -99 are restricted to a 20 or 40 -acre minimum parcel size under the applicable agricultural zoning. Much of the property in the vicinity of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject property is the only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development- as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to 'the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. b. Find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act as follows: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. • A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant in accordance with the Government Code. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands' from agricultural use. • Lands adjacent to this parcel are located within the North Chico Specific Plan, which designates lands surrounding to the north, south, and east for residential development. Lands located to the west are separated from this parcel by SR -99, and are located outside the boundary of the North Chico Specific Plan. SR -99 provides a physical barrier between the two uses. The Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan (Program 2.2) requires the maintenance of an agricultural setback on the subject property that will limit residential development from taking place within 300 feet of the agricultural lands west of SR -99. The setback would be applied to the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. SR -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenline at this location, which allows for urban type development east of SR -99 and agricultural uses to the west. The pattern for development of this area identified by the North Chico ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 0 Page 9 of 11 0 Specific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline policy, and the • Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback requirement greatly reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this property would result in the removal of adjacent land 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. • The applicant has filed an application with the Department of Development Services for a subdivision map (Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map). Although this Map is still under review, the proposed 48, 1 -acre parcel sizes are consistent with the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan's SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zoning and the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. • The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North. Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. (5) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which .,is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). • Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is not available in the vicinity.. Lands lying west of SR -99 are restricted to a 20 or 40 -acre minimum parcel size under the applicable agricultural zoning. Much of the property in the vicinity of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject property is the only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ r ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 0 Page 10 of 11 0 residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. Z:\LCA\hptrap\Board Report.doc W� t ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ' ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 11 of.11 .0 • 0 • SRa�`. �S'' A, R,� September.7, 2003 Butte County Planning Dept #7 County Center Drive ®roville, CA 95965 Re: APN 047-026-199 13822 Hwy 99 lOT 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. ../'� 4dFr Evelyn Liptrap 13822 Hwy 99 N. Chico CA 95973 Phone: 530 342-9100 Fax 530 342-0100 PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT ' (Submit Original and 4 Copies) To the Board of supervisors of the County of Butte. 1 -he undersigned hereby petition(s) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte to Cancel the Land Conservation Agreement executed between the County of Butte and ZV � L �J L— l PTA /t P on !�a `� as it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve No. Yof the County of Buttc which is presently owned by the undersigned. In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges'. That the undersigned presentlyownsthe land covered by said agreement described as follows: )q ` 042 —a 6 --1 � c —G oU p�,v SC2 I t � /* 1 T/tGttf �E(�/kL 2. That Cancellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (Government Code S 1200 ct seq.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public int/e�rest in that:* _ dg E The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed this day of U�/ZS 00 `f at !f G D r California. Petitioner(s) r • 3 APPENDIX E Date Filed: /-� -,-tooy Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Naorte and address of dcveloper or project sponsor: Gy-i-ye1 k I P i',2r3 331 WAS ST � ei+ica ,CA4 Ys1a� - 2. Addressofproject: /t5r 414wY 3dGC�' IJ `'1. Gv+t saN l-n�oc Assessor's Block and Lot Number: f} 1 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: - APPI-ICANT ' AaD <� u 26 E. AJ i CC LA- US && A/�Y 111[,6 C 04 c o C_ A S' ci .Z 8 4. Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivis�i9n) (/;�� ILL -16 0A-56 �U �c7 TSA SSE+ �n ? �% � ri ..• r :1 /\- A 1 ! 5 l?� /1: /.� Q.:� fid `. �J I � E i- P) !�-�. fit" t� 1 /l� �-r 1 U J t% T.i f i -5i Cali/ S. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, inclu 'ng those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: ( �.A.� i ,fill �f 1E-5 v 3 D iyt �i v ry �1 R P u rS Ca T�_ • �. Existing zoning district: R �( �t-gIA.1 161&,rif C !f t C o .SP9 c i4 -lc. Pt- AiV 7. Proposed use of site: S t /y T 1.tt C yw-1 E S i r F. PROJrCT DESCRIPTION ;t. Site sire: 3 9 Square footage of building(s). 10. Number of Boors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach site development plan. j9' 1—TPrG t` D 13. Proposed scheduling. F= / AJ C— 14. Associated projects. R • 17 18 Anticipated incremental development. ff residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household sire expected. r rZ "_.s (`+5 r'_ IV 'r J A L- J3 0: L .1>'/ N G l- c= � S If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. If indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate' the major function, estimated employment per shift,. estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project - 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following item applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES —"� NO. 21. Change in existing features of any beaches, lakes, or of ground coutours. hills, or substantial.ralteration 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. V/ 23. Significantly change pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust; ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. V 26. Significant change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patters. -. V .27. 28 V_ 29 Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicintiy. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, narnmablcs or explosives. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage. Substantially increase fossil fuel,consumption (electrictiy, oil, natural gas, etc.) 5 • 32_ Relationship to part of a larger project or series of projects. FNVTRQNMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic saspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants -and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.). CERTIFICATION: 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. &4 Date //q c d . �P (Signature) \\bcdev 1 \documcntlappendixE.doc 6 For 0 • January 29, 2004 Attachment to "Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement" addressing Item 2 under Government Code Section 51282 It is the intention of the Petitioner to show compliance with all government codes and identify the corresponding public interests served by (a) cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject property. Government Code Section 51282 requires two general areas to be addressed: (A) 'Public Interest' will be. covered first, followed by (B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest Public interest will be served by cancellation of the Land Conservation • Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services, (2) Contiguous Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continues within the area designated as the "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995" (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a). consistent with the existing zoning (SR -1), b). providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Plan area by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehicles better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drive, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane and several additional smaller streets in the area east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire station located across from the proposed Kittyhawk and Highway 99 intersection. 7 Emergency personnel would gain access to rapidly growing • residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much more direct route than the existing drive south to the Garner Lane intersection or . north to the Keefer Road intersection. This road, as it is already shown on the Plan map, also allows for additional, non -emergency routes to and from Keiffer Road, Gamer Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing for the enhancement of general traffic circulation. As discretionary funds available to Butte County are very limited, the completion of and inherent community benefits of ICittyhawk Drivet be realized Co emaCy orvation Act on the anytime soon. Cancellation of the Lan subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed, which in turn will provide for private funding for the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. 2. Conti ous Growth Pattern a). The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and for subsequent application for the WAEEP contract will all ow contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an express as r • witn Butte County to provide for contiguous growth patterns evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resulting orderly sidential neighborhoods allows for the cost growth of re effective addition of various support services, ranging from utilities to emergency services. b). The subject property is contiguous on the east border with an existing subdivision and contiguous on the south border with a proposed 50 unit subdivision which was recently submitted to Butte County planning staff' An older almond orchard contiguous ty as clde is located of l trees with and to the northof the subject proper Within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR -1 an within the Plan area, will likely be the subject of development pressure in the near future• off therecenly, an existing tly removed almond subdivision lies to the north orchard., 3: A ricultural Element Issues a). Butte County adopted the Agricultural Element in19agricultural • While the Element's express purpose is to preserve 2 land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "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." (Emphasis Added) The subject property was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in 1995 with SR -1 zoning. By placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. That the subject property is rapidly being "surrounded" and "substantially encroached upon" is clearly the case at hand. Following extensive planning and research on the part of Butte County with the aid of citizen input, this property was designated for residential development nearly 10 years ago. b). The issue of ."limited continued productive use" as noted above is the result of several factors which are also pointed • out in the Agricultural Element. Under Goal 2, Policies, Programs, Item 2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot "BUFFER BE ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES FROM INCOMPATIBLE USE CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already been waived on the east border of the subject property and appears that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to the south of the subject property. Granted, the Element allows for the 300 foot standard to be "adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Those "unusual circumstances", specifically, the legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation of the subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting multiple health and safety hazards at worst to neighboring residents. The following points are part of the Environmental Information Form that accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review at this point as legitimate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an urban setting: • 9 iItem 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). hones and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays Will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used • have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described ' above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. In summary, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue of Contiguity for efficient growth and development, and (3) conforms to the spirit and intent found within the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is the express purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. As an additional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exchange 'requires the California Department of Conservation to review this petition, to be in substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department can agree is acceptable and • suitable for the exchange. 4 10 In the event 'cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement -is found to be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to effect a WAEEP plan. If, however, the Petitioner can find no acceptable WAEEP property for an exchange within a reasonable time, it is the desire of the Petitioner to proceed with the cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and to pay the cancellation penalty fees as determined by the Land Conservation Agreement recorded on December 22, 1999. Part B Five Findings Consistent with the i Purposes of the Code Subsequent to the -issues regarding Public Interest as described, Code Section 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the following S findings: . 1. Notice of non -renewal has been submitted in a timely manner 2. Cancellation / exchange will not.result in adjacent lands being. removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands adjacent to the subject property are located within the North Chico Specific , Plans designated area for development and are not currently in agricultural use or are already utilized as suburban residential. Any area to the west of the.. subject property (across Highway 9910 the west) which might be considered 'adjacent' is outside of the North Chico Specific Plan's scope and may not be considered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the subject property would therefore not be a substantive cause for any adjacent property -to be removed from agricultural use. 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject property being. used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Chico Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a precise guideline for growth and development over and above the General Plan, cancellation of . the Land Conservation Agreement brings the subject property into conformity with the Specific Plan and its long-range goals. . E • 4. Cancellation / exchange will not result in discontiguous development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous with existing residential development as well as land currently in the development review process with Butte County 5. There is no "proximate non -contracted land" which is both "available and suitable",, and even if land was found which could be considered "available and suitable', it would not provide for a "more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land." The subject property is currently surrounded on two of three possible sides by urban development. The fourth side is across Highway 99 and falls outside of the Specific Plan area' and is therefore unsuitable for urban development. The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons for cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. Petitioner LCAExchanggeDraftlW �J of/meq/� 12 Attachment to • Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Information • Item 22. As seen from SR -99, the property has a minimal wire fence along the highway and the.southerly boundary. When completed, residential C high decorative sound walls along SR -99 and Kittyliawk Drive and/or fences will be constructed surrounding the project. The orchard will still be seen from the highway as well as may rooftops of the homes, once constructed. Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as' they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. Items 30 & 31. Any substantial change in demand for municipal services or. increased fossil fuel consumption would be in accordance with and in compliance to the intended uses of the area as defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of • the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is part of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result of the approved Plan. A "Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. Item 33. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan), as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a 30 year old 93 +/- acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly on Garner Lane and westerly on SR -99. Two earlier phases of division (1099 and .2000) on the easterly end created Autumn Park Subdivision, the divisions of which created 40 one acre home sites and a remainder of 52.72 acres. The remainder parcel is the project site. r The site slopes uniformly from approximately 186' on the northeasterly boundary to approximately 181' on the southwesterly boundary. The soils are stable and are categorized as vina loam. There are no rare or endangered plants or animals on the property and no known cultural, historical or scenic features. There is one existing agricultural accessory structure (approximately 24'x 60') on Lot 39 which will remain. The structure is shown on the attached tentative map. • (Please see attached photographs) Item 34. The properties to the west are primarily agricultural.in nature. The property to the south, owned by Guernsey, has been submitted to Butte County for subdivision into 50 lots. Southeasterly and directly east of the project site are single family residential home sites ranging in various sizes and ages. The property to the north and northeast hasbeen cleared of the remauung remnants of an old almond orchard. It has been vacant and continues to be vacant of any use other than two home sites. Within these immediate areas there are no known rare or endangered plant or animals, nor are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. Each proposed lot and home, when built, wilt meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department) (Please see attached photographs) . KtyHwkLCA CXL_102 1'4 GARNER - WESTERLY DOWN KITTYHAWK DRIVE SOUTHERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. UNE VIEW OF PROPERTY M1Y SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE NORTHEAST FROM �T SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE SOUTH FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE �.I VIEW OF PROPER .NORTH OF PROJE, 15 VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ON LOT 39 • NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 • 16 BASIS OF BEARING THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, - 150• LEACH - AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCELl� FIELD FREE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14, TAKEN AS l \ \ SETBACK LINE FROM WELL NORTH 89"37'19" EAST. ���4 \ ISO 181 ,92 Ig3 It. W, Igo Lcb it \ /0.4436 Ac \1189'971 2149.97' LOT A B 0. aa6A \ 1.0002 AC L0019 AC \ - 1.1.06 7) \ 1 / 1 LOT 30 L080 0.9860 AC 1.OSd1 AC LOT 15 LOT 16 \ \ (0.9112) LOT 31 1.0062) LOT LOT 22 17.0847) wl 3s L rJIG a °t�31q c (u.9645)C (8.9osc) (0,9ee7) ` `\ 30 Z A ZONE X B LOT 37 0.8641 AC (1.0198) 1.1224 AG 1 (0.7646) LOT i (1.0814) 08574 YLOT4\. LOT 5 .9480AC LOT NO 06390AC (0.8288) LOT 2B\ 0.9522 AC LOT24 LOT 21 LOT 16 LOT13 L - 164.10 \.8337 D=15.11'60• \ (0.8488) 0.6375 AC \ // 0.83193) (0.7413) \ (0.703) SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" R=618.80 \ (0.7393) (0.7383) (0.7413) 1 (0.7473)LOT32 LOLOT 38 1.0388 AC 0881.3189AC \ (0.8622)AC(1,1082) T T IJ_to estf eT �TSF.9T LOT 28 LOT25 LOT 20 LOT 17 LOT12. PROJECT \ LOT 39 D \ (0.8509) C 0.8966 0 8012 C 0.8966 AC 0.8988 A 0.8968 AC SITE 1.0599 AC I I I ) I I (0.8012) (0.6012) I I .(0.8012) LOTS I I, 0 LOT AC (0.8668) tie \ (088�pp\\9339) " • (1 'ijp9, 9'T.�o \ LOT 33 ,N 1.3754 AC 1 \ -"16A6' (0.8762) I •• I ''LOT3 NAlog,11 Sit '�,� LOT 27 LOT 26 LOT 19 LOT 18 �1 LOT 119 LOT 10 L 1 LOCATION MAP \ ��j \ I I 0.8980 AC 0.9980 AC I I \ 0.8980 AC D.99BO AD A I 0.9980 AD 019696 AC �q \ (0.7694) (0.7694) (0.7694) (0.7694) '\ (0.7694) o.7s47) I\ STREET .1 1.'.Lotx L t.t95DAC LEGEND: i9Lp LOT 40 LOT 43 _ -- -- -- ----c -� -- -- -- 1.0001 AC I 1.0003 AC (0.8729) 1i (0.7859] LOT NUMBER LOT 100 FEMA X GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE { " 7 NET ACRES (0.8496) \ � q, LOT 44 LOT 45 LOT 46 LOT 47 L04. LOT 49 LOT 50 LOT 51 LOT 52 LOT 53 I " 1q 0.88BBAC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.8701AC q (0.6667) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6009) (0.8007) (0.8007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.866 2 LOT `C" A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, \ I I \ \ oo ] `'�, LOT 41 LOT 42 ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND 1.0001 AC 6.9462 Ac DD (1 I' LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE .0001) - - _ _ - - CONSTRUCTED. EXISTING VA IC i T T Y 1-I A �V IL D R I �/ E CA. ROADWAY �" -y CSA 87 SD AREA + \ EXISTING PA ' FIRE HYDRANT _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ! (TO BE MOVED) `,5i/d �V' 2 '� K' / sasamw :,62.97 ZONE A ZONE X NOTA PART Fx j.ft_r_I21_ GENERAL NOTES SUBDIVISION INFORMATION w" "...1 21,eBomuu7 lA \ J -y 1. THIS TENTATIVE A NAP HAS BEEN De 610NED AND IS ElINO PRO- \ CE0 OT R ACCORDAN C6 THE ORB APPROVED 6R•1 ZONING OWNERS AND OTMlR PROVISIONS Or THE NORTH CNICO SPECIFIC PLAN. SUBDIVIDER- EVELYN LIPTRAP 2 THE INTERIOR 6UB O IV IS IDN STREETS HALL BE CONSTRUCTED 331 WALL STREET R.O W. LOCAL TYPE L -V APPLIES TO STREETS D. E. F, G 8 H eft SR lm..v �4RBbM1� SR "'•°" SOR R.O.W. 4 LOCAL TYPE L-111 APPLIES TO STREETS A. B 6 C Y 4R 60.00 M1 R.O.W .,� ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV APPLIES TO KRTYHAWK DRIVE SHALL ' uc ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL TIPS L•111 OR TYPE THE 4 NORTH CMICO SPE. IC PLAN TET SMALL REMAITTYMA PRIVATE IN RI STREETS AND SHALL NOT BE OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO TME �I ��\�� � � COUNTY OF BUTTE. TME EXT e N610N OF KIT TT NAwN Dane SMALL BB CONSTRUC TEC A8 AN ARTERIAL TYPE AVIV IN AC COR.A.CI WITH THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN AND IT OFFERED FOR TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. 7. THE PROPOSED LOT AREAS SHOWN ARE :ROSS LOT AREAS ANO INCLUSE INPRD P OSED PRIVATE EA6 EMERY S AND TNe HPL!) OF NET LOT AREAS (TIAL /1� VESTING BAR DI IAS ON 1881$2 EASEMENTS. THE TOTAL AREA F00. SUBDIVISION IB ION IB 64.7266 AREA ACRE,. 4. THE METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND LOT AREAS TENTATIVE. SUBDIVISION MAP PROPOSED MSETS ALL RE 0UIRe M e NTO OF APPENDIX VII OF TME BUTTE COUNTY CO... See END MEN° •SOILS WAIVER• 6. ALL DRAINAGE RUNOFF SMALL BE RETAINED IN THE RETENTION BASIN PROVIDED, S. A DIVISION OF REMAINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF iDnMleo7iovR°OVNoe°°o°rnesilClwATeN6eNvleeeToiNleLioTe AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 11, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS OF TIRieR SUBD I �C R. NC F DING PRMVI0ING THE 506 GPM AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 - LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 to,BI NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, M.D.B. & M. -BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA T. STORM WATER WILL Be RETAINED ON-SITE IN ROADSIDE LEACH TRENCHES. (Ji S. TMe SUBDIVISION MAS AN AVERAG. LOT AREA 01 .4445 ACRES. FOR AND 'Mel N61TT OF THE SUDDIVI610N HAS BEEN BAS.. UPON Be" THE GROSS AREA FOR SUBDIVISION 01 THE PROPERTY AND INE SR -1 ZONING. 4. A'SHOWN• THe EXIST NO SOR AREA WILL BE REMOVED AND EVELYNC. LIPTRAP W ILL BE RECONSTRUCTED ON THE GUERNSEY PROJ!CT TO TMS GTN OF PMIS PR°'eDT. /0. IN N LIE OF LOT DIMENSIONS EACH LOT, AS Re0U1RE0 BY TMS APPLICATION.WeHAVE PROV10E0DROSS AHD NeT LOT AREAE •AND WILL PROVIDE LOT DIMENSIO N9 ON TXe /INAI MAP. JANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1 CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95926 ENGINEER: BOBFEENEY 1260 EAST AVENUE, SUITE 10 CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 LAND USE: PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: BRA UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAS 6 ELECTRIC TELEPHONE:SBC WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK AND LEACH FIELDS APN: 047.260-791 AND 047.260.199 Elm !JAYS e A -1-1004T1=.5 NW NEM1NNEOLE MAV66A390CS7E5 MCO, C'A 96166 1V709 899-0999 ISI l+M-IP:TI l9NEI11 DANmYiA5A550LW1 LOM COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION . III IIII II II II6i II II QII SII Ili II III CORDING REQUESTED BY: I9--3--10KbEs1=2 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Recorded I. REC FEE .OG r WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Official Records I CONFORM .00 Count I Clerk of the Board CANDACE J. • GRUBBS I 25 County Center Drive ROSEMARYrDICKSON I Oroville, CA 95965 Assistant I Myles 10:23AM 22 -Dec -1999 I Page 1 of 13 . Document Title(s): Land Conservation Agreement Evelyn C. Liptrap 14 W] • THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION (Additional recording fee applies) LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 14thday of December _ 19 q 9 , by and between hereinafter referred to as "Owner and the County of Butte, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "County". WITNESSETH • WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain real property hereinafter described located within County; and WHEREAS, said property is devoted to agricultural uses; and WHEREAS, said property is located within AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. _cl� heretofore established by the County; and WHEREAS, both Owner and County desire to limit the use of said property to agricultural, and compatible uses in order to preserve a maximum amount of agricultural land, to conserve the State's economic resources, to maintain the agricultural economy, and assure a food supply for future residents, to discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, recognizing that such land has public value as open space and constitutes an important physical, social, aesthetic, and economic asset to the County, to preserve the natural characteristics, beauty, or to provide essential habitat for wildlife; and 19 1 WHEREAS, the placement of said property in an agricultural preserve and the execution and approval of this Agreement is a determination that the highest and best use of said property during the term of this Agreement or any renewal thereof is for agricultural uses; NOW, THEREFORE, both Owner and County in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained and the substantial public benefits to be derived therefrom, do hereby agree as follows: I: This ' Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as amended (Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title -5 of the Government Code of California commencing with Section 51200), including Article 3 of said Act . entitled "Contracts". II: During the term of this Agreement, or any renewal thereof, the said propetty shall not be used for any purpose other than agricultural uses for producing agricultural commodities, for commercial purposes, and uses compatible with such purposes, which uses are set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. III: The Board of Supervisors may from time to time and during the term of the Agreement or any extensions thereof, by resolution, add to those compatible uses authorized in the . resolution establishing the preserve within which the land is located; provided however, said Board shall not eliminate, without the written consent of Owner, a compatible use during the term of this Agreement or any renewals thereof. The provisions of this Agreement and any resolution supplementing the uses listed in Exhibit "A" is not intended to limit or supersede the planning and zoning powers of the County. IV: In the event all or a part of the land subject to this Agreement is taken in an action in eminent domain or is acquired in lieu of eminent domain for a public improvement, this • Agreement shall be null and void for the land or interest in the land actually taken, but shall remain 20 2 m full force and effect as to the remainder of the land or interest in the land not so. taken or acquired. The date an action in eminent domain is filed shall be the date this Agreement is deemed null and void as to any land or interest in land subject to the Agreement which is taken by eminent domain. V: This Agreement shall be effective as of the day and year first above written and shall remain in effect for a period of ten (10) years therefrom. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed on the first day of January of each year for a period of ten (10) years from the date of said renewal, unless notice of non -renewal is given as provided in Section 51245 of the Government Code of California.. VI: The Owner understands that he/she is not entitled to any public funds by reason of the execution of this Agreement or any renewal thereof although the use of said property is limited as aforesaid. VII: This Agreement may only be immediately canceled if, upon petition by Owner, the Board of Supervisors of County, under the provisions of Government Code Section 51282, finds: (a) that cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; and (b) that cancellation is in the public interest. Upon cancellation, Owner shall pay to County a cancellation fee determined and certified by the Board of Supervisors of County in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 51283 and Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 99-124 Said cancellation fee may not be waived except as provided in Government Code Section 51283 and shall be a lien upon the property described herein until paid. The amount of the fee shall be an amount equal to 25% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, and one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124. i 2.1 • VIII: Owner agrees, during the term of this Agreement, to provide County, upon written request, with information relative to the income and expenses derived from and incurred in connection with the use of the land subject to the Agreement for agricultural and compatible uses. IX:. (a) The Owner agrees that he/she, his/her successors, and assigns shall not divide by sale, gift, or financing, the property which is the sub'ect of this Agreement into a parcel or parcels under separate ownership having less than acres. However, if the division is for purposes of transfer to immediate family members, then the property may be divided into a parcel or parcels under separate ownership having no less than _ acres, in accordance with the acreage standards in D-1, Column 1, of Resolution 99-124, provided that a Joint Management Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 51230.1 is executed. (b) A parcel division may occur at less than the minimum sizes specified in • subsection (a) above'if it is pursuant to a use permit for parcel segregation for agricultural processing and the remaining contracted lands conform to the above minimum sizes. (c) Partial cancellation of this Agreemenf for a homesite segregation may only be considered for an existing residence which has been in existence'for at least 5 years and the land has been owned for at least 10 years by the owner, as specified in Government Code Section 66474.4 (b)(2), and if a permanent restriction prohibiting residential development is recorded on the balance of the land. Such homesite segregation must be effected through a lot line adjustment, lot merger, or tentative parcel map approved pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code and the Subdivision Map Act, and provided that the minimum lot size of the base zoning district is maintained. (d) Partial non -renewal of this Agreement is subject to the following requirements: the portion of the property subject to the non -renewal, and the portion of the property • not subject to the non -renewal, must each have not less than acres. 2t 4 • X: This Agreement shall run with the land described herein and shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and assigns of the Owner and County. XI: In the event of forced sale of lands subject hereto for the settlement of a tax lien, this Agreement is null and void as to such land actually sold for that purpose. No penalty as provided for in section VII shall be charged for a cancellation under this paragraph. XII: This Agreement shall be canceled without payments or public hearing if it is replaced by any other enforceable restriction authorized by Section 8 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, including, but not limited to, an open -space easement agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 51255, or whenever there is no operative legislation implementing said Article with respect to assessment practices. XM: The property of the Owner hereinabove referred to and to which the provisions of the Agreement apply is situated in the County of Butte, State of California and is particularly described as follows: SEE(( C.cah�Cb_ 1'� c�c_Pfa c�s7C. �7C1 d �' Cts �C�:�i' � P���T • C] 23 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LIPTRAP PROPERTY that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: A portion of Remaining Lands as shown on that certain map entitled "Autumn Park Subdivision Phase 1 which map was recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of. Butte, State of California, on August 12, 1999 in Book 147 of Maps, at pages 99 through 102, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwesterly corner of Lot "A" as shown on said "Autumn Park Subdivision Phase1"; THENCE along a line parallel with and 60.00 feet northerly of the southerly line of said Remaining Lands, South 89°42'01" West, a distance of 1868.22 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of California State Highway 99 E; THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" West, a distance of 209..82 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line, North 63019'53" East, a distance of 367.87 feet; THENCE North 26°10'00" West, a distance of 185.43 feet; THENCE South 62016'40" West, a distance of 370.91 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line.of California State Highway 99 E; THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27006'10" West, a distance of 302.30 feet to the �eginning of a tangent curve having a radius of 618.80 feet, concave to the southwest, with a chord earing of North 34°35'25" West, and a chord distance of 165.97 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line and northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 15°24'50",.an arc distance of 166.47 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line, North 42017'50" West, a distance of 216.97 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line and along the northerly line of said Remaining Lands, North 89037'19" East, a distance of 2,743.37 feet; THENCE leaving said northerly line, South 00017'59" East, a distance of 718.63 feet to the northeasterly - corner of said Lot "A"; THENCE along the northerly line of said Lot "A", South 89042'01" West, a distance of 325.00 feet to the northwesterly corner of said Lot "A"; THENCE along the westerly line of said Lot "A", South 00017'59" East, a distance of 200.00 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Lot "A" and the Point of Beginning; Containing 48.23 acres, more or less. rnrn Bruce A. Nash R.C.E. 33381 Registration Expires 06/30/02 24 . XIV: If the Owner breaches the terms of this Agreement in a manner which results in all or any portion of the property which is the subject of this Agreement not being used for the agricultural or open space uses contemplated by this Agreement; the parties agree that the County would suffer damages, but that such damages would be extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Therefore, the parties agree it is reasonable to determine that the amount of the damages which will be suffered by the County and payable to it by the Owner in such event shall be based 0 upon the following calculation: $100 per month for any month br portion thereof in which such a breach exists, multiplied by the percentage of the property affected by said breach. Provided, however, that in no event shall the amount of such damages exceed $10,000. The parties further agree that either party may give notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal in accordance with this Agreement and the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as to the property or portion•thereof affected by the breach, and no damages shall accrue pursuant to this section XIV upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to said notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner and County have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. ATTEST: JOHN BLACKLOCK, Chief Executive Officer and Clerk of the Board I / 5 an Dolan", Chair tte ounty Board of Supervisors 25 Date of Execution Date of Execution LJ • AM E R I } STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss. . COUNTY OF J i ►.� On ► ► =; _ G 9 , before me,c-�cTl�, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to 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 authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SignatureluVIONLE s-"�"�' M .. CoMM11156507 Cn e UOTARY PU8Uc-CAMFkN1A Co. r COUNTY Of BUTTE w My Comm. Expims C)M14.200.1 (This area for official notarial seal) Title of Document • Date of Document Other signatures not acknowledged No. of Pages_ z7 3008 (1/94) (General) First American Title Insurance Compzny State of California County of Butte On December 14. 1999 before me, Marion A. Reeves, Notary Public Name and Title of officer (e.g., `Jane Doe, Notary Public") personally appeared 'Jane Dolan Name(s) of Signers) ® personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person.(hose name(pis/atsubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge to me thathe/tic executed the same in ty er/tWr authorized capacity( }rand that by h' er /TP ir-signature(Wbn the instrument the person(ft�,.or the entity upon behalf of which the person(cted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of tary Public ~ MARION A REEVES Commission # 1170840 Z Notary Public - California D Z Butte County My Comm. E�ires Jan 24, 2002 •Title of Document: LCA Agreement - Evelyn C. Liptrap Date of Document: December 14, 1999 Number of Pages: 12 plus this page, • EXEIIBIT "A'• COMPATIBLE USES r: v The following uses are hereby determined to be compatible uses on all contracted lands, and all other uses are prohibited: 1. Permitted Uses: a. One single family residence for each legal parcel within the contracted lands pursuant to minimum acreage standards in D1 - Column 2, of Resolution 99-124, except for family members which may be pursuant to Column 1. ACREAGE STANDARDS Column 1 Column 2 Type of Activity Incoming Contract Minimum Acres Building & Selling minimum acres Orchards (vineyards, kiwi, fruit, and nut crops. 20 40 Field Crops 80 80 Irrigated Pasture/Riceland 80 80 Wetlands/Prime Hunting 80 80 Dry Land Grazing 160 320 Open Space 160 320 b. General farming, horticulture, commercial livestock production, commercial poultry production, and similar. activities. C. Open space for: 1. Wildlife & biotic habitat. 2. Scenic values. 3. Scenic highways and byways. • d. An other use determined b the Board of Supervisors to be a compatible use in all Y Y agricultural preserves. 298 e. Housing. facilities (including trailers) to accommodate only agricultural employees and their .families who are employed by the owner or operator to work on their contracted lands. x f. The drilling for hydrocarbon, including the installation and use of such equipment, structures, and facilities as are necessary or convenient. 2. Accessory Uses: a. Warehousing and storage of agricultural products. b. Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses including agricultural processing plants. C. A stand or a display for sale of agricultural commodities produced on the premises including the incidental sale of agricultural products produced off-site. d. Water storage reservoirs and irrigation areas. e. Hunting and hunting clubs. f. Private airport or aircraft landing facilities. g. Public Utility services. 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public and Quasi -Public uses, including structures and buildings. b. Veterinary hospitals and/or clinics. C. Sand and gravel mine, not including asphalt and concrete batch plants. d. Mines, mineral extraction, and quarries in Agricultural Preserve Numbers 7, 8, and 9. KAL,CMAGUSES.AGR �Al 9 3-0 • LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES — JUNE 30, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the 3A County Center Conference Room, #3 County Center Drive, and Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Yvonne Christopher, Development Services, Chairman Joe Connell, Farm Advisor David Skinner Clarence Daley Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Blake Bailey, Assessor's Office Lewis Jolulson Also Present: Rob MacKenzie, Deputy County Counsel Fred Holland, Assessor's Office Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Yvonne Christopher introduced herself and explained why she is now the Chairman of this Committee and asked the public members to state their expertise and how long they have been on the • Committee. Lewis Johnson said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee for some time now. Joe Connell said he was taking Bill Olsen's place from the Farm Advisory Agency. Clarence Daley said he is a cattleman and has been on the Committee for 15 years. Dave Skinner said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee approximately 6 years. II. Applications for immediate cancellation: Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 Mr. Breedon gave a brief summary of this project. He explained the Williamson Act Easement Exchange; Program (WAEEP). He briefly read the findings necessary to cancel a contract. He said he would like input from the Committee before developing findings which could be handled by the Committee giving instruction on each finding for staff to develop the findings and bring them back to the Committee, or take the finding to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lewis asked if the area in question fell under the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). • Mr. Holland said just the property on the east side of Highway 99. 31 ■ Land Conservation Committee u Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 a Page 1 e •Mr. Lewis said it is hard for farmers to deal with the intrusion of residential dwellings and their animals. Chairman Christopher said there is a 300 -foot agricultural buffer on the residential property. Mr. Lewis questioned the impact to the Highway. Mr. Breedon said that would be looked at in subsequent development actions. Mr. Skinner asked about Kitty Hawk Drive being completed to Highway 99. Chairman Christopher stated the road is planned, but not built. Mr. Breedon said it is a proposed alignment and is supported by the NCSP. The discussion was opened to the public. George Nicholaus said the property is bounded on the east by residential. He said the property to the south is proposed for 50 residential units. He said to the north of the project site is approximately 68 acres of what use to be an almond orchard and is now bare land. Mr. Price asked how long before farming stops on the Liptrap property. • Mr. Nicholaus said the plan is to farm up to the time of development. He said he talked to Mr. Levey about his orchard that is not being taken care of Mr. Skinner asked where the 300 -foot buffer was applied. Chairman Christopher said the buffers are applied on the new development side. Mr. Lewis asked what was located on the west side. He noted that there is a dust situation. Mr. Price said there are almonds. He said the highway is wide and helps with the buffer. Mr. Nicholaus said the'north boundary is SR -1 zoning. Mr. Lewis asked what is entailed with the trading of contract lands. Mr. Breedon explained that it is a very lengthy process. He said there is no application for trading lands at this time. Mr. Hays asked if the $625,000+ figure was a penalty fee. He said it was his assessment that the $625,000 was the valuation of the 43 acres. • Mr. Bailey said that the $625,000 is a 25% fee based on the current fair market value if unrestrictive. He said the memo submitted should read. "fee" and not "value." ..32 ■ Land Conservation Committee n Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 a Page 2 • Mr. Holland explained how to figure the penalty fees which are based on the fair market value of land. Mr. Hays asked about an appeal period. Mr. Bailey discussed appealing the Assessor's evaluation. Mr. Holland added that he would have to check to see if this evaluation could be appealed. Mr. Hays said he wanted to be on record that he wants to appeal the fee amount and he did not know how.to do that. Mr. Breedon went through the justification for making the findings submitted by the applicant. He read Part A — Public Interest, and Part B — Five Findings consistent with the purpose of the code. Mr. Connell asked on the points made by the applicant, who responds to the yes or no questions. Mr. Breedon explained that the yes and no questions are from the environmental findings. He said he has to perform an environmental review of this project. Mr. Holland said it was important to note that all of the findings have to be made to approve this cancellation. He said all findings have to be made consistent with the Code: He said the Public . Interest findings have within them a mutual finding which is that there is no other proximate non - contracted land available or suitable for development, or the cancellation would provide for more contiguous patterns of growth. He said within the framework of this contract, all of these findings must be made, not the least of which is the timely filing of a Notice of Non -Renewal, which did not occur in this case. Mr. Breedon asked that the findings be taken separately in order. He said the first finding is that this cancellation is in the public interest. Mr. Bailey said the pubic concern is arguable. He said prime agricultural, land is being taken out of production. He said 4 `/2 years ago in 1999, this Commission placed the property in the Williamson Act four years after the adoption of the NCSP. He said it is hard to say it was in the public's best interest 4 '/z years ago to put this property into the Williamson Act and now say it is in the public's best interest to take the land out. He felt the proper way to cancel this contract was through the Notice of Non -Renewal process. Mr. Breedon pointed out that the NCSP allows for agricultural uses. Mr. Holland argued that an almond orchard was proposed in 1999 to. be under contract for a minimum -of 10 years. He said the Committee has to balance out what was done 4 '/2 years ago against what they do now. • Mr. Hays said that Ms. Liptrap was told by Mr. Reimers, Assessor that the land was going to be re- assessed at $50,000 an acre. He said Ms. Liptrap informed Mr. Reimers that she would not be able ■ Land Conservation Committee a Minutes s June 30, 2004 o Page 3 s 33 to afford the taxes and was told she could put the property into the Williamson Act. He assured the . Committee that the only reason Ms. Liptrap put the property under contract was because she was advised to do so by the Assessor's Office. Mr. Bailey said according to the minutes of 1999, the Williamson Act conditions were explained to Ms. Liptrap and she agreed to them by signing the Agreement. He felt she should be bound by the contract she signed. Mr. Nicholaus discussed the letter from the Department of Conservation as to the advisability of this land going into a contract. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation commented in their letter stating "The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time,was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 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 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when land designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restrictions to . agricultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to .control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation believes the NCSP is a residential plan and that the area is designated for future residential use. Chairman Christopher noted also that the exchange proposal of land is not before the Committee today, only the cancellation process. Mr. Nicholaus said the Department of Conservation questions the viability of this property going into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell said it states in the letter that one of the findings is that there is no other property available to be developed in a similar manner. He said in looking at the map, this does not seem to be the case. He said the property is not surrounded by urban development; it is surrounded on the west by Highway 99, on the north by an open area, and is bounded on the south by an open area. Mr. Holland said one question is would development of this parcel provide for a more contiguous pattern of development versus anything around it. He felt the answer was no. Mr. Hays said there is currently a map proposed to the south for 50 parcels. He said to the east there are two subdivisions. He said there are two subdivisions to the east and the south is already built out. • Chairman Christopher asked if there was a feeling from the Committee on whether this property should stay in the Williamson Act. 34 n Land Conservation Committee a Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 a Page 4 a • Mr. Price said he understands that this property wi I1 be developed eventually. Chairman Christopher said the question is whether it is appropriate to cancel this contract or should it go through the 10 -year non -renewal process. Mr. Skinner said at this time the land is not contiguous and there are open areas both north and south of this property. He said until the southern development is approved the applicant is in limbo here. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel to discuss what is considered contiguous. Mr. MacKenzie said there is no definition for contiguous. He said regarding the second half of Finding 5; it does not seem that there is an argument that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, because there is a parcel on the north and a parcel on the south. He said they are looking at the question of whether the development of the contracted land would provide a more contiguous pattern of urban development. Mr. Hays said when the County first approved the Specific Plan area, LAFCo and the County attempted to set up areas for urbanization. He said he had a problem with why this property was allowed into the Act when there was a Specific Plan in place. Chairman Christopher said Mr. Hays makes a good point on development inside a plan. She • reminded the Committee that why this property came into the Act is not the focus of this hearing. She said they need to determine if it is in the best interest to release the property from its contract quickly or long term and if the Committee can meet the findings to release it quickly. There was a brief discussion regarding Finding #5 on contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Skinner said the Committee needs to decide if #5 is agreeable or not. Chairman Christopher said the key word in #5 for her is in the second part: "The contiguous patterns of urban development." She asked.if the Committee felt this needs to be a focus parcel to parcel or did the plan itself create continuity because it recognized urban development. Mr. Breedon added that the County entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to insure the area was developed in cooperation with the City of Chico so that urban -type development standards were applied in this area. He said the vision for this area is urban. Mr. Lewis asked how much more LCA property is within the NCSP. Mr. Breedon said he thought that this property was the only one. He noted that the NCSP allows existing orchards to continue without interference by development. It was moved by Mr. Skinner that the Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee to detennine that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use • and that the development of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard would provide a more contiguous pattern of development, seconded by Mr. Daley. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes a June 30, 2004 n Page 5 3-5 • The discussion continued: Mr. Skinner said he feels the applicant has satisfied the requirements and addressed the issues. Mr. Bailey said he would disagree, that the NCSP has been in effect for 10 years and in those 10 years very little of the land designated SR -1 has been developed off of Highway 99. He added that there are two properties surroundingthis property that are c9gisidered proximate and are available and can be developed prior to this parcel being developed. Mr. Skinner said there were arguments that the whole area is proposed for development. Mr. Bailey said with significant SR land available, this property should not be taken out for emergency purposes; it should come out with a Notice of Non -Renewal that takes 10 years. Mr. MacKenzie said he did not think that the Comm ittee could snake the first half of the findings for #5. He said, however, on the second part of the finding, "development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pattern of urban development" it sounds like this parcel is being compared to the parcels on either side and the Committee is making a finding that it would make a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other two parcels. He said the question is what would make this parcel more contiguous than another and the applicant has offered that this development would put Kittyhawk all the way through. • Mr. Breedon said the State has commented on this project and they agree with the second half of the finding. • Chairman Christopher concurred that this meets the second part of Finding #5. Mr. Skinner amended his motion to state that this meets the second half of Finding #5, seconded By Mr. Daley. Mr. Hays said that when you are talking about urbanization,'the NCSP itself urbanized the whole area. Mr. Nicholaus asked if the 300 -foot buffer would make the development non-contiguous. Brief discussion. Motion on the floor and a second, vote as to Finding #5, that the development of the Liptrap orchard would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Connell discussed surrounding development. Mr. Breedon asked if they wanted to add to the motion that there is the NCSP, and that there is a MOA with the City of Chico. ■ Land Conservation Committee a Minutes n June 30, 2004 n Page 6 36 •Mr. MacKenzie said there needs to be facts in the motion that define why it is that this particular parcel would provide for a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other parcels on the north and south. Chairman Christopher asked Mr. Skinner, if this finding passes, would he be comfortable with staff detailing out the reasons for a yes vote on the findings. Mr. Skinner said he would be comfortable with staff delineating out the reasons for approval. AYES: Mr. Skinner, Mr. Daley, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Price NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Discussion on #I — "That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. " Mr. Bailey said that the Contract is dated 12/22/99; the Notice of Non -Renewal was recorded 5/28/04. He said per Government Code 51245 the Notice of Non -Renewal must come at least 90 days prior to the adversity date of the contract, which meant it would have been required to be submitted September of 2003. Mr. Holland said that technically they do not have a timely filed Notice of Non -Renewal. He said • the property was not in non -renewal for the 2004 assessment roll. Mr. Breedon said it is for the 2005 assessment roll. Mr. Holland said'it means that the contract does not terminate in 2012; it terminates in 2013, so the form is wrong. He said technically the Committee can not make this finding:.. Chairman Christopher asked if the information and dates need to be changed and Mr. Holland said yes. She asked if the forms were corrected, could the finding be met. Brief discussion. Mr. Breedon said the finding is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel if the Committee could be hearing an issue for non -renewal in next year's tax rolls today at this meeting. Mr. Mackenzie said the question is when the Board can make the requisite findings that something has been voted on before January 2005. Chairman Christopher asked what the law says about this notice being in a timely manner. • Mr. Breedon said the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served pursuant to Government Code 51245. 37 ■ Land Conservation Committee ® Minutes ® June 30, 2004 a Page 7 • Mr. Mackenzie read Government Code Section 51245. Brief discussion. Chairman Christopher asked if the local ordinance stated recorded or served. She asked if the Code, law, or Resolution tells her when to do this. Mr. MacKenzie said the statute says serve, does not say recorded. Mr. Johnson asked if the Committee can deal with this for 2005. Chairman Christopher said she will talk to Counsel whether this decision has to wait until after January 2005 or does it not matter and the Board can look at things in advance. Finding #2 "That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use." Chairman Christopher said they recognize that the NCSP goes up to Highway 99 and does not cross west of Highway 99. She said to the north they are General Plan designated and zoned for development, and to the south designated for urban development. The east is already developed in urban development. She said the question is, "... would moving this property into development likely impact further removal of adjacent agricultural land." She said the only adjacent lands in agricultural use are the lands to the west across Highway 99. • Mr. Johnson said that we need to go through the information submitted by the applicant for taking this property out of the Williamson Act, with public interest of spraying and dust, notice, etc. He discussed the effect on the property across the street. Chairman Christopher said a discussion should have occurred at the point the parcel was rezoned and re -designated in the NCSP area, and hence with the Agricultural Element they recognize that there will be urban interface issues with agricultural land use and, therefore, make it necessary to create a buffer of 300 feet.. She said the County already made a decision that this land will eventually develop. It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Connell, and carried to find that whereas there is a 300 -foot setback, there is agricultural land to the west which would be protected by this 300 -foot setback, recognize that this cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Mr. Breedon reported back to the Committee that the letter requesting non -renewal of the Contract • was dated September 7, 2003. He said the request was sent to the Board of Supervisors which the Board acknowledges and then the Notice is recorded. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes u June 30, 2004 ■ Page 8 a • Chairman Christopher asked how a non -renewal was handled in the past. Mr. Breedon said that basically a member of the public provides a Notice of Non -Renewal 90 days prior to the contract's anniversary date. He said the department then prepares the Notice of Non - Renewal which will be recorded. He said no later than 20 days after the department receives the Notice of Non -Renewal, the Clerk of the Board shal l record with the County Recorder a copy of the Notice of Non -Renewal. Mr. Holland said the 20 days did not occur in this case. He said the letter did not get to the Assessor's Office and since it did not get to the Assessor, they do not know whether to establish non- renewal calculations. Chairman Christopher asked if there was some law, State law, Government Code, etc., that tells us in black and white a procedure different than what the department has been following. Mr. MacKenzie said that in the evidence code there is a section called "Service by Mail" which means that you are deemed served 5 days after someone mails you a letter. Finding #1— vote. Chairman Christopher recapped that a letter was received 9/7/03, that was more than 90 days less than the contract date in December. It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to find that the cancellation is for • land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Joluzson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher • Finding #3- vote It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to find that cancellation is for an . alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or County General Plan. AYES: Mr. Price; Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #4 — vote It was moved by Mr. Price, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried to find that cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one = T and ('nncervatinn Committee n Minutes v June 30, 2004 a Page 9 3�9 0 ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Findings under Public Interest. Finding #1 —Vote It was moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors find that other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #2 - Vote It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors find that there is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patters of urban development (GC §51282(c)) as above under 45 finding. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinier, and Mr. Johnson NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher It was also moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried that the Committee recognize September 7, 2003, as the application date. Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee discussed the fair market value by the Assessor's Office. He said he did not want the applicant's representatives to leave this room today thinking that there is an appeal to that decision. He said there may not be' an appeal process because this is a contractual situation. Mr. Lewis asked what the fees were based on, the 2012 or the 2013 dates as the final date. Mr. Holland explained that the difference in one year would not affect the eva1. luation. BREAK - 11:25 to :11:35 a.m. 40 T a„A ('nncPrvatinn c.c)mmittee s Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 10 • El • D E P A R T M ENT OF CONSERVATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA April 26, 2004 APR 2 8 2PO§ DEVIELOPAM NT MRVICES DIVISION OF Mr. Dan Breedon, Principal Planner LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION Butte County Dept. of Developmental Services 7 County Center Drive 801 K Oroville, CA 95965 STREET SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA RE: Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement; 9 5 814 A.PN 047-260-109, Landowner: Evelyn Liptr ap PHONE 916/324-0850 Dear Mr. Breedon: FAX 916/327-3430 Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation INTERNET (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the above consrv.ca.gov referenced matter. The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on Y DAVIS approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres, currently planted with E'RNOR productive walnut trees, 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 landowner entered into the land conservation agreement with Butte County on December 22, 1999. The subject site is located east of Highway 99, north of Wilson Landing Road in Butte County. Cancellation Findings The applicable Williamson Act contract (Section VII, page 3) provides that tentative approval for cancellation may be granted only if the Board makes both of the following findings: 1) cancellation is consistent with 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 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 25% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code §51283, and one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124." We request a 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 the petition for cancellation and information provided and provides the following comments. Cancellation is Consistent with the Purposes of the Williamson Act For the cancellation to be consistent with purposes of the Williamson Act, the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board) must make findings with respect to all of the following: 1) a notice of nonrenewal has been served, 2) removal of adjacent land from agricultural use is unlikely, 3) the alternative use is consistent with the County's General Plan, 4) discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result, and 5) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns 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 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 be the preferable method of contract termination for the Department. The subject parcel is contiguous to existing one acre rural ranchette development to the east on approximately 50 acres of land formerly owned by Ms. Liptrap. The Guernsey subdivision is proposed on 50 acres adjacent to the south. A request for a 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 42 • Mr. Dan Breedon. April 26, 2004 Page 3of4 for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to the east and south. The Department agrees that development of the subject parcel will not result in a discontiguous pattern of urban development. Evidence to substantiate a finding that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land does not appear adequate. In reviewing the County's Williamson Act map and the North Chico Specific Plan there appears to be noncontracted land within the Plan available and zoned for residential use. These noncontracted lands ,are contiguous to existing urban development and lie to the north of the subject site and southeast of Mudd Creek. However, since the Liptrap property is adjacent to similarly developed property to the east and southeast, and the Guernsey property to the south is scheduled for 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 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 all of the following: (1) other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. Our comments have already addressed the second finding required under public interest finding above. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and Government Code §51252. To pass constitutional muster, a restriction must be enforceable in the face of imminent urban development, and may not be terminable merely because such development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. (Lewis v. 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 contract cancellation serves the public interest because the developer offers Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Road thereby providing a more direct route for emergency vehicles. • Any decision to cancel a land conservation contract based upon a finding that the continued restricted use is contrary to the public interest must also investigate the 43 Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 4of4 • criteria used for originally restricting a landowner's use of the land and allowing for a preferential tax assessment on behalf of the public interest. In enacting the Williamson Act, the Legislature deliberately required a landowner's long-term commitment to agriculture or other open -space use in exchange for preferential taxation. The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 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 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restriction to 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 Board may have sufficient supporting evidence for making the required findings. Please provide our office with a copy of the Notice of the Public Hearing on this matter ten (10) working days before the hearing and a copy of the published notice of the Board's decision within 30 days of the tentative cancellation pursuant to section 51284. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associate Environmental Planner at (916) 324-0869. Sincerely, p,�---=,� Dennis J. O'Bryant Acting Assistant Director C� utte County Department of Development Services VONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING Date: April 7, 2005 To: Responsible and Trustee Agencies Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT To Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for an Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (CANC 04-02) The Butte County Planning Division has completed an Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), of potential environmental consequences anticipated in connection with the above-mentioned project, a copy of which is enclosed. This letter serves as a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow responsible and trustee agencies a 30 -day review period. in accordance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Please review the enclosed Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. This review should focus on your agency's area of expertise and jurisdiction. Any comments must be sent to the above address on or prior to May 16, 2005: If you have. any questions regarding the enclosed.environmental document, please contact Dan Breedon at 530-538-7629, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. ,=e , 2=� Dan Breedon Principal Planner cc: IDR Committee Members (via email) City of Chico CalTrans i K:\Planning\PROJECTS\LCA\liptrap\Neg Dec Cover Letter.doc 4-5 . • 0 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY ' INITIAL STUDY -AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) 4-6 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) • COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY FOR Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Evelyn Liptrap B. Staff Contact: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner, dbreedon(a)btittecoun .net, 530-538-7629 C. Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract D. Proiect Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane, and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. . E. Tvpe of Application: Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract F. Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199. G. Proiect Site Size: 52.72 acres • H. Current Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels); OS (Open Space) I. General Plan Designation: AR (Agricultural Residential) J. Environmental Setting: The property is currently developed with a walnut orchard. There are no other improvements. The terrain is flat, with no defined drainage courses. The propery is located within the North Chico Specific Plan. The western portion of the property fronts on SR -99. A county . designated arterial, Kittyhawk Drive, would be developed along the properties south boundary from Hicks Lane to SR -99. The property is shown to be in a 100 year flood zone. K Surrounding Land Uses: The property's west boundary fronts on SR -99. A residential subdivision (Autumn Park) is located adjacent to the east. Other undeveloped lands lie to the north and south. L. Proiect Description: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. A Tentative Subdivision Map (Kittyhawk Park) has been submitted concurrently proposing to create 48, 1 -acre single family residential parcels. The Tentative Map application is currently considered incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts associated with the cancellation, but also discloses impacts that could be related to the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision.. Note: This project has been reviewed for consistency with the Adopted North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) goals and polices and will utilize the adopted Certified Environmental Impact Report (CEIR) prepared for the plan as the basic environmental document. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. These documents were adopted by the • Board of Supervisors in March of 1995. Pursuant to Government Code Section 21083.3, if an EIR has been certified for the adoption of a Specific Plan, the application of CEQA shall be limited to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 1 ■ 47 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) • effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior CEIR. M. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Development Services Department, Butte County Environmental Health Department, Butte County Public Works Department, Butte County Fire Department, and Butte County Air Quality Management District. 2.0 DETERIMNATION [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] Ifind that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment; but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the • earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. . An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the. effects that remain to be addressed. • [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. it Prepared by: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner 4 . z w P -Z/ Reviewed by: Stephen Streeter, Planning Manager v/ -7 Zo s Date Date f — 17. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services a Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■ F61 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST A. . Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] 4.1 Aesthetics [ ] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4,3 Air Quality [ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [X] 4.5 Cultural Resources . [X] 4.6 Geologic Processes [ ] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [X] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use [ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing [ ] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportation/Traffic [ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately. supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on • project -specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (6)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■ &11 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 - AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The project is not located in an area considered to be a scenic vista, scenic highway or other special scenic feature. Visual Resource impacts are discussed within the CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan indicates that project elements of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) mitigate impacts to visual resources. These project elements include the provision of open space corridors/buffers throughout the plan area and the inclusion of design standards in the Specific Plan that address issues of building size, mass, design, ,■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ 50 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed ould the proposal: significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views X in the area? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The project is not located in an area considered to be a scenic vista, scenic highway or other special scenic feature. Visual Resource impacts are discussed within the CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan indicates that project elements of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) mitigate impacts to visual resources. These project elements include the provision of open space corridors/buffers throughout the plan area and the inclusion of design standards in the Specific Plan that address issues of building size, mass, design, ,■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ 50 .• .0 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) landscaping and other design components, As well as road standards, to help achieve development scale and appearance that blends with and contributes to the existing rural quality of the area. The proposed 48 lot residential subdivision would have light and glare impacts that are similar to the existing 1 -acre parcels located within the Autumn Park Subdivision adjacent to the east, and other land uses that are permitted in this area under the applicable SR -1 zoning. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■ 51. Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) • 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland. Mapping and Monitoring Program of the X California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? • Impact Discussion: a. The Immediate Cancellation proposed would result in the conversion of farmland since the current walnut orchard would become available for the development of 1 -acre lots upon removal of the Williamson Act Contract, as proposed under the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision application. However, the North Chico Specific Plan has designated this area for residential development at a 1 -acre density. This property is located in an area that has been designated by the County General Plan for urban uses not agricultural uses. The CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the impact of the North Chico Specific Plan on agricultural land uses.. The CEIR noted that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 475 acres of agricultural lands. However, because 213 acres of these soils are not considered prime agricultural soils and because the remaining 262 acres are substantially in conflict with adjacent residential development, and are located on the urban side of the Greenline, this is considered a less -than -significant impact." The CEIR fiuther explains that the County's existing Greenline Policy establishes SR49 as the boundary between urban/suburban to the east and agricultural to the west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use, and no impact would is anticipated. b. The approval of the Immediate Cancellation would remove the Williamson Act contract. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the findings required under the Government Code (Williamson Act) and has made a recommendation that the findings can be made in this instance. The Committee reviewed the impact of the Immediate Cancellation on surrounding Williamson Act Contracts and agricultural land and determined that the cancellation would not have a negative influence on these lands. C. See item a. above. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■ 52 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) • 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Impact Discussion: Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment" if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PMto). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development: Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Butte County Air Quality Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate air quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the NCSP. These mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ 53 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air qualityplan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)?, d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? Impact Discussion: Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment" if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PMto). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development: Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Butte County Air Quality Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate air quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the NCSP. These mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ 53 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 2. All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map showing the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. Timing: The landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final Map, whichever comes first. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavation and Construction Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle • movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. • 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation." 4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). 5. Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity: a.. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8 ■ 54 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X X species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local, or regional plans, policies, X X regulations or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X . X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree X X reservation policy ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? G A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, X X threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, X X amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for X X foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident X X or migratory fish or wildlife species? k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could X X hinder the normal activities of wildlife? • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■ 55 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map which has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The California Department of Fish.and Game Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted with respect to the presence of sensitive plants and animals and their habitats. According to the Natural Diversity Data Base, the project is not located in an area considered to contain these resources. GIS land coverage data supplied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention shows that the project site is designated as "Agriculture", not as any viable habitat type. The CEIR of the NCSP was also consulted concerning this project area. Figure 6-1 of the CEIR for the NCSP shows that orchards are the predominant vegetation type in this area. As described in the Project Setting section of this Initial Study, walnut orchards continue to occupy the subject property. The CEIR indicates that orchards are of little direct value to native biological resources other than insects, because agricultural practices keep plant species diversity to a minimum, and little nesting or foraging habitat is available to wildlife. Some of the species that can take advantage of agricultural habitats provided in the Plan area are deleterious to productivity and are consequently discouraged and/or prevented from foraging there. The CEIR also states that orchards can play a role in providing a lot -disturbance buffer between developed areas and biologically rich riparian habitat that is present in some locations of the Plan area. In the case of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map there are no riparian resources present. The CEIR indicates that there are several areas of potential impacts to biological resources as a result of NCSP implementation, such as impacts to riparian resources, veinal pools and other ephemeral wetlands; • disturbance to nesting areas of the black -shouldered kite and burrowing owl; California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern; loss of foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk, disturbance/removal of habitat used by the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle; and, disturbance to special status plants in the Plan area. The CEIR indicates that the NCSP contains many project elements that mitigate these impacts to levels of insignificance. There are impacts for which the CEIR recommends further mitigation, but the resources that these mitigations are for are not located on the subject property. Specifically, the CEIR requires Army Corps permits for impacts to wetlands. In the case of the subject property no Corps Permit is required because CEIR Figure 6.2 Wetland Resources does not identify any wetland resources in the project area. Pre - construction surveys are recommended for the presence of the black -shouldered kite. In the case of the subject property no pre -construction survey is recommended because CEIR Figure 6.1 shows that the property is not located near any trees known to be active black -shouldered kite habitat. Comprehensive raze plant surveys are recommended on all land designated for development. In the case of the subject property no rare plant surveys are recommended since this property is developed with an orchard, a vegetation type and use that preclude the presence of rare plants, due to the amount of disturbance associated with this agricultural activity as explained above. The design of the proposed project will not cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and a "de minimis" exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat is recommended. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5, is not required at this time. The project site is not known to contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting • biological resources; or, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■ 56 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02y.'-. • 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as • rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. The NCSP CEIR indicates that the highest sensitivity areas within the Plan area are lands located within 100 to 200 feet from stream courses. A majority of these areas are already afforded protection by the 100 foot no -development setback required along Keefer Slough. The subject property is not located near any of these areas. Approval of the proposed Kittyhawk ' Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Immediate Cancellation would not result in an impact to archaeological resources identified by the CEIR (CEIR Figure 7-1). However, this finding does not necessarily preclude the presence of archaeological resources that may be buried and would only be uncovered during construction work and land clearing. For this reason, a mitigation measure has been set forth below that requires construction activity to cease if cultural resources are uncovered and that the area of the find be protected from further disturbance until a professional archaeologist determines the significance of the find and makes recommendations for mitigation. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in • determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ 57 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X X . of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X X an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X X outside of formal cemeteries? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as • rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. The NCSP CEIR indicates that the highest sensitivity areas within the Plan area are lands located within 100 to 200 feet from stream courses. A majority of these areas are already afforded protection by the 100 foot no -development setback required along Keefer Slough. The subject property is not located near any of these areas. Approval of the proposed Kittyhawk ' Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Immediate Cancellation would not result in an impact to archaeological resources identified by the CEIR (CEIR Figure 7-1). However, this finding does not necessarily preclude the presence of archaeological resources that may be buried and would only be uncovered during construction work and land clearing. For this reason, a mitigation measure has been set forth below that requires construction activity to cease if cultural resources are uncovered and that the area of the find be protected from further disturbance until a professional archaeologist determines the significance of the find and makes recommendations for mitigation. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in • determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ 57 • • Project Name: Ciptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■ 16: • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the X State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, X and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal X system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault, located approximately 32 miles from the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975, resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill, approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. In the northwest comer of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ 59 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 6.9 in the area in 1892. There is some speculation as to the exact location of the historic earthquake epicenters and some question if they actually occurred on the Midland-Sweitzer fault (Butte County, 1977). The Butte County GIS Fault Lines theme shows that a possible fault with activity unknown is located approximately 1.4 miles to the east of the project site. This fault is a part of the Foothill Shear Zone and has not experienced any known movement during historical times. No impacts are anticipated since no rupture of a known earthquake fault exists in the project area. Like most of central California, the site is expected to be subjected to seismic ground shaking at some future time. Accordingly, all buildings, pipes, light poles, roadways, and other improvements would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building requirements. Because the project appears to be located such that the probability of significant ground shaking is low, and because the structures would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code standards for the appropriate Seismic Hazard Zone, potential geologic impacts would be less than significant. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a moderate potential for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map also indicates that the property is located within an area of heavy groundwater withdrawal and is a potential subsidence area. Although so designated, this designation is general in nature, and is applicable to virtually all of the Central Valley area of Butte County. Although subsidence is a problem in all of the Central Valley in California due to groundwater withdrawals for irrigation, there has not been any documented incident that indicates a specific problem at this location. No impact is anticipated. There is no soil erosion potential for this site, according to Butte County General Plan GIS data. The CEIR for the NCSP indicates that implementation of the NCSP will increase erosion and sediment transport into vicinity creeks and drainages, if proper erosion control measures are not implemented. The NCSP contains policies (Policy 7.2) concerning grading and erosion control. The requirements from this policy that are applicable to this project and is set forth below as a project Mitigation Measure. The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive soil designation. Standard construction practices as required under the Uniform Building Code address the impact of expansive soil on foundations and buildings. No impact is anticipated. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. Mitigation Measure #4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a. public street: Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■ • 1� Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best -Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of. the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. .Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order.to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lilies. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review • compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services m Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■ 61 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X carter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites "complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, X . would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people X residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X _ evacuationplan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including X where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) and is not near any listed sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport: The proposed Immediate Cancellation would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • .The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ 62 Project Name:, Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • Mitigation: None required. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. Although the applicant proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company • through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley aquifers at this location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. W ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ 63 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production X rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which ermits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course X of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? " f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by Federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood X Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as X a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J7 Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. Although the applicant proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company • through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley aquifers at this location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. W ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ 63 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) •This site is level and the soil type is not prone to erosion. The proposal could, nevertheless, affect surface water quality due to siltation resulting from erosion caused by land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. Mitigation concerning impacts from these development activities has been set forth below. The Butte County Department of Public Works has commented that the project is located within the 100 - year floodplain of Keefer Slough (FEMA Map 06007C0320D, dated April 20, 2000). The Department of Public Works comments that this area has been known to flood more frequently. The project design of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map has the potential to alter the floodplain, subjecting future residents and adjacent property owners to increased flood hazards. The Department of Public Works indicates that the applicant has not provided detailed design information demonstrating that it is feasible to develop within the floodplain, while providing adequate ingress and egress during flood events, and providing suitable building pads above the flood levels, without adversely affecting surrounding properties (Source: Department of Public Works Comments on TSM 04-11, February 25, 2004). In a letter dated December 10, 2004 the applicant indicates that drainage calculations will be provided to the Department of Public Works to address their concerns. No new information has been received at this time. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application also proposes to abandon an existing retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins .to handle drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions. Any new storm water retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed and made operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to considering this item as complete. The Environmental Health Division has commented that Lots 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map cannot be approved with the existing (Autumn Park Subdivision) storm drainage basin shown. No residential lots can be shown on this area until the alternative storm drainage basin is approved and functional, and the existing storm drainage basin is abandoned and deemed suitable for residential uses. This item will remain incomplete until the Department of Public Works is satisfied with the drainage plan and alternative drainage is provided for the Autumn Park Subdivision. As discussed within the Project Description section of this Initial Study the Kitty Hawk Park Tentative Map application is considered incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts associated with the cancellation but also discloses impacts that could be related to the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision. Mitigation for flooding and drainage concerning the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map is not provided at this time because the application is considered incomplete. The property is not located in an area prone to mudflows or other natural disasters. No impact would occur with respect to these natural hazards. Mitigation Measure #4 Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): 1. The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such • drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■ 64 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion. of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best ,Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a. rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). • Monitorings The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. s Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■ 65 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.9 LAND USE: r • . Impact.Discussion: The proposal is located within the North' Chico Specific Plan Area. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger residential, commercial and industrial developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. The concurrently submitted Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map contemplates development that is consistent with the SR -1 zoning implemented by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore does not have the, potential to physically divide an established community. The project does not have the potential to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that the findings required by the Government Code for Immediate Cancellation of this Williamson Act Contract can be made in this instance. The County Board of Supervisors has not yet taken action on this request. The Board will hear this request after circulation of this Initial Study and taking' action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. The proposal will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: significant significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general X plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X plan or natural community conservation plan? • . Impact.Discussion: The proposal is located within the North' Chico Specific Plan Area. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger residential, commercial and industrial developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. The concurrently submitted Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map contemplates development that is consistent with the SR -1 zoning implemented by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore does not have the, potential to physically divide an established community. The project does not have the potential to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that the findings required by the Government Code for Immediate Cancellation of this Williamson Act Contract can be made in this instance. The County Board of Supervisors has not yet taken action on this request. The Board will hear this request after circulation of this Initial Study and taking' action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. The proposal will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.10 MINERAL, REsouRcEs: • • Impact Discussion: The proposed project. would not use or, extract any mineral. or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ . 67 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? • • Impact Discussion: The proposed project. would not use or, extract any mineral. or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ . 67 • Project Name: Uptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.11 Min: Impact Discussion: a. — d. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellatiori would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park'Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to the project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that an acceptable outside noise level of 65 decibels CNEL (per the Butte County General Plan) is achieved at a distance of 65 feet from SR -99. The proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any residential development in the area where higher noise levels, exceeding 65 decibels CNEL.occur (>160 feet from SR -99). Residential development is i proposed to be setback from SR -99 a total distance of at least 300 feet. Therefore residential development within this development would not be subject to noise levels that exceed community standards as provided for in the General Plan. Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. During construction, the highest noise levels would result from operation of power tools, which can be expected to generate noise levels of between 80 to 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Construction activities that would be associated with residential development at the project site would be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan X or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X ground borne vibration or ground bome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without theproject? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working X in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: a. — d. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellatiori would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park'Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to the project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that an acceptable outside noise level of 65 decibels CNEL (per the Butte County General Plan) is achieved at a distance of 65 feet from SR -99. The proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any residential development in the area where higher noise levels, exceeding 65 decibels CNEL.occur (>160 feet from SR -99). Residential development is i proposed to be setback from SR -99 a total distance of at least 300 feet. Therefore residential development within this development would not be subject to noise levels that exceed community standards as provided for in the General Plan. Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. During construction, the highest noise levels would result from operation of power tools, which can be expected to generate noise levels of between 80 to 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Construction activities that would be associated with residential development at the project site would be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • limited in terms of duration and do not represent .a significant permanent change to the surrounding noise environment. e. - f. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. Airports can be a source of significant noise impacts. However, the project is shown to be well outside the 55 decibel noise contour for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have' no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map has been found to be consistent with the 2000 ALUCP for the Chico Municipal Airport with no required conditions. Mitigation Measure: None required • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 23 ■ 0 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.12 HOUSING: C, Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create housing impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or 1.1% per year. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create 48 parcels and thus has the potential to add an estimated 116 people to Butte County (48 units x 2.414 persons/unit — assuming all occupants are new residents to Butte County). This is not considered significant because this amount is consistent with what is planned by the North Chico Specific Plan for this area. The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 ■ 70 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, . necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating X the construction of re lacement housing elsewhere? C, Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create housing impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or 1.1% per year. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create 48 parcels and thus has the potential to add an estimated 116 people to Butte County (48 units x 2.414 persons/unit — assuming all occupants are new residents to Butte County). This is not considered significant because this amount is consistent with what is planned by the North Chico Specific Plan for this area. The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 ■ 70 C7 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Impact Discussion: The proposed • Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impact of increased residential development in the County affects the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a note on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Butte County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, • and drainage facilities from development as proposed under the Plan (County Service Area 87). These fees shall be collected at the time of application for building permits on the 48 individual parcels proposed by ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ 71 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which X could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fireprotection? X c. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The proposed • Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impact of increased residential development in the County affects the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a note on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Butte County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, • and drainage facilities from development as proposed under the Plan (County Service Area 87). These fees shall be collected at the time of application for building permits on the 48 individual parcels proposed by ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ 71 Proiect Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. These fees are intended to off -set impacts to public services from the residential development anticipated by the North Chico Specific Plan. Mitigation: None required. 4.14 RECREATION: Impact Discussion: a. - b. This project is not large enough to require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code. Impact Fees for recreation would be collected at that time of building permit issuance on each of • the 48 individual residential lots within the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision. As a result of the size of the proposal and collection of impact fees no.impact to recreational uses is anticipated. Mitigation Measure: None required .• 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 26 ■ 72 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such X that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. •Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Discussion: a. - b. This project is not large enough to require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code. Impact Fees for recreation would be collected at that time of building permit issuance on each of • the 48 individual residential lots within the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision. As a result of the size of the proposal and collection of impact fees no.impact to recreational uses is anticipated. Mitigation Measure: None required .• 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 26 ■ 72 • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Impact Discussion: a - g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional traffic from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to connect the existing Kittyhawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Garner Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Chico Specific Plan and would have the potential to enhance circulation to the plan area and provide a needed additional access point to SR -99 for this area. The proposed extension of Kittyhawk Drive would also benefit the proposed Guernsey Subdivision south of and adjacent to this project. The combined traffic impact (97 residential lots with 10 trips per day estimated, equaling 970 potential average daily trips generated) of these subdivisions could nevertheless have impacts to area roads and SR -99. County staff and the California Department of Transportation therefore required the completion of a Traffic Impact Study concerning traffic impacts from these subdivisions, and from the proposed connection of Kittyhawk Drive with SR -99. This study is currently under review as a draft document and is not considered complete at this time. Further environmental review and analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map complete. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services mi Planning Division ■. Page 27 ■ 73 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: a - g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional traffic from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to connect the existing Kittyhawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Garner Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Chico Specific Plan and would have the potential to enhance circulation to the plan area and provide a needed additional access point to SR -99 for this area. The proposed extension of Kittyhawk Drive would also benefit the proposed Guernsey Subdivision south of and adjacent to this project. The combined traffic impact (97 residential lots with 10 trips per day estimated, equaling 970 potential average daily trips generated) of these subdivisions could nevertheless have impacts to area roads and SR -99. County staff and the California Department of Transportation therefore required the completion of a Traffic Impact Study concerning traffic impacts from these subdivisions, and from the proposed connection of Kittyhawk Drive with SR -99. This study is currently under review as a draft document and is not considered complete at this time. Further environmental review and analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map complete. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services mi Planning Division ■. Page 27 ■ 73 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Impact Discussion: a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional utility and service system impacts from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Sewer service is currently not available at this location, and the applicant intends to provide individual on-site septic systems to handle sewage generated by the project. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. As a result, wastewater treatment requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be required. The applicant proposes to provide water service to the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map from the California Water Service Company and no on-site community system or production wells are proposed. The County requires will serve letters guaranteeing service from the California Water Service Company prior to accepting the Subdivision Map as complete. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 28 ■ 74 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact IUnder Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? FT. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and X regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional utility and service system impacts from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Sewer service is currently not available at this location, and the applicant intends to provide individual on-site septic systems to handle sewage generated by the project. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. As a result, wastewater treatment requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be required. The applicant proposes to provide water service to the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map from the California Water Service Company and no on-site community system or production wells are proposed. The County requires will serve letters guaranteeing service from the California Water Service Company prior to accepting the Subdivision Map as complete. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 28 ■ 74 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application proposes to abandon an existing • retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins to handle drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions. Any new storm water retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed and made operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to accepting the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map as complete. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map would increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount. According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The projected capacity of the landfill anticipated the incremental growth represented by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 29 ■ 75 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) • 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE SECTION 15065): • a. The project does not have the potential to substantially .degrade the quality of the environment beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study. ' b. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures 1-4 as set forth in Section 5. of this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c. The project does not have the potential to have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 30 ■ 76 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects)'? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X. beings, either directly or indirectly? • a. The project does not have the potential to substantially .degrade the quality of the environment beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study. ' b. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures 1-4 as set forth in Section 5. of this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c. The project does not have the potential to have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 30 ■ 76 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan.(pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map showing the location and species for all subdivision toads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. • Timing: The landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final Map, whichever comes first. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavation and Construction Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing; grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation." 4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 31 ■ 77 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • 5. Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity: a.' . Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map: Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, • and building site development. Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. Mitigation Measure #4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): 1. The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. 03. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 32 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) • planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff,.prior to discharge into flood waters. . Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review • compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. c: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 33 ■ • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Association of Governments. Regional Travel Demand Model. Information extracted in personal correspondence with Chris Devine of the Butte County Association of Governments staff. December 4, 2001. . 2. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67- 178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Mv. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Mai). Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County GIS Data. Oroville, CA: November 2001. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Environmental Checklist Form, Evaluation of Environmental Impact. File Number 93-15. Oroville, CA: February 8, 1993: 8. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Man 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 10. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 11. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4. Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 12. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: C112M Hill, 1977. 13. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 14. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA. 15. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 16. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 2000 All Traffic Volumes on California State Highway System. tem 2001. 17. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 1998 Truck Volumes on California State Highway System. 1998. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 34 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 18. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 1998 All Traffic Volumes on • California State Highway System. 1998. 19. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Mans. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. . 20. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. t' 21. USGS Quad Maps. Additional Reference Material: 1. Butte County Planning Division. Certified Environmental Impact Report for the North Chico Specific Plan. Oroville, CA: Heritage Partners,.March, 28 1995. 2. Butte County Planning Division. North Chico Specific Plan. Oroville, CA: Heritage Partners, March 28, 1995. W] ■ Butte County Department of Development Services m' Planning Division ■ Page 35 ■ 8.1 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of.Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) r i 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: [X] Environmental Health [X] Public Works [X] Building Manager [ ] BCAG [X] ALUC . [X] LAFCo [X] Assessor [X] Development Services [ ] Chico Unified School Distr. [X], Air Qual. Management Dist. [X] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs' [ ] City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise' [ ] CA Department of Forestry [X] Caltrans (Traffic) [X] Central Reg. Water Quality [ ] Department of Conservation [ ] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol [ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] US Fish & Wildlife Service [X] Agricultural Commissioner [ J Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ } Oroville-Union School. Dist. [ ] Feather River Rec. Dist. [ ] El Medio Fire Dept. ( ] -OWID [ ] LOAPUD [ ] PG&E [ ] Pacific Bell [ ] Palermo Union School Dist. • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 36 ■ A 9 • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 8.0 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO PROPOSED PROJECT: I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for the Liptrap Immediate Cancllation of Williamson Act Contract (File #CANC 04-02, APN # 047-260-197, -199) application and particularly the mitigation measure identified herein. I/We hereby modify the application on file with the Butte County Planning Department to include d incorporate all mitt igations set forth in this Initial Study. roi t Spon r/Project Agent Date Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date e Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 37 11 September 7, 2003 -Butte County -Planning Dept #7 County Center Drive. __ r Oroville, CA 95965 Re: APN 047-026-199 13822 Hwy 99 N Chico, CA 95973 APprox 52 Acres Lot A Autumn Park Subdiv'i'sion 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 s 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 the County of Butte and �i1/ � �- did [,- ( PT- f} P on / oZ 9 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: That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said agrcctnent described as follows: )Ip Sl CT //J G a3 H -G2 Es 2. Thai Cancellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (Government Code S 1200 et seq.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public Intterrest in that:* Tile undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed this d (Yah day of at Califontia. Petitioner(s) I APPENDIX E Date Filed: Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Natne and address of developer or project sponsor: (EV EL` 0 k l P T -RA P 331 WA t L 57- ,- e H-ico , CA- `i s'19& 2. Address of project: f�/�sr 14w`f 9 q APP, - 3000' AL W)L_SoN LNG - Assessor's Block and Lot Number: A F ® 4 "7 --a 4? 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: d _ Rk M CW l c o c A tet. S li 2- 8 4. Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivision) WISa Al A4T 1—A-Sf-M & N T PAo6-eAffi Wf'l££P -L ryw& 11 SUCK-1>LVYS/0N S. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: ( �NT,/r�W C- 5u9 DLVtAIv nr Al AP uTrz--Cd��vT-4� • G. Existing zoning district: _ (.t)/i'tdlrl NfUjL9'Lt-Gw(cy .� ctf tc R -AA) 7. Proposed use of site: �F S 1 .I7 1: N T t ./V L. E. S t T- F S PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size.°� o"L 3 A 9 Square footage of building(s). 10. Number of floors of construction. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach site development plan. f }" t—%A-G L+ `- D 13. Proposed scheduling. P / N 6-- 14. Associated projects. • 15. Anticipated incremental development. • 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household size expected. J� iI .F_S ('J:> g v 7—J A L 13 Lf L b I rV G x -OT S 17. if commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 13. If indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. if institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effect--? Discuss below .all, items checked yes (attach additional :sheets as necessary). YES NO. 21. Change in.existing features of any beaches, lakes, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground coutours. V 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. • 23. Significantly change pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. 26. Significant change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of cxisting drainage patters. V r 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicintiy. 2S. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more. 29. - Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). V31. Substantially increase fossil fuel'consumption (electrictiy, oil, natural gas, etc.) • • 32. Relationship to part of a larger project or series of projects. F.'NVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic saspeets. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. ' t 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including i.nfonnation on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). CFRTTFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date a� / (Signature) \\bcdev l \documcnt\appendixE.doe For r 01- January 29, 2004 Attachment to "Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement" addressing Item 2 under Government Code Section 51282 It is the intention of the Petitioner to show compliance with all government codes and identify the corresponding public interests served by (a) cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject property. Government Code Section 51282 requires two general areas to be addressed: (A) 'Public Interest' will be covered first, followed by (B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest • Public interest will be served by cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services, (2) Contiguous Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continues within the area designated as the "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995" (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a). consistent with the existing zoning (SR -1), b). providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Plan area by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehicles better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drive, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane and several additional smaller streets in the area • east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire station located across from the proposed Kittyhawk and Highway 99 intersection. Emergency personnel would gain access to rapidly growing • residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much more direct route than the existing drive south to the Garner Lane intersection or north to the Keefer Road intersection. This road, as it is already shown on the Plan map, also allows for additional, non -emergency routes to and from Keiffer Road, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing for the enhancement of general traffic circulation. As discretionary funds available to Butte County are very limited, the completion of and inherent community benefits of Kittyhawk Drive may not be realized anytime soon. Cancellation of the Land Conservation Act on the subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed, which in turn will provide for private funding for the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. 2. Contio��ous Growth Pattern a). The cancellation of the Land Conservation EEP contract will allow for 'subsequent application for the contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an express desire • within Butte County to provide for contiguous growth patterns as evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resulting orderly growth of residential neighborhoods allows for the cost effective addition of various support services, ranging from utilities to emergency services. b). The subject property is contiguous on the east border with an existing subdivision and contiguous on the south border with a proposed 50 unit subdivision which was recently submitted to Butte County planning staff. An older almond orchard contiguous with and to the north of the subject property was cleared of all trees within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR -1 and is located within the Plan area, will likely be the subject of development pressure in the near future. Additionally, an existing subdivision lies to the north of the recently removed almond orchard. 3. A ricultural Element Issues a). Butte County adopted the Agricultural Element in 1995. • While the Element's express purpose is to preserve agricultural • land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "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." (Emphasis Added) The subject property was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in 1995 with SR -1 zoning. By placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. That the subject property is rapidly being "surrounded" and "substantially encroached upon" is clearly the case at hand. Following extensive planning and research on the part of Butte County with the aid of citizen input, this property was designated for residential development nearly 10 years ago. b). The issue of "limited continued productive use" as noted above is the result of several factors which are also pointed • out in the Agricultural Element. Under Goal 2, Policies, Programs, Item 2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot "BUFFER BE ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES FROM INCOMPATIBLE USE CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already been waived on the east border of the subject property and appears that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to the south of the subject property. Granted, the Element allows for the 300 foot standard to be "adjusted to address unusual ' circumstances." Those "unusual circumstances", specifically, the legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation of the subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting multiple health and safety hazards at worst to neighboring residents. ' The following points are part of the Environmental Information Form that accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review at this point • as legitimate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an urban setting: 3 • Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from. diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. . There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used • have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. In summary, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue of Contiguity for efficient growth and development, and (3) conforms to the spirit and intent found within the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is the express purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. As an additional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exchange requires the California Department of Conservation to review this petition, to be in substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department can agree is acceptable and • suitable for the- exchange. 4 In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found to be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to effect a WAEEP plan. If, however, the Petitioner can find no acceptable WAEEP property for an exchange within a reasonable time, it is the desiie of the Petitioner to proceed with the cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and to pay the cancellation penalty fees as determined by' the Land Conservation Agreement recorded on December 22, 1999. ' Part B Five Findings Consistent with the Purposes of the Code Subsequent to the issues regarding Public Interest as described, Code Section • 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the following findings: 1. Notice of non -renewal has been submitted in a timely manner 2. Cancellation / exchange will not result in adjacent lands being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands adjacent to the subject property are located within the North Chico Specific Plan's designated area for development and are not currently in agricultural use or are already utilized as suburban residential. Any area to the west of the subject property (across Highway 99 to the west) which might be considered 'adjacent' is outside of the North Chico Specific Plan's `scope and may not be considered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the subject property would therefore not be a substantive cause for any adjacent property to be removed from agricultural use. 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject property being used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Chico Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a'precise guideline for growth and development over and above the General Plan, cancellation of • the Land Conservation Agreement brings the subject property into conformity with the Specific Plan and its long-range goals. R • 4. Cancellation / exchange will not result in discontiguous development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous with existing residential development as well as land currently in the development review process with Butte County 5. There is no "proximate non-contracted land" which is both "available and suitable", and even if land was found which could be considered "available and suitable", it would not provide for a "more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of proximate non-contracted land." The subject property is currently surrounded on two of three possible sides by urban development. The fourth side is across Highway 99 and falls outside of the Specific Plan area and is therefore unsuitable for urban development. The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons for cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. Petitioner Date • • Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Information Item 22. As seen from SR -99, the property has a minimal wire fence along the highway and the southerly boundary. When completed, residential 6' high decorative sound walls along SR -99 and Kittyhawk Drive and/or fences will be constructed surrounding the project. The orchard will still be seen from the highway as well as may rooftops of the homes, once constructed. Item 25. • The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural. operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte • County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte. County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. Items 30 & 31. Any substantial change in demand for municipal services or increased fossil fuel consumption would be in accordance with and in compliance to the intended uses of the area as defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. • • Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is part of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result of the approved Plan. A "Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. Item 33. The proposed Kittyhawk Park.project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan), as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a 30 year old 93 +/- acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly on Garner Lane and westerly on SR -99. Two earlier phases of division (1999 and 2000) on the easterly end created Autumn Park Subdivision, the divisions of which created 40 one acre home sites and a remainder of 52.72 acres. The remainder parcel is the project site. The site slopes uniformly from approximately 186' on the northeasterly boundary to approximately 181' on the southwesterly boundary. The soils are stable and are categorized as vina loam. There are no rare or endangered plants or animals on the property and no known cultural, historical or scenic features. There is one existing agricultural accessory structure (approximately 24'x 60') on Lot 39 which will remain. The structure is shown on the attached tentative map. • (Please see attached photographs) Item 34. The properties to the west are primarily agricultural in nature. The property to the south, owned by Guernsey, has been submitted to Butte County for subdivision into 50 lots. Southeasterly and directly east of the project site are single family residential home sites ranging in various ' sizes and ages. The property to the north and northeast has been cleared of the remaining remnants of an old almond orchard. It has been vacant and continues to be vacant of any use other than two home sites. Within these immediate areas there are no known rare or endangered plant or animals, nor are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. Each proposed lot and home, when.built, will meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department) (Please see attached photographs) 0 KtyHw1 LCA CXL_102 GARNER - WESTERLY DOWN NORTHWESTERLY FROM KITTYHAWK DRIVE SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND r - EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE NORTHEAST FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE SOUTH FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE VIEW OF PROPERTY NORTH OF PROJECT VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 ON LOT 39 • • @ASIS OF BEARING THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, 150' LEACH - AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL r� FIELD FREE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14, TAKEN AS l \ \ SETBACK LINE FROM WELL NORTH 89°37'18" EAST. s5 188 /L/'B° \ \ \\ ISO 181 182 183 180 0.4436 AC \ N89-5711 2743.37' LL) , 46� LOT e LOT 38 1 . 041 A \ \ 1.1080 AC \ 0.8860 AC 1.0841 AC LOT 16 LOT 14 I (1 05471 \ .99602) LOT 31 1'0062) 0.9888 C 08886 AC Lo LOT 221.0.86 0) 1.00187) / 'LOT 37 LOT 35 1.0974 AC (0.9845) (0.8848) (0.8850) (0.8867) \ �• 1.1224 AG 0.0041 AC (1.0188) Z A ZONE X (1.0914) (o.7e4a) ( o.es7<� �- • I e LOT 34 '{ LOT \ 0.94868) - 0.8330 AC J� \ (0.8288) LOT 29 l \ \ 0.8522 AC LOT 24 ` LOT 21 LOT 1 B ` LOT 19 L = 164.10 9337 AC 0.8337 AC 1 SCALE: 1" = 10�'-�" D=16.11'40• \ (0.8488) (0.73 3) \ / 0.8319AC 07413 ` 07419) R = 618.80 \ LOT 32 (0.7383) I I (0.7383) ( ) LOT 8 LOT 38 \ 1.0388 AC I I © \ \ �. ^�\•w D I ^ \0(8838 AC 1.3188AC (0.8822) 0.85)(11082)' "EIT SET9T �T I 1a�1owr4 ^^Ac\ ZZZ- 4 I I LOT 28 LOT 28 I ^ I LOT 20 LOT 17\ I I LOT 12 I /10.8183) a \ S LOT 39 O \ ) 0.9522 AC 0.e9SS AC 0.8966 AC 0.8866 A 0.8886 AC I //// tttiiijy PROJCT (0.8509) (0.8012) (0.8012 (0.8012) ) (0.8012 LOT ES SITE 1(0868 )C \ I I I I I } 0;68�889pppp333AC • 'S 09 \ LOT 33 - sAdR`q 1.3754 AC N fit+ �i (0.e762) I Lora III (0.84 4 AC O o.e4e4) •`LOT 19 LOT 18 LOT 118 lOT 1p . I LOCATION MAP 9 \ w ' \ I I o e°eeo nc o.L.76 4) I I \ (0.76 4) (0.78 AC A I 0.9960 AO s 0.9688 AC J �- ro.7984> I (0.7894) (0.7884) I\ I (0.7804) .7547) LOCATION / I \ STREET Lor 2 •AC 10 LOT 40 LOT43 -C'- � 10. 2 LEGEND: 1.0001 AC I 11 AC �- • (0.6729) ,I (0.7859) \ LOT NUMBER LOT 100 FEMA X GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE II LOT 44 LOT 45 LOT 46 LOT 47 L048 LOT 49 LOT 50 LOT 81 LOT 52 LOT 53 I ^ NET ACRES (0.8496) \ 0.8888AC\ 0.6753 AC 0.8763 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6783 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.8701AC I y 1 �y I (0.8887) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.8007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6665) ` APRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, \ , \ I 2 LOT "C" ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND LOT d+ LOT47 \ o0 2 4) / LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE \$ 10..0001) (o8676)o mI CONSTRUCTED.\ \ -�.--- EXISTING PA EXISTING vn. CIL aoaownr n CSA 87 SD AREA %%/7 FIRE HYDRANT _ _ _ _ _ _ So, R (TO BE MOVED) L/-/�Gl + \ �. / S8V42mw 242.91' ZONE A/ ZONE X AP 044=280=198 i \ \ \ rOEN HRA( NOTES BUDDIV1810N INFORMATION _ __ \ •. r,ev 7R 121 nm 2wn�8M1 71 \ - 1. THIS TENTATIVE MAP NAG BEEN DESIGNED AND IB BEING PRO - I CESSED IN ACCORDA NC! WITH THE AP PROP ED OR •1 ZONING OWNERS AND OTHER PARCVtSIONSCORDAN 01 THE NORTH CHICO SPECIF OR-1 PLAN. SUBDIVOWNER DER: EYELYN UPTRAP 2. TIIe INTERIOR SUBDIVISION STREETS SHALL 0! CON GTIIUCTBO 331 WALL STREET 50R IN AC CORDA AN WITH LOCAL TYPE L•III 0R TYPE 4v OF THE CHICO. CALIFORNIA 86926 R.O.W. ' �I ��\�. / � - / NORTH CNICO GPGCIP IC PLAN, YET SMALL REMAIN PRIVATE DRIVE IIF//\• IF'/�/\ STREET AND AND GNALL NOT Be OPPe R8D OR DEDICATION TO THE ENGINEER: SOB FEENEY COUNTY OF @UTTE. THE 8%TS ANION TE KIT TYHA IYK DRIVE 1250 CHICO, AAVENUE. SUITE IO LOCAL TYPE L -V SHALL B@ WITH UCTlD A8 AN ARTERIAL TYP! A -IV IN CMICO,CALIFORNU8E87J APPLIES TO STREETS D. E. F. G 8H - ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN AND OFFERED POR DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY OP BUTTE. LAND USE: PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL • 3. THE PROPOSED LOT AREAS SHOWN ARE GROSS LOT AREAS FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ANO INCLUDE YM B PROPOSED PR IV AT EAG EMONTS AND THE VESTING ME LOT ARIA* !%AMPLE) ARE IIX ON LU GIVE 0/ ZONING: SR -1 eA BeMl T B. THE TOTAL AREA POR 1 ARE IB ION 10 52 .T739 -� ACR! 9. UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAB 8 ELECTRIC TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP THE MB THD. DP Sew AOG DIS POOAL AND LOT AREAS reLEP„ONE:SBC •[^" PROPOS@D ME SCO ALL RED ONTO OP APPe NDIX VII OP THe WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY SR BR 76R ton BM1 SR BUT COUNTY CODE. Gee eHMEMO •QeILS WAIVER' I SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK w� �,u„ nwwti Q. ALL DRAINAGE RUNOFF OHA LI BeB:MO IN THE RETENTION AND LEACH FIELDS BASIN PAOVIDGD. `•0fM SOR °. A PRIVA Te Lr Gw NED COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM SMALL Be APN: 047.280.197 AND 047.280.189 R.O.W. ADIVISIONOFREMAINING LANDS.ASSHOWN ONTHAT CERTAIN MAP OF FORMEG TO PROVID! DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE To THE LOTS AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 11, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS WAY@RBRSQUIRS0 FOR FIR! PROIT@CTIONNG VIDINO THE eoo GPM ° LOCAL TYPE L -III ° AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 -LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND SZ, TOWNSHIP 23 T. STORM WATER WILL BB Re rAINBD ON-SITE IN ROADSIDE LEACH- ° APPLIES TO STREETS A B S CNORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, M.D.B. & M. - BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TRENCHES. E N C H E O. ° 0. THESUBDIVISION HAS AN AVERAGE LOT AREA OF .9040 ACRES. I AND TM OENBI7Y OF THE SUEDIVIGION Nq8 BEEN BASED UPON FOR TNe DROGB AREA FOR SUBDIVISION 01 THE! PROPERTY AND TNe 9R•1 20 NING. 9. AB SHOWN, THE EXISTING SDR AREA WILL Be RG MOVOO AND P, �S_`70MT6S no WILL Be RECONSTRUCTED ON THE GUe RN BEY PROJECT TO THE EVELYNC. LIPTRAP SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT. I NG A7wYNN0 [GW BR IBR ISR an 40. IN LIEU 01 LOT DIMENSIONS ON BACH LOT, AS REQUIRED BY THE -� Ovlwf9PJ4 4n---'�m� L �� APP LICATION• WE HAVE PROVIDED DROSS AND NOT LOT AREAS '6ESI"- ST0017F$' 1pp)epp•@.gp BO OOR ANO WILL PROVIDE LOT DIMENBIONS ON THE FINAL MAP. OESIW'•OFVFLOPUEM R.o.w. JANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1 DING1(AYSAYJOQAIES.COM ..�. ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV I APPLIES TO KITTYKAWK DRIVE •r� 2c46A)"A��NrvP1a:.:....1; !gs�^�iw�J i COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION RECORDING REQUESTED BY: , 1 999-0052839 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ! Recorded I REC FEE .00 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Official Records I CONFORM .00 CoBpty Of Clerk of the Board CANDACE J. GRUBBS I 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 ROSERecordMARY ICKSON Assistant I I Myles ' 10:23AM 22 -Dec -1999 I Page 1 c 13 Document Title(s): Land Conservation Agreement Evelyn C. Liptrap l "1 Ir l TIES PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION (Additional recording fee applies) LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT \ THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this'4thflay of December L9 2g by and between Fy e l u v, hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and the County of Butte, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "County". WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain real property hereinafter described located within County; and WHEREAS, said property is devoted to agricultural uses; and WHEREAS, said property is located within AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. heretofore established by the County; and WHEREAS, both Owner and County desire to limit the use of said property to agricultural, and compatible uses in order to preserve a maximum amount of agricultural land, to conserve the State's economic resources, to maintain the agricultural economy, and assure a food supply for future residents, to discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, recognizing that such land has public value as open space and constitutes an important physical, social, aesthetic, and economic asset to the County, to preserve the natural characteristics, beauty, or to provide essential habitat for wildlife; and 1 WHEREAS, the placement of said property in a i- agricultural preserve and the execution and approval of this Agreement is a determination that the highest and best use of said property during the term of this Agreement or any renewal thereof is for agricultural uses; NOW, THEREFORE, both Owner and County in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained and the substantial public benefits to be derived therefrom, do hereby agree as follows: I: This Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as amended (Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code of California commencing with Section 51200), including Article 3 of said Act entitled "Contracts". 11: During the term of this Agreement, or any renewal thereof, the said property shall not be used for any purpose other than agricultural uses for producing agricultural commodities, for commercial purposes, and uses compatible with such purposes, which uses are set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. III: The Board of Supervisors may from time to time and during the term of the Agreement or any extensions thereof, by resolution, add to those compatible uses authorized in the resolution establishing the preserve within which the land is located; provided however; said Board shall not eliminate, without the written consent of Owner, a compatible use during the term of this Agreement or any renewals thereof. The provisions of this Agreement and any resolution supplementing the uses listed in Exhibit "A" is not intended -to limit or supersede the planning and zoning powers of the County. IV: In the event all or a part of the land subject to this Agreement is taken in an action in eminent domain or is acquired in lieu of eminent domain for a public improvement, this Agreement shall be null and void for the land or interest in the land actually taken, but shall remain Pa in full force and effect as to the remainder of the land or interest in' the land not so. taken or acquired. The date an action in eminent domain is filed shall be the date this Agreement is deemed null and void as to any land or interest in land subject to the Agreement which is taken by eminent domain. V: This Agreement shall be effective as of the day and year first above written and shall remain in effect for a period of ten (10) years therefrom. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed on the first day of January of each year for a period of ten (10) years from the date of said renewal, unless notice of non -renewal is given as provided in Section 51245 of the Government Code of California. VI: The Owner understands that he/she is not entitled to any public funds by reason of the execution of this Agreement or any renewal thereof although the use of said property is limited as aforesaid. VII: This Agreement may onlybe immediately canceled if, upon petition by Owner, the Board of Supervisors of County, under the provisions of Government Code Section 51282, finds: (a) that cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; and (b) that cancellation is in the public interest. Upon cancellation, Owner shall pay to County a cancellation fee determined and certified by the Board of Supervisors of County in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 51283 and Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 99-124 Said cancellation fee may not be waived except as provided in Government Code Section 51283 and shall be a lien upon the property described herein until paid. The amount of the fee shall be an amount equal to 25% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, and one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124. 3 t 0 0 VIII: Owner agrees, during the term of this Agreement, to provide County, upon written request, with information relative to the income and expenses derived from and incurred in connection with the use of the land subject to the Agreement for agricultural and compatible uses. IX: (a) The Owner agrees that he/she, his/her successors, and assigns shall not divide by sale, gift, or financing, the property which iz- t of this Agreement into a parcel or parcels under separate ownership having less than However, if the division is for purposes of transfer to immediate family members, then the property may be divided into a parcel or parcels under separate ownership having no less than -0-0— acres, in accordance with the acreage standards in D-1, Column 1, of Resolution 99-124, provided that a Joint Management Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 51230.1 is executed. (b) A parcel division may occur at less than the minimum sizes specified in subsection (a) above if it is pursuant to a use permit for parcel segregation for agricultural processing and the remaining contracted lands conform to the above minimum sizes. (c) Partial cancellation of this Agreement for a homesite segregation may only be considered for an existing residence which has been in existence for at least 5 years and the land has been owned for at least 10 years by the owner, as specified in Government Code Section 66474.4 (b)(2), and if a permanent restriction prohibiting residential development is recorded on the balance of the land. Such homesite segregation must be effected through a lot line adjustment, lot merger, or tentative parcel map approved pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code and the Subdivision Map Act, and provided that the minimum lot size of the base zoning district is maintained. (d) Partial non -renewal of this Agreement is subject to the following requirements: the portion of the property subject to the non -renewal, and the portion of the property not subject to the non -renewal, must each have not less than AD acres. 4 X: This Agreement shall run with the land described herein and shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and assigns of the Owner and County: XI: In the event of forced sale of lands subject hereto for the settlement of a tax lien, this Agreement is null and void as to such land actually sold for that purpose. No penalty as provided for in section VII shall be charged for a cancellation under this paragraph. XII: This Agreement shall be canceled without payments or public hearing if it is replaced by any other enforceable restriction authorized by Section 8 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, including, but not limited to, an open -space easement agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 51255, or whenever there is no operative legislation implementing said Article with respect to assessment practices. XIII: The property of the Owner hereinabove referred to and to which the provisions of the Agreement apply is situated in -the County of Butte, State of California and is particularly described as follows: SEE 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LIPTRAP PROPERTY All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: A portion of Remaining Lands as shown on that certain map entitle "Autumn Park Subdivision Phase 1", which. map was recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, on August 12, 1999 in Book 147 of Maps, at pages 99 through 102, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwesterly corner of Lot "A" as shown on said "Autumn Park Subdivision Phase1"; THENCE along a line parallel with and 60.00 feet northerly of the southerly line of said Remaining Lands, South 89°42'01" West, a distance of 1868.22 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of California State Highway 99 E; THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" West, a distance of 209.82 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line, North 63°19'53" East, a distance of 367.87 feet; THENCE North 26010'00" West, a distance of 185.43 feet; THENCE South 62016'40" West, a distance of 370.91 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of California State Highway 99 E; THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27006'10" West, a distance of 302.30 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve having a radius of 618.80 feet, concave .to the southwest, with a chord bearing of North 34035'25" West, and a chord distance of 165.97 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line and northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 15024'50", an arc distance of 166.47 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line, North 42017'50" West, a distance of 216.97 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line and along the northerly line of said Remaining Lands, North 89°37'19" East, a distance of 2,743.37 feet; THENCE leaving said northerly line, South 00°17'59" East, a distance of 718.63 feet to the northeasterly corner of said Lot "A"; THENCE along the northerly line of said Lot "A", South 89°42'01" West, a distance of 325.00 feet to the northwesterly corner of said Lot "A"; THENCE along the westerly line of said Lot "A", South 00°17'59" East, a distance of 200.00 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Lot "A" and the Point of Beginning; Containing 48.23 acres, more or less. o QROf ESS/O4, ••.'t Bruce A. Nash No. 33381 . R.C.E. 33381 ,-�c Registration Expires 06/30/02 w y XIV: If the Owner breaches the terms of this Agreement in a manner which results in all or any portion of the property which is the subject of this Agreement not being used for the agricultural or open space uses contemplated by this Agreement, the parties agree that the County would suffer damages, but that such damages would be extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Therefore, the parties agree it is reasonable to determine that the amount of the damages which will be suffered by the County and payable to it by the Owner in such event shall be based upon the following calculation: $100 per month for any month or portion thereof in which such a breach exists, multiplied by the percentage of the property affected by said breach. Provided, however, that in no event shall the amount of such damages exceed $10,000. The parties further agree that either party may give notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal in accordance with this Agreement and the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as to the property or portion -thereof affected by the breach, and no damages shall accrue pursuant to this section XIV upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to said notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner and County have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. ATTEST: JOHN BLACKLOCK, Chief Executive Officer and Clerk of the Board 3 BUTTE ,_�anDolan", Chair Butte�ounty Board of Supervisors • Date of Execution Date of Execution • OWNERS(S) k�?� e 4�::— Evelyn C. Liptrap �� AME.R.� } STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss. COUNTY OFJ On G 9 , before me, L— (—)c4n= C44 personally appeared ./ LE, L,A� (` . C _; olrwQ r) , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to 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 authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the r person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (This area for official notarial seal) Title of Document Date. of Document No. of Pages Other signatures not acknowledged 441MMARV L NORMOYLECOMMJ1156507 D IPUBUC-C U RNIA yCOUNTY OF BUTTE Cocom fixVIMS 3008 (1/94) (Generali, First American Title Insurance Companr State of California County of Butte On December 14, 1999 before me, Marion A. Reeves, Notary Public Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane We, Notary Public") personally appeared Jane Dolan Name(s) of Signer(s) o personally known tome ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(vhose name(gis/asubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge te wledge to me thatfi&sheh04. executed the same in f io #er/thldir authorized capacity(}, -and that by h�Aer /C?6"ignature(Kbn the instrument the person(ft�,.or the entity upon behalf of which the person(cted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. MARION A. REEVES Commission # 1170840 Z ZTq'op Notary Public - California y Z Butte County My Comm. Wires Jan 24, 2002 Title of Document: LCA Agreement - Evelyn C. Liptrap Date of Document: December 14, 1999 Number of Pages: 12 plus this page COMPATIBLE USES The following uses are hereby determined to be compatible uses on all contracted lands, and all other uses are prohibited: 1. Permitted Uses: a. One single family residence for each legal parcel within the contracted lands pursuant to minimum acreage standards in DI - Column 2, of Resolution 99-124, except for family members which may be pursuant to Column 1. ACREAGE STANDARDS Column 1 Column 2 Type of Activity Incoming Contract Minimum Acres Building & Selling minimum acres Orchards (vineyards, kiwi, fait, and nut crops 20 40 Field Crops 80 80 Irrigated Pasture/Riceland 80 80 Wetlands/Prime Hunting 80 80 Dry Land Grazing 160 320 Open Space 160 320 b. General farming, horticulture, commercial livestock production, commercial poultry production, and similar activities. C. Open space for: 1. Wildlife & biotic habitat. 2. Scenic values. 3. Scenic highways and byways. d. Any other use determined by the Board of Supervisors to be a compatible use in all agricultural preserves. . E:3 e. Housing facilities (including trailers) to accommodate only agricultural employees and their families who are employed by the owner or operator to work on their contracted lands. f. The drilling for hydrocarbon, including the installation and use of such equipment, structures, and facilities as are necessary or convenient. 2. Accessory Uses: a. Warehousing and storage of agricultural products. b. Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses including agricultural processing plants. C. A stand or a display for sale of agricultural commodities produced on the premises including the incidental sale of agricultural products produced off-site. d. Water storage reservoirs and irrigation areas. e. Hunting and hunting clubs. f. Private airport or aircraft landing facilities. g. Public Utility services. 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public and Quasi -Public uses, including structures and buildings. b. Veterinary hospitals and/or clinics. C. Sand and gravel mine, not including asphalt and concrete batch plants. d. Mines, mineral extraction, and quarries in Agricultural Preserve Numbers 7, 8, and 9. KAL.CAWGUSES.AGR ►j 0 LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES — JUNE 30, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the 3A County Center Conference Room, #3 County Center Drive, and Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Yvonne Christopher, Development Services, Chairman Joe Connell, Farm Advisor David Skinner Clarence Daley Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Blake Bailey, Assessor's Office Lewis Johnson Also Present: Rob MacKenzie, Deputy County Counsel Fred Holland, Assessor's Office Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Yvonne Christopher introduced .herself and explained why she is now the Chairman of this Committee and asked the public members to state their expertise and how long they have been on the Committee. Lewis Johnson said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee for some time now. Joe Connell said he was taking Bill Olsen's place from the Farm Advisory Agency. Clarence Daley said he is a cattleman and has been on the Committee for 15 years. Dave Skinner said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee approximately 6 years. II. Applications for immediate cancellation: Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 Mr. Breedon gave a brief summary of this project. He explained the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP). He briefly read the findings necessary to cancel a contract. He said he would like input from the Committee before developing findings which could be handled by the Committee giving instruction on each finding for staff to develop the findings and bring them back to the Committee, or take the finding to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lewis asked if the area in question fell under the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) Mr. Holland said just the property on the east side of Highway 99. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 Page 1 ■ Mr. Lewis said it is hard for farmers to deal with the intrusion of residential dwellings and their animals. Chairman Christopher said there is a 300 -foot agricultural buffer on the residential property. Mr. Lewis questioned the impact to the Highway. Mr. Breedon said that would be looked at in subsequent development actions. Mr. Skinner asked about Kitty Hawk Drive being completed to Highway 99. Chairman Christopher stated the road is planned; but not built. Mr. Breedon said it is a proposed alignment and is supported by the NCSP. The discussion was opened to the public. George Nicholaus said the property is bounded on the east by residential. He said the property to the south is proposed for 50 residential units. He said to the north of the project site is approximately 68 acres of what use to be an almond orchard and is now bare land. Mr. Price asked how long before farming stops on the Liptrap property. Mr. Nicholaus said the plan is to farm up to the time of development. He said he talked to Mr. Levey about his orchard that is not being taken care of. Mr. Skinner asked where the 300 -foot buffer was applied. Chairman Christopher said the buffers are applied on the new development side. Mr. Lewis asked what was located on the west side. He noted that there is a dust situation. Mr. Price said there are almonds. He said the highway is wide and helps with the buffer Mr. Nicholaus said the north boundary is SR -1 zoning. Mr. Lewis asked what is entailed with the trading of contract lands. Mr. Breedon explained that it is a very lengthy process. He said there is no application for trading lands at this time. Mr. Hays asked if the $625,000+ figure was a penalty fee. He said it was his assessment that the $625,000 was the valuation of the 43 acres. Mr. Bailey said that the $625,000 is a 25% fee based on the current fair market value if unrestrictive. He said the memo submitted should read "fee" and not "value." ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 2 ■ Mr. Holland explained how to figure the penalty fees which are based on the fair market value of land. Mr. Hays asked about an appeal period. Mr. Bailey discussed appealing the Assessor's evaluation. Mr. Holland added that he would have to check to see if this evaluation could be appealed. Mr. Hays said he wanted to be on record that he wants to appeal the fee amount and he did not know how to do that. Mr. Breedon went through the justification for making the findings submitted by the applicant. He read Part A — Public Interest, and Part B — Five Findings consistent with the purpose of the code. Mr. Connell asked on the points made by the applicant, who responds to the yes or no questions. Mr. Breedon explained that the yes and no questions are from the environmental findings. He said he has to perform an environmental review of this project. Mr. Holland said it was important to note that all of the findings have to be made to approve this cancellation. He said all findings have to be made consistent with the Code. He said the Public Interest findings have within them a mutual finding which is that there is no other proximate non - contracted land available or suitable for development, or the cancellation would provide for more contiguous patterns of growth. He said within the :framework of this contract, all of these findings must be made, not the least of which is the timely filing of a Notice of Non -Renewal, which did not occur in this case. Mr. Breedon asked that the findings be taken separately in order. He said the first finding is that this cancellation is in the public interest. Mr. Bailey said the pubic concern is arguable. He said prime agricultural land is being taken out of production. He said 4 % years ago in 1999, this Commission placed the property in the Williamson Act four years after the adoption of the NCSP. He said it is hard to say it was in the public's best interest 4 '/z years ago to put this property into the Williamson Act and now say it is in the public's best interest to take the land out. He felt the proper way to cancel this contract was through the Notice of Non -Renewal process. Mr. Breedon pointed out that the NCSP allows for agricultural uses. Mr. Holland argued that an almond orchard was proposed in 1999 to be under contract for a minimum of 10 years. He said the Committee has to balance out what was done 4 % years ago against what they do now. Mr. Hays said that Ms. Liptrap was told by Mr. Reimers, Assessor that the land was going to be re- assessed at $50,000 an acre. He said Ms. Liptrap informed Mr. Reimers that she would not be able ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 3 ■ to afford the taxes and was told she could put the property into the Williamson Act. He assured the Committee that the only reason Ms. Liptrap put the property under contract was because she was advised to do so by the Assessor's Office. Mr. Bailey said according to the minutes of 1999, the Williamson Act conditions were explained to Ms. Liptrap and she agreed to them by signing the Agreement. He felt she should be bound by the contract she signed. Mr. Nicholaus discussed the letter from the Department of Conservation as to the advisability of this land going into a contract. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation commented in their letter stating "The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 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 was contrary to the expressed intent of the. Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when land designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restrictions to agricultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation believes the NCSP is a residential plan and that the area is designated for future residential use. Chairman Christopher noted also that the exchange proposal of land is not before the Committee today, only the cancellation process. Mr. Nicholaus said the Department of Conservation questions the viability of this property going into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell said it states in the letter that one of the findings is that there is no other property available to be developed in a similar manner. He said in looking at the snap, this does not seem to be the case. He said the property is not surrounded by urban development; it is surrounded on the west by Highway 99, on the north by an open area, and is bounded on the south by an open area. Mr. Holland said one question is would development of this parcel provide for a more contiguous pattern of development versus anything around it. He felt the answer was no: Mr. Hays said there is currently a map proposed to the south for 50 parcels. He said to the east there are two subdivisions. He said there are two subdivisions to the east and the south is already built out. Chairman Christopher asked if there was a feeling from the Committee on whether this property should stay in the Williamson Act. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 4 ■ Mr. Price said he understands that this property wi I1 be developed eventually. Chairman Christopher said the question is whether it is appropriate to cancel this contract or should it go through the I0 -year non -renewal process. Mr. Skinner said at this time the land is not contiguous and there are open areas both north and south of this property. He said until the southern development is approved the applicant is in limbo here. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel to discuss what is considered contiguous. Mr. MacKenzie said there is no definition for contiguous. He said regarding the second half of Finding 5; it does not seem that there is an argument that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, because there is a parcel on the north and a parcel on the south. He said they are looking at the question of whether the development of the contracted land would provide a more contiguous pattern of urban development. Mr. Hays said when the County first approved the Specific Plan area, LAFCo and the County attempted to set up areas for urbanization. He said he had a problem with why this property was allowed into the Act when there was a Specific Plan in place. Chairman Christopher said Mr. Hays makes a good point on development inside a plan. She reminded the Committee that why this property came into the Act is not the focus of this hearing. She said they need to determine if it is in the best interest to release the property from its contract quickly or long term and if the Committee can meet the findings to release it quickly. There was a brief discussion regarding Finding #5 on contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Skinner said the Committee needs to decide if #5 is agreeable or not. Chairman Christopher said the key word in #5 for her is in the second part: "The -contiguous patterns ,ofurban, development: She, asked- if the Committee felt this needs to be,a focus!parcel to.parcel or did -the -plan itself create continuity -because it -recognized urban development. c� Mr. Breedon added that the County entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to insure the area was developed in cooperation with the City of Chico so that urban -type development standards were applied in this area. He said the vision for this area is urban. Mr. Lewis asked how much more LCA property is within the NCSP. Mr. Breedon said he thought that this property was the only one. He noted that the NCSP allows existing orchards to continue without interference by development. It was,moved by Mr;�Skinner�that.the,L- and,Conservation,Act Advisory�Committee to determine -that �there;is.no,proximate•non-contracted�land' which is both available and suitable for the proposed use -and-that the-development-oftheaEvelyn Liptrap orchard would-providea more- contiguous,patter on fy development,seconded by Mr. Daley. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 5 ■ The discussion continued: Mr. Skinner said he feels the applicant has satisfied the requirements and addressed the issues. Mr. Bailey said he would disagree, that the NCSP has been in effect for 10 years and in those 10 years very little of the land designated SR -1 has been developed off of Highway 99. He added that there are two properties surrounding this property that are considered proximate and are available and can be developed prior to this parcel being developed. Mr. Skinner said there were arguments that the whole area is proposed for development. Mr. Bailey said with significant SR land available, this property should not be taken out for emergency purposes; it should come out with a Notice of Non -Renewal that takes 10 years. Mr. MacKenzie said he did not think that the Committee could make the first half of the findings for #5. He said, however, on the second part of the finding, "development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pattern of urban development" it sounds like this parcel is being compared to the parcels on either side and the Committee is making a finding that it would make a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other two parcels. He said the question is what would make this parcel more contiguous than another and the applicant has offered that this development would put Kittyhawk all the way through. Mr. Breedon said the State has commented on this project and they agree with the second half of the finding. Chairman Christopher concurred that this meets the second part of Finding #5. Mr -Skinner. amended his motion-t&state that this -meets the'second half of Finding #5; seconded By Mr -Daley: . Mr. Hays said that when you are talking about urbanization, the NCSP itself urbanized the whole area. Mr. Nicholaus asked if the 300 -foot buffer would make the development non-contiguous. Brief discussion. Motion on the floor and a second, vote as to Finding #5, that the development of the Liptrap orchard would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Connell discussed surrounding development. Mr -Breedon asked if they wanted to add to the motion that there is the NCSP, and --that there is a MOAJwth the City of Chico. z ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 6 ■ Mr. MacKenzie said there needs to be facts in the motion that define why it is that this particular parcel would provide for a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other parcels on the north and south. Chairman- Christopher. asked Mr-Skinner,.if this,finding passes, would he be comfortable_ with staff detailing out the reasons for a yes vote on the find ings:Z::1 Mr.V Skinner said he would be -comfortable -with staff delineating out the reasons for approval. AYES: Mr. Skinner, Mr. Daley, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Price NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Dis ussion`on=#T "That the cancellation is for laird on which allotice ofNon-Renewal has been served. - Mr. Bailey said that the Contract is dated 12/22/99; the Notice of Non -Renewal was recorded 5/28/04. He said per Govenunent Code 51245 the Notice of Non -Renewal must come at least 90 days prior to the adversity date of the contract, which meant it would have been required to be submitted September of 2003. Mr. Holland said that technically they do not have a timely filed Notice of Non -Renewal. He said the property was not in non -renewal for the 2004 assessment roll. Mr. Breedon said it is for the 2005 assessment roll. Mr. Holland said it means that the contract does not terminate in 2012; it terminates in 2013, so the form is wrong. He said technically the Committee can not make this finding... Chairman Christopher asked if the information and dates need to be changed and Mr. Holland said yes. She asked if the forms were corrected, could the finding be met. Brief discussion. Mr. Breedon said the finding is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel if the Committee could be hearing an issue for non -renewal in next year's tax rolls today at this meeting. Mr. Mackenzie said the question is when the Board can make the requisite findings that something has been voted on before January 2005. Chairman Christopher asked what the law says about this notice being in a timely manner. Mr. Breedon said the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served pursuant to Government Code 51245. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 7 ■ Mr. Mackenzie read Government Code Section 51245. Brief discussion. Chairman Christopher asked if the local ordinance stated recorded or served. She asked if the Code, law, or Resolution tells her when to do this. Mr. MacKenzie said the statute says serve, does not say recorded. Mr. Johnson asked if the Committee can deal with this for 2005. �—�--- Chairman' Christopher said- she -will:talk-.to-Counsel whether this decision has to wait -until 7after January 2005 -or -does it not matter and the Board can look at things in advance. Finding #2 "That cancellation is not -likely to result in the removal of adjacent a ds from -agriculture- l use. Chairman Christopher said they recognize that the NCSP goes up to Highway 99 and does not cross west of Highway 99. She said to the north they are General Plan designated and zoned for development, and to the south designated for urban development. The east is already developed in urban development. She said the question is, "... would moving this property into development likely impact further removal of adjacent agricultural land." She said the only adjacent lands in agricultural use are the lands to the west across Highway 99. Mr.Uhnson said that we need to go through the information submitted -by the -applicant -for taking this property out of the Williamson Act, with public interest of spraying and dust, -,notice, etc. He discussed -the effect on the property across the.kreet. Chairman,Christopher said a discussion should have occurred at the point the parcel was rezoned and re -d signated in the NCSP area, and hence with the Agricultural Element they recognize that there will be urban interface issues with agricultural land use and, therefore, make it necessary to create a buffer of 300 feet. She said the County already: inade a decision that this land will eventually develop:- It_was-moved'by Mr. -Skinner, seconded by Mr. Connell, and carried to find that whereas there is a 300 -foot setback, there is agricultural land to the west which would be protected by this 300 -foot setback, -recognize that this cancellation isnot likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Mr. Breedon reported back to the Committee that the letter requesting non -renewal of the Contract was dated September 7, 2003. He said the request was sent to the Board of Supervisors which the Board acknowledges and then the Notice is recorded. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 in Page 8 ■ Chairman Christopher asked how a non -renewal was handled in the past. ' Mr. Breedon said that basically a member of the public provides a Notice of Non -Renewal 90 days prior to the contract's anniversary date. He said the department then prepares the Notice of Non - Renewal which will be recorded. He said no later than 20 days after the department receives the Notice of Non -Renewal, the Clerk of the Board shal l record with the County Recorder a copy of the Notice of Non -Renewal. Mr. Holland said the 20 days did not occur in this case. He said the letter did not get to the Assessor's Office and since it did not get to the Assessor, they do not know whether to establish non- renewal calculations. Chairman Christopher asked if there was some law, State law, Government Code, etc., that tells us in black and white a procedure different than what the department has been following. Mf. --MacKenzie -said, that -in -the-evidence -code there-is'a-section 'called "Service •by -Mail" which Qm anslia`tyouu.are deemed served 5 days after -someone -mails .you a.letter.f Finding #I — vote. Chairman Christopher recapped that a letter was received 9/7/03, that was more than 90 days less than the contract date in December. I`trwas-moved.byMr: Connell; seconded;by`-Vlr_Price; and'carried:to�find:that the cancellation is for land- on= KicfT.TNotice-of Non-Renewal,has been served. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED:" Chairman Christopher Finding #3= o ee It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to find that cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or County General Plan, AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Ei� nding.#4 .vote It was moved by Mr. Price, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried to find that cancellation will not result in, discontinuous patterns of urban development. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 9 ■ ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Findings under Public Interest. (Finding #1 — Vote --- It was ote It_was moved by -Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors .firid thatother:public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher CcFinding #2'= Vote A It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to recommend that the Board of (Supervisors find that there is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable j�for the proposed use, or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous Lpatters of urban development (GC 551282(c)) as above under 45 finding. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher It was also moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried that the Committee recognize September 7, 2003, as the application date. Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee discussed the fair market value by the Assessor's Office. He said he did not want the applicant's representatives to leave this room today thinking that there is an appeal to that decision. He said there may not be an appeal process because this is a contractual situation. Mr. Lewis asked what the fees were based on, the 2012 or the 2013 dates as the final date. Mr. Holland explained that the difference in one year would not affect the evaluation. BREAK - 11:25 to :11:35 a.m. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 10 ■ DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF CONSE-RVATION S T A T E O April 26, 2004 Mr. Dan Breedon, Principal Planner F C A L I F O R'N I A Butte County Dept. of Developmental Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 BUTTE COUNTY APR 2 8 2n04 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 801 K STREET SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA RE: Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement; 95814 APN 047-260-199, Landowner: Evelyn Lipti ap PHONE 916/324-0850 Dear Mr. Breedon: FAX 916/327-3430 Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the above INTERNET conSrv.ca.9ov referenced matter. :R:YMDAVI The.petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on s approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres, ,currently planted with GOVERNOR productive walnut trees.; 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 landowner entered into the land conservation agreement with Butte County on December 22, 1999. The subject site is located east of Highway 99, north of Wilson Landing Road in Butte County. Cancellation Findings The applicable Williamson Act contract (Section VII, page 3) provides that tentative approval for cancellation may be granted -only if the Board makes both of the following findings: 1) cancellation is consistent with 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 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 25% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code §51283, and one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124." We request a 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 the petition for cancellation and information provided and provides the following comments. Cancellation is Consistent with the Purposes of the Williamson Act For the cancellation to be consistent with purposes of the Williamson Act, the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board) must make findings with respect to all of the following: 1) a notice of nonrenewal has been served, 2) removal of adjacent land from agricultural use is unlikely, 3) the alternative use is consistent with the County's General Plan, 4) discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result, and 5) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns 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 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 be the preferable method of contract termination for the Department. The subject parcel is contiguous to existing one acre rural ranchette development to the east on approximately 50 acres of land formerly owned by Ms. Liptrap. The Guernsey subdivision is proposed on 50 acres adjacent to the south. A request for a 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 Mr. Dan Breedon • April 26, 2004 Page 3of4 for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to the east and south. The Department agrees that development of the subject parcel will not result in a discontiguous pattern of urban development. Evidence to substantiate a finding that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land does not appear adequate. In reviewing the County's Williamson Act map and the North Chico Specific Plan there appears to be noncontracted land within the Plan available and zoned for residential use. These noncontracted lands are contiguous to existing urban development and lie to the north of the subject site and southeast of Mudd Creek. However, sinee the Liptrap property is adjacent to similarly developed property to the east and southeast, and the Guernsey property to the south is scheduled for 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 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 all of the following: (1) other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. Our comments have already addressed the second finding required under public interest finding above. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and Government Code §51252. To pass constitutional muster, a restriction must be enforceable in the face of imminent urban development, and may not be terminable merely because such development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. (Lewis v. 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 contract cancellation serves the public interest because the developer offers Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Road thereby providing a more direct route for emergency vehicles. Any decision to cancel a land conservation contract based upon a finding that the continued restricted use is contrary to the public interest must also investigate the Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 4 of 4 criteria used for originally restricting a landowner's use of the land and allowing for a preferential tax assessment on behalf of the public interest. In enacting the Williamson Act, the Legislature deliberately required a landowner's long-term commitment to agriculture or other open -space use in exchange for preferential taxation. The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 and the County`arid the landowner eniered 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 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restriction to 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 Board may have sufficient supporting evidence for making the required findings. Please provide our office with a copy of the Notice of the Public Hearing on this matter ten (10) working days before the hearing and a copy of the published notice of the Board's decision within 30 days of the tentative cancellation pursuant to section 51284. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associate Environmental Planner at (916) 324-0869. Sincerely, C)� _94t,_� Dennis J. O'Bryant Acting Assistant Director Butte County Department of Development Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538.7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * CIS * PLANNING Date: April 7, 2005 To: Responsible and Trustee Agencies Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT - To Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for an Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (CANC 04-02) The Butte County Planning Division has completed an Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality . Act (CEQA), of potential environmental consequences anticipated in connection with the above-mentioned project, a copy of which is enclosed. This letter serves as a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow responsible and. trustee agencies a 30 -day review period in accordance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Please review the enclosed Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. This review should focus on your agency's area of expertise and jurisdiction. Any comments must be sent to the.above address on or prior to May 16, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed environmental document, please contact Dan Breedon at 530-538-7629, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. S' e , Dan Breedon Principal Planner cc: IDR Committee Members (via email) City of Chico CalTrans K:\Planning\PROJECTS\LCA\liptrap\Neg Dec Cover Letter.doc DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) r DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY FOR Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION A. Annlicant/Owner: Evelyn Liptrap B. Staff Contact: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner, dbreedona buttecounty.net, 530-538-7629. C. Proiect Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract D. Proiect Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Gamer Lane, and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. E. Tyne of Application: Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract F. Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199 G. Proiect Site Size: 52.72 acres . H. Current Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels); OS (Open Space) I. General Plan Designation: AR (Agricultural Residential) J. Environmental Setting: The property is currently developed with a walnut orchard. There are no other improvements. The terrain is flat, with no defined drainage courses. The property is located within the North Chico Specific Plan. The western portion of the property fronts on SR -99. A county designated arterial, Kittyhawk Drive, _would be developed along the properties south boundary from Hicks Lane to SR -99. The propertyis shown to be in a 100 year flood zone. K. Surrounding Land Uses: The property's west boundary fronts on Sk-99. A residential subdivision (Autumn Park) is located adjacent to the east. Other undeveloped lands lie to the north and south. L. Proiect Description: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. A Tentative Subdivision Map (Kittyhawk Park) has been submitted concurrently proposing to create 48, 1 -acre single family residential parcels. The Tentative Map application is currently considered incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts associated with the cancellation, but also discloses impacts that could be related to the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision. Note: This project has been reviewed for consistency with the Adopted North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) goals and polices and will utilize the adopted Certified Environmental Impact Report (CEIR) prepared for the plan as the basic environmental document. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. These documents were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March of 1995. Pursuant to Government Code Section 21083.3, if an EIR has been certified for the adoption of a Specific Plan, the application of CEQA shall be limited to in Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 1 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior CEIR. M. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Development Services Department, Butte County Environmental Health Department, Butte County Public Works Department, Butte County Fire Department, and Butte County Air Quality Management District. 2.0 DETERNUNATION [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be, prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find .that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the. effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. it Prepared by: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Stephen Streeter, Planning Manager Date � ? US Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] 4.1 Aesthetics [ ] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4.3 Air Quality [ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [X] 4.5 Cultural Resources [X] 4.6 Geologic Processes [ ] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [X] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use [ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing [ ] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportation/Traffic [ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has'. determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, ,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 AESTHETIGVISUAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views X in the area? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The project is not located in an area considered to be a scenic vista, scenic highway or other special scenic feature. Visual Resource impacts are discussed within the CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan indicates that project elements of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) mitigate impacts to visual resources. These project elements include the provision of open space corridors/buffers throughout the plan area and the inclusion of design standards in the Specific Plan that address issues of building size, mass, design, ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) landscaping and other design components, as well as road standards, to help achieve development scale and appearance that blends with and contributes to the existing rural quality of the area. The proposed 48 lot residential subdivision would have light and glare impacts that are similar to the existing 1 -acre parcels located within the Autumn Park Subdivision adjacent to the east, and other land uses that are permitted in this area under the applicable SR -1 zoning. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproposal: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the X California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Impact Discussion: a. The Immediate Cancellation proposed would result in the conversion of farmland since the current walnut orchard would become available for the development of 1 -acre lots upon removal of the Williamson Act Contract, as proposed under the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision application. However, the North Chico Specific Plan has designated this area for residential development at a 1 -acre density. This property is located in an area that has been designated by the County General Plan for urban uses not agricultural uses. The CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the impact of the North Chico Specific Plan on agricultural land uses. The CEIR noted that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 475 acres of agricultural lands. However, because 213 acres of these soils are not considered prime agricultural soils and because the remaining 262 acres are substantially in conflict with adjacent residential development, and are located on the urban side of the Greenline, this is considered a less -than -significant impact. The CEIR further explains that the County's existing Greenline Policy establishes SR -99 as the boundary between urban/suburban to the east and agricultural to the west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use, and no impact would is anticipated. b. The approval of the Immediate Cancellation would remove the Williamson Act contract. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the findings required under the Government Code (Williamson Act) and has made a recommendation that the findings can be made in this instance. The Committee reviewed the impact of the Immediate Cancellation on surrounding Williamson Act Contracts and agricultural land and determined that the cancellation would not have a negative influence on these lands. C. See item a. above. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Impact Discussion: Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment" if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM,o). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Butte County Air Quality Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate air quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the NCSP. These mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #1 —Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 2. All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map showing the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. Timing: The landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final Map, whichever comes first. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavation and Construction Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation." 4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). 5. Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity: a.. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. ,Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or X X regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X X regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree X X reservation 2olicy ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X X conservationplan? G A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, X X threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, X X amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? X X J . Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? X X k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could X X hinder the normal activities of wildlife? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map which has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted with respect to the presence of sensitive plants and animals and their habitats. According to the Natural Diversity Data Base, the project is not located in an area considered to contain these resources. GIS land coverage data supplied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention shows that the project site is designated as "Agriculture", not as any viable habitat type. The CEIR of the NCSP was also consulted concerning this project area. Figure 6-1 of the CEIR for the NCSP shows that orchards are the predominant vegetation type in this area. As described in the Project Setting section of this Initial Study, walnut orchards continue to occupy the subject property. The CEIR indicates that orchards are of little direct value to native biological resources other than insects, because agricultural practices keep plant species diversity to a minimum, and little nesting or foraging habitat is available to wildlife. Some of the species that can take advantage of agricultural habitats provided in the Plan area are deleterious to productivity and are consequently discouraged and/or prevented from foraging there. The CEIR also states that orchards can play a role in providing a lot -disturbance buffer between developed areas and biologically rich riparian habitat that is present in some locations of the Plan area. In the case of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map there are no riparian resources present. The CEIR indicates that there are several areas of potential impacts to biological resources as a result of NCSP implementation, such as impacts to riparian resources, vernal pools and other ephemeral wetlands; disturbance to nesting areas of the black -shouldered kite and burrowing owl; California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern; loss of foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk, disturbance/removal of habitat used by the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle; and, disturbance to special status plants in the Plan area. The CEIR indicates that the NCSP contains many project elements that mitigate these impacts to levels of insignificance. There are impacts for which the CEIR recommends further mitigation, but the resources that these mitigations are for are not located on the subject property. Specifically, the CEIR requires Army Corps permits for impacts to wetlands. In the case of the subject property no Corps Permit is required because CEIR Figure 6.2 Wetland Resources does not identify any wetland resources in the project area. Pre - construction surveys are recommended for the presence of the black -shouldered kite. In the case of the subject property no pre -construction survey is recommended because CEIR Figure 6.1 shows that the property is not located near any trees known to. be active black -shouldered kite habitat. Comprehensive rare plant surveys are recommended on all land designated for development. In the case of the subject property no rare plant surveys are recommended since this property is developed with an orchard, a vegetation type and use that preclude the presence of rare plants, due to the amount of disturbance associated with this agricultural activity as explained above. The design of the proposed project will not cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and a "de minimis" exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat is recommended. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5, is not required at this time. The project site is not known to contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: P P Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. The NCSP CEIR indicates that the highest sensitivity areas within the Plan area are lands located within 100 to 200 feet from stream courses. A majority of these areas are already afforded protection by the 100 foot no -development setback required along Keefer Slough. The subject property is not located near any of these areas. Approval of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Immediate Cancellation would not result in an impact to archaeological resources identified by the CEIR (CEIR Figure 7-1). However, this finding does not necessarily preclude the presence of archaeological resources that may be buried and would only be uncovered during construction work and land clearing. For this reason, a mitigation measure has been set forth below that requires construction activity to cease if cultural resources are uncovered and that the area of the find be protected from further disturbance until a professional archaeologist determines the significance of the find and makes recommendations for mitigation. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine 'appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ . Page 12 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant -Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the X State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral X spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal X or waste water? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault, located approximately 32 miles from the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975, resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill, approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. In the northwest corner of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 6.9 in the area in 1892. There is some speculation as to the exact location of the historic earthquake epicenters and some question if they actually occurred on the Midland-Sweitzer fault (Butte County, 1977). The Butte County GIS Fault Lines theme shows that a possible fault with activity unknown is located approximately 1.4 miles to the east of the project site. This fault is a part of the Foothill Shear Zone and has not experienced any known movement during historical times. No impacts are anticipated since no rupture of a known earthquake fault exists in the project area. Like most of central California, the site is expected to be subjected to seismic ground shaking at some future time. Accordingly, all buildings, pipes, light poles, roadways, and other improvements would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building requirements. Because the project appears to be located such that the probability of significant ground shaking is low, and because the structures would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code standards for the appropriate Seismic Hazard Zone, potential geologic impacts would be less than significant. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a moderate potential for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map also indicates that the property is located within an area of heavy groundwater withdrawal and is a potential subsidence area. Although so designated, this designation is general in nature, and is applicable to virtually all of the Central Valley area of Butte. County. Although subsidence is a problem in all of the Central Valley in California due to groundwater withdrawals for irrigation, there has not been any documented' incident that indicates a specific problem at this location. No impact is anticipated. There is no soil erosion potential for this site, according to Butte County General Plan GIS data. The CEIR for the NCSP indicates that implementation of the NCSP will increase erosion and sediment transport into vicinity creeks and drainages, if proper erosion control measures are not implemented. The NCSP contains policies (Policy 7.2) concerning grading and erosion control. The requirements from this policy that are applicable to this project and is set forth below as a project Mitigation Measure. The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive soil designation. Standard construction practices as required under the Uniform Building Code address the impact of expansive soil on foundations and buildings. No impact is anticipated. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. Mitigation Measure #4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■ I Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review i compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■ , Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 4.7 . HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous X materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people X residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuationplan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or X where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) and is not near any listed sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc.04-02) Mitigation: None required. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. Although the applicant proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley aquifers at this location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production X rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course X of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality? X g Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by Federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood X Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss; injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as X a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. Although the applicant proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley aquifers at this location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) This site is level and the soil type is not prone to erosion. The proposal could, nevertheless, affect surface water quality due to siltation resulting from erosion caused by land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. Mitigation concerning impacts from these development activities has been set forth below. The Butte County Department of Public Works has commented that the project is located within the 100 - year floodplain of Keefer Slough (FEMA Map 06007C0320D, dated April 20, 2000). The Department of Public Works comments that this area has been known to flood more frequently. The project design of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map has the potential to alter the floodplain, subjecting future residents and adjacent property owners to increased flood hazards. The Department of Public Works indicates that the applicant has not provided detailed design information demonstrating that it is feasible to develop within the floodplain, while providing adequate ingress and egress during flood events, and providing suitable building pads above the flood levels, without adversely affecting surrounding properties (Source: Department of Public Works Comments on TSM 04-11, February 25, 2004). In a letter dated December 10, 2004 the applicant indicates that drainage calculations will be provided to the Department of Public Works to address their concerns. No new information has been received at this time. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application also proposes to abandon an existing retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins to handle drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions. Any new storm water retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed and made operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to considering this item as complete. The Environmental Health Division has commented that Lots 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map cannot be approved with the existing (Autumn Park Subdivision) storm drainage basin shown. No residential lots can be shown on this area until the alternative storm drainage basin is approved and functional, and the existing storm drainage basin is abandoned and deemed suitable for residential uses. This item will remain incomplete until the Department of Public Works is satisfied with the drainage plan and alternative drainage is provided for the Autumn Park Subdivision. As discussed within the Project Description section of this Initial Study the Kitty Hawk Park Tentative Map application is considered incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts associated with the cancellation but also discloses impacts that could be related to the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision. Mitigation for flooding and drainage concerning the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map is not provided at this time because the application is considered incomplete. The property is not located in an area prone to mudflows or other natural disasters. No impact would occur with respect to these natural hazards. Mitigation Measure #4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion. of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. ' ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 4.9 LAND USE: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for X the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservationplan? X Impact Discussion: The proposal is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger residential, commercial and industrial developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. The concurrently submitted Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map contemplates development that is consistent with the SR -1 zoning implemented by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. The project does not have the potential to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that the findings required by the Government Code for Immediate Cancellation of this Williamson Act Contract . can be made in this instance. The County Board of Supervisors has not yet taken action on this request. The Board will hear this request after circulation of this Initial Study and taking action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. The proposal will not 'conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state? ' b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.11 NOISE: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other X agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground bome noise levels? X c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without theproject? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working X in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: a. — d. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to the project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that an acceptable outside noise level of 65 decibels CNEL (per the Butte County General Plan) is achieved at a distance of 65 feet from SR -99. The proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any residential development in the area where higher noise levels, exceeding 65 decibels CNEL occur (>160 feet from SR -99). Residential development is proposed to be setback from SR -99 a total distance of at least 300 feet. Therefore residential development within this development would not be subject to noise levels that exceed community standards as provided for in the General Plan. Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. During construction, the highest noise levels would result from operation of power tools, which can be expected to generate noise levels of between 80 to 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Construction activities that would be associated with residential development at the project site would be 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) limited in terms of, duration and do not represent a significant permanent change to the surrounding noise environment. e. - f. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. Airports can be a source of significant noise impacts. However, the project is shown to be well outside the 55 decibel noise contour for -the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map has been found to be consistent with the 2000 ALUCP for the Chico Municipal Airport with no required conditions. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 23 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.12 HOUSING: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ib. necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create housing impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or 1.1% per year. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create 48 parcels and thus has the potential to add an estimated 116 people to Butte County (48 units x 2.414 persons/unit — assuming all occupants are new residents to Butte County). This is not considered significant because this amount is consistent with what is planned by the North Chico Specific Plan for this area. The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in X order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fireprotection? X c. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X L Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impact of increased residential development in the County affects the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a note on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Butte County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, and drainage facilities from development as proposed under the Plan (County Service Area 87). These fees shall be collected at the time of application for building permits on the 48 individual parcels proposed by ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. These fees are intended to off -set impacts to public services from the residential development anticipated by the North Chico Specific Plan. Mitigation: None required. 4.14 RECREATION: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility X would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the X environment? Impact Discussion: a. - b. This project is not large enough to require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code. Impact Fees for recreation would be collected at that time of building permit issuance on each of the 48 individual residential lots within the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision. As a result of the size of the proposal and collection of impact fees no impact to recreational uses is anticipated. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 26 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or X highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: a - g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional traffic from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to connect the existing Kittyhawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Garner Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Chico Specific Plan and would have the potential to enhance circulation to the plan area and provide a needed additional access point to SR -99 for this area. The proposed extension of Kittyhawk Drive would also benefit the proposed Guernsey Subdivision south of and adjacent to this project. The combined traffic impact (97 residential lots with 10 trips per day estimated, equaling 970 potential average daily trips generated) of these subdivisions could nevertheless have impacts to area roads and SR -99. County staff and the California Department of Transportation therefore required the completion of a Traffic Impact Study concerning traffic impacts from these subdivisions, and from the proposed connection of Kittyhawk Drive with SR -99. This study is currently under review as a draft document and is not considered complete at this time. Further environmental review and analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map complete. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 27 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water QualityControl Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could X cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause X significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements X needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and regulations related to solid waste? X Impact Discussion: a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional utility and service system impacts from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park" Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Sewer service is currently not available at this location, and the applicant intends to provide individual on-site septic systems to handle sewage generated by the project. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative- Subdivision Map. As a result, wastewater treatment requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be required. The applicant proposes to provide water service to the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map from the California Water Service Company and no on-site community system or production wells are proposed. The County requires will serve letters guaranteeing service from the California Water Service Company prior to accepting the Subdivision Map as complete. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 28 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application proposes to abandon an existing retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins to handle drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions. Any new storm water retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed and made operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to accepting the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map as complete. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map would increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount. According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The projected capacity of the landfill anticipated the incremental growth represented by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 29 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (SECTION 15065): Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings, either directly or indirectly? a. The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study. b. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures 1-4 as set forth in Section 5. of this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c. The project does not have the potential to have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 30 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. 2. All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map showing the location and species for all the roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. Timing: The landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final Map, whichever comes first. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavation and Construction Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation." 4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). + ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 31 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 5. Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity: a. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional 'archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. Mitigation Measure #4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): 1. The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 32 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in .accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 33 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Association of Governments. Regional Travel Demand Model. Information extracted in personal correspondence with Chris Devine of the Butte County Association of Governments staff. December 4, 2001. 2. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. .67- 178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning; 1983. 4. Butte County.Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County GIS Data. Oroville, CA: November 2001. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Environmental Checklist Form Evaluation of Environmental Impact. File Number 93-15. Oroville, CA: February 8, 1993. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential. Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. . t 4 9. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 10. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 11. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. r 12. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 13. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 14. Butte County Planning Department. School District Man. Oroville, CA. 15. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 16. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 2000 All Traffic Volumes on California State Highway System. 2001. 17. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 1998 Truck Volumes on California State Highway System. 1998. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 34 ■ Project Name: Liptrap"Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 18. California Department of Transportation; Traffic Operations Division. 1998 All Traffic Volumes on California State Highway System. 1998. 19. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Mans. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 20. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 21. USGS Quad Maps. Additional Reference Material: 1. Butte County Planning Division. Certified Environmental Impact Report for the North Chico Specific Plan. Oroville, CA: Heritage Partners, March, 28 1995. 2. Butte County Planning.Division. North Chico Specific Plan. Oroville, CA: Heritage Partners, March 28, 1995. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 35 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: [X] Environmental Health [X] Public Works IN Building Manager [ ] BCAG [X] ALUC [X] LAFCo [X] Assessor [X] Development Services [ ] Chico Unified School Distr. . [X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [X] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs [ ] City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise [ ], CA Department of Forestry [X] Caltrans (Traffic) [X] Central Reg. Water Quality [ ] Department of Conservation [ ] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol [ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] US Fish & Wildlife Service [X] Agricultural Commissioner [ ] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ } Oroville Union School Dist. [ ] Feather River Rec. Dist. [ ] El Medio Fire Dept. [ ] OWID [ ] LOAPUD [ ] PG&E [ ] Pacific Bell [ ] Palermo Union School Dist. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division i Page 36 0 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 8.0 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION . INTO PROPOSED PROJECT: I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for the Liptrap Immediate Cancllation of Williamson Act Contract (File #CANC 04-02, APN # 047-260-197, -199) application and particularly the mitigation measure identified herein. I/We hereby modify the application on file with the Butte County Planning Department to include d incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study. rod Spon r/Project Agent Date J Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 37 ■ i A APN 047-440-013 100' HWY 99 ROW 135' OPEN SPACE` AND STORM DRAIN DETENTION BASIN N OTFS: 9.50. 376.97 26 0 6.44' 254.00' No O APN 047-440-012 PHASE II PHASE I EXISTING WELL TO o i 27 3.37' E ABANDONED "' - - - - - -1 81.0 0 � g1 .5 0 _ _ - - - - - - = f ` - - 2750.9 ' - __t)0_ 271.-44T 19 E _ - , 71.' 270.91 71.44 2 1 � 244 M o o � APN 047-680-031 b'2 o0 13 0 I 00 _ FEM A _ ,Cpj 0 8 1`- 1.00 AC 1.00 AC 1.00 c � 1.00 AC J .- 1.06 AC =50.00 -'�- =24 38' 1.00 AC � _24.38', 1.00 AC 1.00 AC s ^ 1.00 A (0.97 AC) n (0.97 AC) (0.9 ) (0.97 A) ��, I BOUN GARY r (0.95 AC) I R=30.00' 0.84 AC) d 30.00 (p,$9 AC) (0.97 AC) 0 (0.97 AC\ w O L_4.910,�,� LQo =33.622', ��= O 23� ,g 2 X82' '-'- '�� 8� 60 00 246.13'R -30-p 9.47' _30.0 �� - - - - �\ 56' 023, g2,` '-6'� 2�� a1 nj 82�� '� �,� 2�� �0 120 O / R=30.00' \ \�O, N 00'17_'59" 4 3.81 f� =50.00' R=50.00 1 11 ;r, ZONE DING '�\ STREET " R=50.00 1 � - � 19 � �' � � � I .KE 65 BUIL STR 30 - 0.00 © M 1. 0 AC _ N AREA \ TI -7.9-4 - o fi rn 1.00 AC � 1.00 A6 `-�� 1 AC co o A / �. EXCLUSIO -^� 1. 0 AC y�^ 1.00 AC o 1.00 AC ( ) ( ) , (0 ) N O L=60 63 L 6.22', �=U 00 o (0.91 AC) N 91 AC) 0.91 AC N 0.91 AC L= 4.40 L=24.40 r.. / `\ R=30.00' R O.00C cv (0.9 AC) 00 - {� . } t=�s.22 L=24.40 R=30.00' O xr,n. 1.07 AC L=24.40 ? L=24.40 , R=3 00 n 00 I z R=30.00 i� L=24.40 �j ' cfl R=30.00 op \ N ' o co R=30.00 S R-30.00 I i cp (1.00 AC), � 36 R=30.00 MI r7 0 `� � �. 41 I 246.17 cL T Q 35 a I �l 00 P.U.E� N' O o 1.00 AC o 246.17' 246. �I �I 'n 246.17 246.17 CQS c9y.a ` TYP �\ 1.00 AC r I ( ) 246.7 1' d - 'w;. �\ \\ (0.75 AC) 0.91 Ac i I I ��.u.E i PN 0 -680-032 r. ?k ,' �. /' 4 oa 80.00- I LL I I I OQ I I 10 cS' 7 r \ 150.23' 220.56' 31 © 1n �� Q3 �I CD I 8 15 I = j 1.00 AC O � 1.0 AC \ tS` 1 J 159.98' o Lo I- I c`on cO 1.00 AC �I rzo 1.00 C o 1.00 AC co id .91 AC) Qo ,., ) \ \ CSS I � W p 1.0 AC O O I c3 11- cfl / cD ' : (0.94 AC Q 1.00 AC co 0.91 A 1 (o 0 0 ( 0.91 AC O o Lo co 0.91 AC ( ) cn ���- _F�� \ 0 ��, (0.91 Ac) I t� I� (0.91 ) � ( > �I w � � �, w I / j \ O 0 � I a, LL I Lo W 10' RUE 1 �- I � I � � 46.17' I � � - - - ::�;: tit 34 33 15` O (n I 1 246.17 I CA 246.17' o O 246., 7 I � I S p \ _ rn� O I 246.17 B M O 246.17 0 \ \ 1.00 AC 1.00 AC r� I Z I I I B C- I O L O 9 (0.82 AC) (0.91 AC) � �; B 1nl L 17 16 ,n h / - ,, N N Q C I I cj coI O ,Lo �, Lo ZI �° 1.00 AC ` in io ori 1.00 A C gyri ;o �I I I 1.00 AC I I (0.76 AC) / \ 1. 0 AC cq I 1.00 C cQ 1.00 A oI Z I� o C° I I ori (0.76 AC) (0.76 A C) I L=4"7.12 , cm 1 M (0. 6 AC) 0 (Q.76 AC M (0.76 AC) _47.12' L=4 2' L= .129 R=30.00 �/ L=2. , L=47.12 �I I� L=47.12, B _ R=30. R=3 0 6' �� APN 047-470-039 R- 0.00 216.17 - - - - - 58.Q , � . � � P � O s �. ss. R=30. � R=30.00 =30.00 ' _ _ - -216.17 �� � o�• -- 216.17 _-- --- 216.17--- -� �--- --- ---- �- ' \`off \ •�O' - 155. 3 - - - - - 216. 7 - - - 24.38, \ �Z o 6' 1684.1 ' _ 10' P.U. R=30.00 X0.00 �1 N 89 4 TYP rn G t9t� 135' OPEN SPACE` AND STORM DRAIN DETENTION BASIN PORTION OF 60' EXISTING ROW TO BE ABANDONED NOT A PART APN 047-280-198 / BUILDING 5gg5.88 o ---- --- --- --� Lo , 65' BUILD _ _ _ _ - - 100.00 ., EXCLUSION AREA �20.0 fb�0�' 100.00 130.00 130.00 r 130 0 j - 95 100,02 100.0 130.00 130.00 L_47 12 L=47.12' 0 rr , , , i r "- 1.kw =47.12 U7 L=47.12, R=30.00 R=30.00' O B R=30.00 I O O/ �1 Cj r / j/ O i� , I I =30.00 i � I � � �� /�,r/ ii / % �, z _ AC L_14.36' I �j Q I 45 46 ® O 48 _ �sQ - � aol I I- O oo (;9 / / 1.25 AC 43 -200.00' I I _ O 1.00 AC 00 AC oo 1.00 AC 0 1.19 AC o m (0 1. 6 AC o 1.0 0 1.00 C 1.0 ( ) o d 1.1 AC co 1.00 AC _ , o o o (0.69 A � (0.69 1.13 AC N 44 ;�) W I- 0 0.69 AC 9 AC) o (0. AC) o (0.69 AC) M {0.68 AC )rl W Io {0.7 jAC) o {0.69 0 / 4:Y % r % 047-470-04C {1.07 AC)'-' 1.2 AC to � W � (0.68 AC) o ( ) o �Q r,,� � N � I � W I r-- d� c" N N r�� �� / // � /� � � �j '`IAP N N 0.7 AC I Lu ( / / I-- t - I I L=47.12 O A /� > /, %!i r _ (� _ L=47.12, x-11-- _ �/ / �/ , L-44. L-47.1 =30.00 / z :g. 0 - I I� I R=30.0 R=30.00 co l 130. R-30.0 O / 100.00 - 130.00 O 130.00 - 130.00- - _ 130.00- - -100_00 J O - - - ! rir /4e0o O __ 10Q.Q9_ ----- _ ------ ------ - ------- / / � ----- --- ��----ap-�uE----- -� , TYP ";�n�;ti'�, w`'�\\,,,,,<,,. ,�g6,38 / - - DRI VE �� K I TTY A WK _ - - - - �r},� 20 q - EXI TI GSTORM DR - --- PHASE II PHASE f l - / g9 37 19 E P ADDITIONAL I I (2743.371 � BA IN T BE RELOCATED o� N / 60' LOTS 25 THRU 48 LOTS 1 THRU 24 'ROW - - ADJA TENT TO HWY 9 EXISTING � �-- `� DRIVE ROW PER BK 149 I I ---- 1 F ---- PROPOSED KITTYHAWK DR OF MAPS, PG 67 ZONE DONE �TO CONNECT TO HWY 99 PER I I I A X I I GUERNSEY TENTATIVE APN 047-280-198 - _ I 1.) ZONING: SR -1 2,) TOTAL AREA: 52.72 ACRES 3.) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS: 48 4.) EXISTING LAND USE: AGRICULTURAL PROPOSED LAND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 5.) SERVICES PROVIDED: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAS &ELECTRIC TELEPHONE: SBC SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK AND LEACH FIELDS WATER: CAL WATER STORM DRAINAGE: THE EXISTING STORM DRAIN RETENTION BASIN WILL, BE RELOCATED ADJACENT TO HWY 99. THE BASIN', WILL BE INCREASED IN SIZE TO ACCOMODATE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. LEACH TRENCHES WITH PERFORATED PIPE ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY WILL BE USED FOR CONVEYANCE OF STORM WATER TO THE RETENTION BASIN. L0: C: /Land Projects 2004/1082-NICOLAUS-LIPTRAP/dwq/1082-TM.dw X LOCATION MAP NTS SCALE 1 "=1 00' SUtsUlvi�iviv mHr PROPOSED ENTRIES FORKITTYHAWK 1'A RK I P-rFt\in• GUSUBDIVSIONERNSEY NTAATP E VES TING- TENTATIVE BOUNDARY - - ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES -------------- E XISTING FENCE LINE ---x --_x ---x - BUILDING' SETBACK LINE - CENTERLINE - - EASEMENT LINE -------------- FEMA BOUNDARY LINE -------- PHASE LINE LOT NUMBER 36 GROSS ACREAGE 1.00 AC NET ACREAGE (0.71 AC) SECTION A- A KJ TYHAWK DRIVE ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV 'WITH BIKE PATH 6' 1 12' 1 12' SEC77ON C --C STREETS D, G, E, F, + H LOCAL TYPE L -V NO SCALE NO SCALE H 14' 1 6' SEC77ON B - -B STREETS .A, B, + C LOCAL TYPE L -III NO &CALE SUBDIVISION MAP (PUBLIC STREET SUBDIVISION) A PORTION OF OF REMAINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE II, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS AT PAGES 73-75. LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, M.D.B. & M. COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TOTAL AREA 52.72 ACRES APN.• 047-260-197 & 047-260-199 FOR EVELYN C. LIPTRAP 331 WALL STREET CHICO, CA 95926 BY THE ENGINEERING GROUP ROBERT J. FEENEY, RCE #22972 1250 EAST AVENUE SUITE 10 CHICO, CA 95926 PH. • (530) 899-0409 FAX.• (530) 899-0943 OCTOBER 11, 2001 SHEET 1 OF 1 APN 047-440-013 \j6' , 2 100'/X HWY 99 o ROW APN 047-440-012 PHASE II - PHASE I EXISTING WELL TO o i - 27 3.37' _ _ E ABANDONED r - 8 l . 0 0 • �JO - - - - 71.44' 270.91 -� 271.44 1 \ 19 E 2 -1, g 271.44' 270.91 U, APN 047-680-031 __S7_6_.97 , - - 6.44' 254.00' a, %8 13 O O 1 ao 26. 0 , - 2 21 � °° Uj �i FEMA O 135' OPEN SPACE \ 00 AND STORM DRAIN •��� DETENTION BASIN g�, 38 - 0 �cQ� �.00$ �� 1.0o Ac 1.0o Ac = (0. 0 AC) ~ �(0 97 AC) 7�p I BOUN ARY '� 8 1.00 AC M 1.00 AC 0.97 ACO 1.06 AC =50.00 , 1.00 AC E:30_ S (0.97 AC) ( ) 6 0.95 AC) I R=30.00' 0.84 AC) - 30.00 (p•gg AC) (0.97 AC) O (0.97 AC\ �` O L=4.91' ,�,� L=33.62; C ��� O 23> ,g 2 X 82, s-- �� a� 00 co00 ,R=30.00=30.00�� ' - - - - 23� 'I $� 82 '�� ---6 23� ,�c (� 246.13 --- \ O 82• -6'� 2� N �'�` O �Y 0- L=19.47 , 120.56 O �� 0 R=30.00 \ '�O N 00 17 59 4 3.81 ,�, R=So. o' 1 rn ZONE ONE >> - » R=50.00' 1 - =50.00' 19 M 6 '� 1. 01AC °' I A 65' BUILDING ,�\ STREET - _ 30 - 0.00 © M © '� 1.00 AC °' 1.00 APO ��� AC o -/ ` rn fi _EXCLUSION AREA •�\ -g4'- - - ^ °' ��' " YJ` 1.00 AC o J 1.00 AC L=24.40' (o. 1 ) N O 40 L=60.63; L 6.22, �_�� o0 1.d0 AC 0.91 AC) N 91 AC) {0.91 AC) o (0.91 AC L= 4.40 0 \ R=30.00 R 0.00 , L=16.22 N (0.9 AC) 00 _ ( / L=24.40' L=24.40; L_24.40, R=3 00' ;°L � I R=30.00 Q 1.07 AC \ G R=30.00 O N L=24.40, o R=30.00' s R=30.00 cOI " I R-30.00 a0 1.00 AC , 36 R=30.00 r� O 4 d , 246.17 ( , \'sr O r I ¢I I 246.17' �I 0.7 35 o d 246.17 61 1.00 AC �I I I� 246.17' 246. �I PN Is 0 680-032 { aV 225' TYP �� 1.00 AC (0.91 AC) 246. 7' I �g' u.E I I I ,zy7.;. •�\ \ (0.75 AC) i I I jJ O i i 10 �cS' oa 4 0.00 I I O LoLo 150.23' 220.56' 31 6 CA �3 �I O I $ 0 15 _ I = 1.00 AC O co /�/ 1.0 AC \ cS` 1 159.98 0 0 �nl I- I`r'to - col rLo 1.00 C o 1.00 AC " .91 AC) / 00 0.94 AC O 1.00 AC �I - ic° 1.0 AC o Q 1.00 AC o I� �i ( ) \ \ �O rn W o O to (0.91 A 0.91 cD O (0.91 AC) 1 �� (0.91 AC) of ��W I� ( ) (0.91 AC) 01 W to �1 0Ld W O I I W 1 CA 246.17' to' P.u.E'I 0 I Lo I 246.17' 46.17' I t� - - - _ - - /� ��:���:�;�-,r. B � - '•`� O 246.17' TYP O I 246.17' 246.17 1 � I • � N /��� / i y \ V 1.00 AC 1.00 AC I I I :- I C I O L O. 0.82 AC z B z,► L B 16 u ( ) (0.91 AC) 3 I I C rJ ca O ,n 17 in �I ZI l0 1.00 AC tr.. N O A \ N inl �n 0 �ri� ( I 1.00 AC `� 1.00 AC I h (0.76 AC) a '` \ (p 1.00 A of z I 1. 0 AC A I l0 1.00 C L � ,(OJ6 AC) (0..76 AC) I L=47.12', m I i \ \ Lo (0. 6 AC) o Q 76 AC to (0.76 AC) L= .12', r R=30.00 �� � QOM P M ( p -47.12 L=4.2 R=3 0 � �IAPN 047-470-039 \\J ! L_ 2 L= 47.12 .-I I L _ 47.12 [ - p--� �J > .� ss_ R-30. 17• - 216.17 - R= 0.00 R=30. - - -216 17 - - \ X58.06 24.38' �� -- R=30.00' =30.00'216. ---- -- \ \S 216. 7 -, 155. 3' - --� '- ' 2 ..,o\ \� 00 - - - - - - - - - - 16 84.1 _ 10' Rut- - R=30.00' 60-00'- '5r- ��1 N89 4 1,17 - - - TYP U, gq •5 6' -A G t9� 135' OPEN SPACE` AND STORM DRAIN DETENTION BASIN PORTION OF 60' EXISTING ROW TO BE ABANDONED NOT A PART APN 047-280-198 oo•� 0,S 95.88 - - _ - - I N 65' BUILDING � 9 - - - - - - 1 / � �'o- STREET C _ _ _ _ _ - -; - - - - - -r - - - - - - - 1 0.0 i�(�0� O 100.00 130.00 T 30.00' 130 0 100.60 � t� EXCLUSION AREA �joo. - g5.66T - ; X00.00'- 100.0 130.00 130.00 L=47.12' L=47.12 - � L=30.00' i O R=30.00' 00 j �/ %,.�7Z �/ L-47. 2-L-47.12 R /��b� / / , //// O =30.00 B I / /�/ ; i z R=30.00I O I I �'`�I � � / ��� ���� //�%�,��;/1 / rC O S 3 // /, � AC L=14.36 4 48 1 2 0 /� 0 O . 0 1 I -/ /� i I I 46 0 00 0o1.0 =200.00 Q 45 � o m °° 1. s Ac 1.0 • � 1.00 c � / 4 (1.25 AC), 43 I I C � 1.00 AC 00 AC o 1.00 AC 1.19 AC of I o o 0 0.69 A o 0.69 ' v C 1.1 AC co 1.00 A o o W " 0 0.7 AC) o (0.69 0 ( ( / rn N 44 i�l " o QO , 9 AC) (0. Al) 0 (0.69 AC) 0 {0.68 AC),I (n ( M 1.13 AC �n W 1- 0.68 AC o (0.69 AC) o o M M F- .- N '`� /�/ / / , - ( ) N cA N N / / - 04C o M I :/, / PN 047 470 1.07 AC � 1.2 AC col W � M O N I W � // / /j, �/ � ,A r 04 (0.7 �,41 u7W = 47.12 I I 'F `- � L 1\ � I L= 47120 L-471 -30. 00, Dra _321 Ll LOCATION MAP ry L=44. - R=30.00 (n z n 9. R=30.0 I I(n I R=30.0100_00' O l/` _ 100.00'- 130.00- 1 �� - -130. O . 9 10.00 - - 130.00'3�.Oo O Q O ---- ��• - - 104 QQ -- - - z --------- ----------��----ap' �uE------- _ 1 - % _ .x R I V E KITTY A WK _ - - / - - - - - -•�-- - - - - - ,,} - 20' . 37 SCALE EXI TI G STORM DRA� - A 2 7 4 3 -�' ' " PHASE II PHASE I 1 BA 1N1 T BE RELOCATED �0 N 89 37 19 E ADDITIONAL i EXISTING 60 LOTS 25 THRU 48 LOTS 1 THRU 24 ROW ( t� - - ADlA - ENIT TO HWY 9 t - - - - � �ROW PER BK 149 - PROPOSED KITTYHAWK DRIVE PG 67 I� ZONE - ONE i � �OF MAPS, TO CONNECT TO HWY 99 PER � I � A X ( I APN 047-280-198 I GUERNSEY TENTATIVE I I ii- - - - i I NOTES: 1.) ZONING: SR -1 2,) TOTAL AREA: 52.72 ACRES 3.) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS: 48 4.) EXISTING LAND USE: AGRICULTURAL PROPOSED LAND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 5.) SERVICES PROVIDED: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAS &ELECTRIC TELEPHONE: -SBC SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK AND LEACH FIELDS WATER: CAL WATER STORM DRAINAGE: THE EXISTING STORM DRAIN RETENTION BASIN WILL. BE RELOCATED ADJACENT TO HWY 99. THE BASIN WILL BE INCREASED IN SIZE TO ACCOMODATE THE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. LEACH TRENCHES WITH PERFORATED PIPE ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY WILL BE USED FOR CONVEYANCE OF STORM WATEIR TO THE RETENTION BASIN. 0: C: /Land Projects 2004/1082-NICOLAUS-LIPTRAP/dwq/1082-TM.dw 0 NTS 1"_100, SUBDIVISION MAP PROPOSED ENTRIES FOR KITTYHAWK PARK LEGEND: BOUNDARY ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES EXISTING FENCE LINE BUILDING SETBACK LINE CENTERLINE EASEMENT LINE FEMA BOUNDARY LINE PHASE LINE LOT NUMBER GROSS ACREAGE NET ACREAGE �GUERNSEY TENTATIVE VESTING. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SUBDIVISION MAP ' 1 12' 51 SECnON A- A KITTYHAWK DRIVE ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV WITH BIKE PATH NO SCALE SEC77ON C --C S7REETS D, G, E, F, + H LOCAL TYPE L -V NO SCALE 14' ' 1 6' SEC77ON B - -B STREETS A, B, f C LOCAL TYPE L -III NO SCALE (PUBLIC STREET SUBDIVISION) A PORTION OF OF REMAINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE II, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS AT PAGES 73-75. LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, M.D.B. & M. COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TOTAL AREA 52.72 ACRES APN. 047-260-197 & 047-260-199 FOR EVELYN C. LIPTRAP 331 WALL STREET CHICO, CA 95926 BY THE ENGINEERING GROUP ROBERT J. FEENEY, RCE #22972 1250 EAST AVENUE SUITE 10 CHICO, CA 95926 PH. • (530) 899-0409 FAX (530) 899-0943 OCTOBER 11, 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1