The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About047-260-199 (2)13 Tr Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services oo Tim:Snellings, Director www.buttecoutnty•netldds o. 1 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 cOUN'�y (530) 538.7601 Telephone (530) 538.7785 Facsimile LAND CONSERVATION ACT COMMITTEE. AGENDA - JANUARY 11, 2006 t - TIME: 2:00 p.m. - PLACE: ' ' Board of Supervisors' Room 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California • 1 ROLL, CALL Blake Bailey, Joe Connell, Pete Calarco, Clarence W. Daley, David Skinner, and Lewis Johnson.and Chairman Richard Price II. APPLICATION`FOR CANCELLATION A.- Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 III. ADJOURNMENT ■ LAND CONSERVATION ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ■ AGENDA ■ JANUARY 11, 2)06 ■ PAGE 1 ■ . SR 111M A'R autte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR r O 1 O s 7 County Center Drive O O _ Oroville, CA 95965 i • _ (530) 538.7601 Telephone O O (530) 538.7785 Facsimile ' < r p — O O'Str'_�` O , UN y `ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING.* PLANNING - BUTTE COUNTY LAND CONSERVATION ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO: ,, ,,•Land Conservation Advisory Committee Members -'FROM: , ` Dan Breedon, Principal Planner and Steve Troester Associate Planner r: SUBJECT:- =-Request for Immediate Caiieellation -' I" ` - Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 DATE: January 3, 2006 ` as 1Department of Development Services Planning Division ' I �� b Sfio� .. k Project -Description` E`_ This is a petition from George Nicolaus (applicant) to immediately cancel a 'Williamson • } Act contract involving the Evelyn C. Liptrap (landowner) Williamson Act Co--itract. The contract was entered.into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999. The contract covers a parcel of 48.23 acres currently planted with a walnut orchard, and is located within the North Chico Specific Plan and zoned for residential development. ;The applicant has also ,. applied for "a -Tentative., Subdivision Map (TSM 04-11, Kittyhawk Park) tocreate 48 residential parcels' -of approximately 1 -acre .each in size, consistent with -. SR -1. (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zone. The proposed Map cannot be = approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. . 1±:. On June 20, 2004, the Land Conservation Act Committee considered this request ' and'recommerided that the Board of Supervisors approve the cancellation request. t The cancellation request went before the Board -of Supervisors on December 13, . - ' 2005'. for consideration.. Staff's November 8, 2005 Agenda Report provided �analysis and discussion,of the Williamson Act cancellation process,.the findings necessary for cancellation, and. the proposed cancellation project. However' ` _based ;on further staff review prior to that hearing, staff recommended and the; ' Board concurred;,that•the matter be directed back to the Land Conservation Act ■Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ - ^ ■ Land Conservation Act Committee MEMO ' Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ January 3, 2006' F; = �;. Y »• .■ Page I of 8 i ► s • Committee for further review of the required findings. Specificflly, the LCA Committee will review the adequacy of the findings necessary for cancellation, in light of applicable case law (e.g. Sierra Club vs. City of Hayward) and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The full Novenber 8, 2005 Agenda Report to the Board and its attachments are attached for the Committee's reference. After adequate review and discussion, the Committee will consider recommendations to -the Board on this application to Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract on APN: 047-260-199. Findings Required for Cancellation: The Committee will consider the two. necessary categories of findings that the Board of Supervisors would need to make pursuant to Government Code Section 51282 to approve this cancellation: a. Public interest. b. Consistency with the purposes of the Williamson Act. Based on additional review of relevant case law, staff modified the draft findings of the November 8, 2005 Board agenda report as appropriate and proposes .he following findings for the Committee's consideration and recommendation to. Ahe Board of Supervisors: 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. 0 1. The subject Williamson Act Contract was entered. into on December 22, 1999 upon review and approval by the Board of Supervisors via consent agenda. This approval was based. upon the viable ag. icultural use established on the property and the ability to continue agricultural operations within the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). The NCSP is an "urban " area development planning tool. The sole Agricultural Policy of the NCSP states the following: "All existing orchards shall be permitted to continue, without interference or interruption by development." Staff understands the intent of this policy of the NCSP to be a means of allowing landowners to continue to engage in a viable agricultural use if they so desire, rather than a policy for p. -enervation of agricultural uses regardless of the desires of the propert�y owner. The Department of Conservation's April 26, 2004 letter states, "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 A:,t to preserve agricultural land. " Therefore, -the Williamson Act contract entered into in 1999 did not serve the intent of the Williamson Act and was contrary . ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Land Conservation Act Committee MEMO — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ Jaivary 3, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 8 0 IIN • to the public interest as expressed in the comprehensive NCSP to develop this area with suburban residential uses. -2. 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 guide large scale planning, of mixed-use development. The cancellation will allow for residential development consiswnt. with the North Chico Specific Plan's goals and SR -I (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 specificcdly indicates, 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 Wi'liamson Act was enacted, to guide urban development as well as preserve agricultural land. The County's approval of the North Chico Specif c Pan (NCSP) provides explicit direction on where residential development is desirable. The express purpose of the NCSP was to lay out a plan for orderly transition of this land to suburban uses. It appears i*at the 1999 inclusion of the subject land into the Williamson Act was contrary to the expressed intent of the Act to preserve agricultural land. The County ishould establish policies relating to the implementation of the Act, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for inclusion in the Williamson Act. The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North Chico Specific Plan and as proposed under this cancellation is of greater general pi.:blic interest than the preservation of the existing agricultural operations on this particular site. 3. The residential development as proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and other subdivisions in the vicinity is consistent with existing General Plan and zoning designations. No change in zoning or General Plan is required to implement the land use proposed as an alternative to Williamson Act agricultural land preservation. 4. Development of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Guernsey Subdivision would 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 Plar, area. The connection will also benefit emergency vehicles and respoase 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 :s of greater ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Land Conservation Act Committee MEMO — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ January 3, 2.006 ■ Page 3 of 8 ■ r: • F1 n U general public interest than the preservation of the existing agricultural operations on this particular site. 5.. 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. Infilling this area with residential development in accordance with the North Chico Specific Plan will promote a more rational and orderly urban pattern of development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. (2) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is bcth 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)). 1. 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 (NCSP). The specific plan process enacted by state law (California Government Code 65450 'et seq.) provides an effective tool to comprehensively pean for the implementation of a jurisdiction's General Plan. The subject property is.' the only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a Williamson Act Contract. This cancellation and adherence to the NCSP serves the broader interest of protecting agricultural lands to the west and north, by helping to maintain a more compact urbcn form, and reducing the potential segmentation . of these larger areas of - agriculturally -designated land. Implementation of the NCSP serves to appropriately site urban development in the most appropriate locations, relieving pressures on larger areas of agriculturally -designated lands to the north and west to convert to urban uses. This cancellation thereby serves the broader public interest to preserve open space land, encourage the orderly development of an urban area, and prevent the premature conversion of larger areas of agriculturally -designated land west of State Route 99. 2. The timing of current development of this parcel is appropriate to. the NCSP and would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. ' The ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Land Conservation Act Committee MEMO — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ January 3, 2006 ■ Page 4of8 ■ • property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivisioi-) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). At the request of the applicant for this cancellation, on April 27, 2005 the Development. Services Department conducted a Pre -Development Review meeting to assess and comment on the feasibility of developing a 50 -lot flex -lot residential subdivision on the 67 -acre parcel immediately north of the subject parcel. SR -99 ao 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, the Greenline policy, and other potential and proposed development in the, : vicinity. 3. Butte County recognizes that "non -renewal" is the preferred means of terminating a Williamson Act contract. However,. 5ecause the Williamson Act contract entered into in 1999 was contrary to the public interest as expressed in the comprehensive North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), the County finds that this request for cancePation is an • extraordinary circumstance that warrants use of the "cancellation" process. The County finds that compliance with the A'0 -year non- renewal process for termination of this contract would inhibit implementation of the NCSP and interfere with the orderly development of the NCSP area.- a. rea.a. 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 is accordance . with the Government Code. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removalofadjacent lands from agricultural use. • The subject property is land which is essentially surrounded by urban development. The subject' parcel is contiguous to existing one -acre rural ranchette development to the east on approximately 50 acres of land. The Guernsey subdivision is proposed on 50 acres adjacent to the south. A request for tentative subdivision map has been submitted ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Land Conservation Act Committee MEMO — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 Jar_uary 3, 2006 ■ Page 5 of 8 0 • • for the Guernsey subdivision.' The property north of the subject contracted land has been cleared . of all almond trees and has undergone pre -development review.` wit the Development Services Department, regarding the'. feasibility of a SO lot residential subdivision. This sole Williamson Act . contract within . the NCSP essentially inhibits the logical and orderly developmew of land as envisioned. by the NCSP. 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 carry the Orchard and Field Crop (OF() designation and are separated from this parcel _ by SR -99. These larger OFC parcels 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 Psan (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. Thesetback would be applied to the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. SR -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenline at 'his 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 Specific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline policy, and the Agricultural Element's 300 foc-t agricultural setback requirement greatly reduce the likelihood that. cancellation of this 'property would result in the removal of adjaceit 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 Lepartment of ; Development Services for a subdivision map (Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map). Although this Map is still under review, the proposed 48, I -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 proposed alternative use, forty-eight residential building lots, is consistent with the County's General Plan and. the North Chico ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services 0 ■ Land Conservation Act Committee MEMO — Liptrap Cancellation_(Canc 04-02)0 January 3, 2006• ■ Page 6 of 8 0 • Specific Plan.. The subject parcel is zoned for residenticl use and is contiguous to existing'and planned development to the ea,:t and south. The development of this parcel., would provide for more contiguous patterns 'of urban. development. as set forth under the _North Chico Specific Plana 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 Subdivi-: ion). 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 Greenlinepolicy. Therefore, the develcpment of the subject parcel will not result in'a discontiguous pattern 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)). • Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is not available in the vicinity. The proposed use is for one -acre single family dwelling lots.. Lots of 'one -acre minimum are required to - provide the necessary septic system area for a single family dwelling. Butte County considers this type of residential de . elopment a legitimate component of the required mix of housing types to meet the county's housing needs. 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 protect is. either contemplated for future development or Js proposed by -development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan.. The subject p -operty is the only property located within the North Chico Specific Plaa subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The development of this parcel. would provide for mor-_ 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 appropriatewest of SR -99. The proposal would. • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Land Conservation Act Committee MEMO — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 January 3, 2006.- Page 006.Page 7 of'8 ■ be in keeping with, urban growth patterns required by the North. Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy.'. Recommended Actions: -1. .Review the agenda report and findings set froth by staff. '2. Move to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the fndings. detailed herein and tentative approval of the cancellation. OR 3.. After consideration of the proposed findings, instruct staff to conduct additional research and analysis and/or make. appropriate changes to the • findings for consideration at a subsequent hearing.. Attachment:.June 30, 2004 LCA Committee Minutes regarding "Liptrap" Inclusion. ■ Butte County Department Of.Development Services ■ ■ _Land Conservation Act Committee MEMO — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ JanL_ary 3, 2006 ■ Page 8of8N SR11/OS ARf; Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047=260-199 ` Mr. Breedon gave a brief summary of this project. He explained the Willianigon Act Easement, Exchange Program (WAEEP). He briefly read the findings necessary to cancel a zontract. He said he would like input from the Committee before developing findings which could ':)e 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 undertheNorth Chico Specific, Plan. (NCSP). Mr: Holland said'just the property. on the east side of Highway 99. ' .. Mr. Lewis said itis hard for farmeis to' deal'with the intrusion of residential dwellings and their. animals. , t + s' 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 99.1 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 propertyto 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 bean 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 'sidc. Mr. Lewis asked what was located on the west side. He noted that there is a dust situation: r, Mr. Price said there are almonds. He said the'highway is wide and helps with the buffer. Land CGonserytioan Committee Minutes ■,June 30 2004 ■ a e ■ . �'r _n. *5t,_ .. , _w. g ' .,,it � d�-.rt;.�. r �� +'=�d u'i` : `: Mr. Nicholaus said the north.boundary is SR -1 zoning: Mr. Lewis asked what is.entailed with the trading of contract lands. y 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." 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 environmentalfindings. He said he has to perform an environmental review of this project. Mt. Holland said it was important to note that all of the findings have to be rr_ade 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.wa in the public's best ® Land Conservation Committee w Minutes ■ June�3;0;2004 ■ �age�3, �„ y r� � : ,. :.. . ...*tr-v,i C ._5•..., : '„ r..as-r.., -.: ..*'- .• '• +9 . • ,,: ` _....'...�i'�i 3"'di'1..,,""%.6..�^N=�, * rte,., r .. i'•1... , _, - *:+. . _ .....3n_:..._N5.rm 7a-, .. _...'L' • 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 unccer contract fora minimum of 10 -years. He said the Committee has to balance out what was done 4 %z 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 to afford the taxes and was told she could put the property into the Williamson A• -,t. 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 det,-,nnined 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 convertto 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 fcr 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 :he 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. Land Conservation Committee ■'Minutes e lune 30 2004`��Fa ze�4`ol '(-y. Qb' K- 1 • : 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 )y 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. Mr. Price said he understands that this property will 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. P S'u 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 isnot 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. Land Co nservationgCommittee ■,Minutes■,June 30 2004s,� Fage ?. r . . .. . �n 52..Aa.*..., �..i ..-,..._. ,., 1.. ,s r..p4 ir•�5z3 r • 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 he NCSP allows existing orchards to continue without interference by development. It was moved by Mr: Skinner that the Land 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 of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard would provide a more con_iguous pattern of development, seconded by Mr. Daley - 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 ar ents that the whole area is proposed for development. � p p p 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 wculd 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. ■ Land Conservatron::Committee 'Minutes ®: June3Q; 2004 6 Pa e 6 i • 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., 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 th-- other parcels on.the north and south. Chairman Christopher asked Mr. Skinner, if this finding passes, would he be com=ortable 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 #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. m Land Conservation CommitteeF mMinutes ■ June .3..o 2004 ■Page 7 " :; • Chairman Christopher asked Counsel if the Committee could be hearing an issue f)r 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 -Renews=_ has been served pursuant to Government Code 51245. 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 landE 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 lana 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 protectec by this 300 -foot . ``^', ■ �L and ,Conservation Committee e. Minutes q June 30, 2004 ■ Pagr 8 QST; F �- ....::! • .. 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 w 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. 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 thr 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 Reco-der 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. Jo_inson 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. ■. Land Conserv atiori:Cornrriittees Minutes ■June 3�0,,20y04 Pa�9„�;l r« • AYES: Mr. Price, Mr: Bailey' Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Jornson 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 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 provice 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 hat 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 isan , n '� ■ Land Conservation.Committee ■Minutes ■June 30, 2004 ■ Pagei,`0`*,' � ; q{ ;;,. BUTTE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY D'*RD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE:.Nicolaus/Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract DEPARTMENT: DDS DATE: 10/10/05 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 11/8/05' CONTACT: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner PHONE: 538-7629 REGULAR X CONSENT 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: 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 thi findings required by the Government Code. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND TWELVE (12) COPIES. &ACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY Budgetary 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 Staf Contact back. (Deadline is one business day'prior to normal agenda deadline) 4/5's Vote Required: Yes No: BUTTE COUNTY BOARD •OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORT -November 8, 2005 Applicant: '.; George Nicolaus SupervisofDistrict: 3 _ 4; r . - � . • • .. _;. •.Atiaclamenis: , r' _ - • . • ' r File #: x Canc. 04-02 , "r A. General Plan and Zoning. Map Request: The applicant requests the immediate B. Application for Cancellation cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract - , pursuant to 'Government Code Section 51280 C'. ' Liptrap William -son act Contract ; 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. D. ' Land Conservation Act Advisory APN: ;047,-260=199 Committee Minutes of June 30, • ' , - •�.; �. •- • ", ' ' 2004 •_ ; Location:.The property is, located at the , G . terminus of tr Kittyhawk Drive, approximately I ' E. April 26, 2004 Letter From the - 2,100 feet, west' of Garner Lane and east of and Department of Conservation adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. • F.. Initial Study Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre G: Kittyhawk Park Tentative'Map , parcels), O (Open Space) r , General Plan:, Agricultural Residential Parcel Size: 52.72 acres - Planner: DanBreedon, Principal Planner 17 -�-S - t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • , Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors act to 'approvC-a4Mitiga ed Negative , -Declaration and Immediately .Cancel• the Williamson -Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap, ' with the findings required by, the Government Code. r ANALYSIS ., r 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 Decenber 22,4999 , • (record6d 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)m Noveirber,8, 2005' w ` ■ Page 1 of 11 0 ; • . 4. Thero erty ' is located within the North . Chico Specific Plan and i *for p P 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,. T -acre minimum parcel s=ze) zone. 6. This proposed Map is currently considered incomplete for purposes Cf mitigating flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed Map cannot be approvedunless 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 peti-ion 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 Countymust 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 con-racts are not ' intended to be cancelled and in fact, cancellation is reserved for unusual, "emergency" situations. Therefore, the nine-year nonrenewal proc: ss 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 non_enewal 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 (Cane 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 EPage 2of11 0 4. Williamson Act Contracts may nevertheless be Immediately Cancelled in W Y Y 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 iE 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 (CC 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 cc•ntracted land . would provide. more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c))." • In order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the parposes of the Williamson Act, the Board of Supervisors must also find: (1) That the .cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrerewal 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 cons stent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns . of urban development. (5) Thaf 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 urbandevelopment (GC §5128.2(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 (Canc 04-02)■ Novwmber 8, 2005 ■ Page 3 of 11 0 3:The Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the applicarnt'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 'preseryagricultural 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 1995 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural .-and, 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 Plar, 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 4 of 11 ■ 11. The findings set forth b staff supporting the Cancellation are summarized below. . g Y pp g (please refer to the .complete findings located under the Action for Consideration Section for more detailed infonnation): a. That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives. ,'of the Williamson Act. , • Conformance of the project with the North Chico Specific Plan, rhe 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 wiih.Kittyhawk Drive, `a major county arterial intended to .serve the Plan area c_nd that will have a larger public benefit. b. That there. -is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both wrailable and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would. provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(:,,)). 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 -peen served. • A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant in accordance with the Government Code. d. Thai*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 .w'.th 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 (Cane 04-02)e November. 8, 2005 Page 5 of .11 ■. • 01. w o The applicant has filed an application with the Department of L-evelopment Services for a subdivision snap (Kittyhati' Park Tentative Subdi vision 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 (Cane 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 oPage 6of11 ■ b. The Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigat~d 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. Immediately Cancel the Williamson Act Contract. for Evelyn Liptrap (Assessor's. Parcel Number:. 047-260-199, Instrument No. 0052839; recorded December 22, 1999) 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 estab: ished 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 int&.ruption 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 residentialruses. • 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)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 7of11 ■ • • t that this area is intended for residential development at a 1 -acre minimum parcel size, as proposed for this site under the Kitnrhawk Park Tentative Subdivision.Map concurrently submitted. The WiViamson Act was _ enacted to guide urban. development as well cs 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 Worth 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: 9 The. residential development as proposed by the Kittihawk 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 ' the North Chico Specific Plan for area -wide circulation and wil.' benefit the residents of the Plan area. The connection will also.benejt 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 urba_z 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 deve_opment (GC §51282(c)). ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ p Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 Novenber 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 X40 -acre minimum parcel size under the applicable zgricultural zoning.. Much of the property in the vicinity of this projoct 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 p_zrcel 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 Green line. specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project . area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west oa' 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 ori which a notice of nonren,-wal.has been served. t A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant Fn 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 local?d 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 fir urban . type development east of SR -99 and agricultural uses to the west. The pattern for development of this area identified by tae North Chico ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page 9of11 0 • Specific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline. ` olio and the P �- Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback :-equirement greatly reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this pro7erty would result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. (3) That cancellation is for ail alternative use which is consistent.with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plana 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 u:ider review, the proposed 48, I -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 Plcn 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 M Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0Noverr_ber 8, 2005 ■ Page 10 of 11 • PETITION.TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (Submit Original and 4 Copies) . To the Board of Supervisors Of the. County of Butte. the Board of Supervisors of the County of Bitte'to Cancel The undersigted hereby petition(s) �J the (and Conservation Agreement executed between the County of Butte and � V � � IJ lam- l P on �as it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve No. of the ft County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. In support of this petition, (the'undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the lard covered by said agreement describcd.as follows: ' O4 r7 �G' c ^ 175 c —G 0C C..oQSi "i II'G ' °�{.�, 01� G2 ES v �t ��G L T) Sc ftp i jv AJ 5, S 62w� 13 V/�� - 1 2. 11iat Cancellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (Government. Code S 1200 ct seq.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that:* The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of per)ury. da of at elf ! D r Executed this y California. Petitioners) r ... APPNDI:X E Date Filed: • /_� '� ,�� /, Environmental Information Form t (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORNSATION' 1. Natnc and address of developer or project sponsor: 0r-L`�� I P T',2r3 P 331 �1�.� 51'. of+icy 2. Address ofproject: /} s f� Assessor's Block and Lot Number:.: A 1 © `i I -. d O -1 q 11 - c% a o 2 olio 3. Name; address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this pmject: "j!CCL tuS 6e JAI2vi Yi3iu- KkNG � � C f Co � A SC7 Z�'_ 4: Type ofp�ojcct: (i.c., rezoning, suhdivisi ) J 1LL- IAdyt-so JU ��T SAS£ Al �N /VC,�RGGL.�1�V1_ L��f-P) f;��riJ�NC,r T1� SUf3TJi�fis!•Oiv 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: _ Diytl�ry nr All AP Existing zoning district: R "� i i-t-rrx► j�(^ojZTt+Gtticv Spgci�Rc Pi- AiV 7. Proposed use of site: l.�£ S t !v T-1 •A C)or £Sir s PROJECT DE•SCR11? EI' QN ;t. Site sire. 9 Squarc footage of building(s). l 0. Number of floors of construction. H. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach site development plan. 13, Proposed scheduling. fir' P / AJ� 6- 14. Associated projects. AmicP i ated increhiental'dcvelopment.., 16.. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household size cYpcctcd. N "c 1 t t_. i� t L D! "' L i- C"; 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 shik estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the projeci. 20. If the pro}cct involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state thiE 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 hills; or substantial alteration of ground coutours• • 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas from existing rest&-ntial 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 ttt vicinity. AZ V 26. _ Significant change in. lake, stream 'or ground water quality ar quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patters. r _ .27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicintiy. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent.or more: - 29. Usc or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such W toxic substances, nammabIcs or explosives. .30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage;_ etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil; nytural gas, etc.) . 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 goveria hent 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 addr-ssed: (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. r ' 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 (SRA), 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 Dri-.7e, 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. gain access to rap Emergency personnidly growing .. - el would g o more dic{ • . residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much otct Lane utters the ion or Garner` than the existing drive south to north to the Keefer Road intersection: Plan map' alf This road; as itis*already shown on the to and m Keiffer allows for additional, non-emergency routes Lane Hicks Lane, allowing for the etihanc Road, Garner and le to traffic circulation. As discretionary funds ivailab of general Butte County are very limited, the comp letion of and inherent Drive may. not be realized. community benefits of Kittyhawk of the. Land Conservation Act on ' an ` time soon. Cancellation in, ywhich will allow for Kittyhawk Park to procee , f subject property turn will provide for private funding for the constru-tion of - Kittyhawk Drive. _ 2. Conti ous Growth'Pattern -The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and a) wit o`for subsequent application for the WAEEP contract . growth within the plan area. It is an expressdesire as -contiguous within Butte County, to provide for contiguous growth patterns The, orderly, evidenced by the Plan Put into effect in-1995. esulting . allows for th.- cost growth of residential neighborhoods effective addition of various support services, ran°;ing from utilities to emergency services. is contiguous on the east border with an b). The subject property subdivision and contiguous on the south border with a existing 5 o unit subdivision which was .recently submitter to ous proposed staff: An older almond orchard contiguous Butte County planning cleared of all trees with and to the north of the subject property was is SR-1 and is located within the past year and, as it too zoned Plan area; will likely be the subject of development .: within the pressure in the near future. Additionally, an existing removed almond subdivision lies to the north of the recently orchard., 3, A ricultural Element Issues adopted the Agricultural 31ement in 1995. a). Butte County p . is to preserve agncultu'ral While the Element's express purpose 2 land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7. seeks to "Allow for the conversion of ajricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence where land has been determined to be irretrievably lost to urbanization. These wou- d likely . be areas where urban development has surrounded or substantially encroached upon azricultural 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 propery 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.ccinvert to residential housing. That the subject property is rapidly being "surrounded' and "substantially encroached upon" is dearly the case at hand.. Following extensive planning and research on the part of Butte County with the aid of citizen input, this property was 3esignated 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 al --,o pointed out in the Agricultural Element. Under. Goal 2, Policies, Programs, Item2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot "SUFFER BE - ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT EtXISTING` 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", spezifically, 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 throughaut 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 u3ed 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 -he 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 :ome sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also cifficult 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 (l) 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 e= ect 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 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 Chicc Specific Plans designated area for development and are not currently in ' agricultural use or are already utilized as suburban res_dential. 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 Plans scope and may not be considered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the sub_ect 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 Ch, 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. • Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Apreemerit 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.vi:�inity. (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 uses 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 mwt 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 diffi-: ult 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 o 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. a 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 Plana 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 t --ie attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department: (Please see attached photographs) KtyHwkLCA CXL_102 F�KAa ` hFL^ �F'F%Q. i� `+y'' ` w � m� ��3 C � � r ��3. �3V1 �� al .Y� 'V ��l�e"....5. ,•. ' f 1• V�;(,� � � y •eeq�T^- � . -�. y -'c( d T7"'T'r �t 'L Y2 4 � 2. �•_ cY.-. Yd � •�' i ��+" v r ari T - 'Y-. `m"u'`C '�+:�'li.�i.� �.��x�ml� .+, �T. .w` .<'Jk,.�• S ggf Yt 4. -�YJ' w.�. ?r_,s _'-CG^�''S b�•� 5 ,��' _ t a_ �Y�.�L MOR -f Y:y..4 ��E..� FRI R -'r 'its^"` TH.-�� rfyY"^'t^P.��L�y �f �� _,�. �. �� ,,.��! � ��n.,�•79rSY� '".x�e��'�. ��'"'�� _�z=�'.u�.'T��.^j3a"`3./�'�k s'Y.�xr Y Y�$fFS�-�il` . 1•- .Ls+S ''-yam .•tib �r� .- � �LT � � Y�c?�^� ,�.�S �s3.,� r � a•�_s�v3 VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 ON LOT 39 I - , AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MUNUMLIN 15 A5 SHULNN ON 1 HA 1 LaKI AIN PAKGtI - ` rleL.a FKee MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14, TAKEN AS .� .• \ �� .• \ SE7BACKLINE •- NORTH 89"37'19" EAST.Lb"" : FROM WELL 180 181 181 K_ ;� ILS ICG e" \ .. .. - /0.44'36` AC \ \ - - N89'37'1 2743.37' (% LL) LOT 30 LOTS \ \ J 0 9860 AC 1.0541 AC 1 LOT 15 LOT 14 1.lOSDAC \ .9960 A I - LOT 31 1 1.0062) LOT 2p LOT 22 \ 1.0002 AC 1.0019 AC \ (t OU71 LOT 36 LOT 35 1.0974 AC 0.9988 AC 0.9985 AC (0.9850) (0.9667 / LOT 37 0.8641 AC (1.0188) (0.9645) (0.9645) _ )•� - '�`• 1.1224 AG _ (0.7646) " Z A ZONE X (1.0814) . . ' LOT T \ 0 8574 AC ..y-+� 1 (D BliB) LOT 34 I LOTS ' \ 0.9480AC - - 0 LOT S . \ AC (0:8288) LOT 28 ` \ L = 164.10 \ \ I (1.8522 AC - LOT 24 \` LOT 2t \ LOT 18 ` LOT 13 - D - 15.1140' \ (0.8488) 0.8315 AC \ (/ 0.8315AC 444 8337 AC \ 0.8337 AC \ SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" R=818.80 \ \ (0.7383) I I (0.7393) (0.7413) I (0.7413) LOT 38 LOT 32 1.3189 AC \ ,.0398 AC I I _ LOT B (31 31B9 ) \ \ (0.9622) 0.9838 AC. T ET II I _ \ (0.8035) JTE "D SI! "2T I - ..qT - SR ^BT " tocol AC ' LOT 28 LOT 25 I I LOT 20 LOT 17 I •• I . LOT 12 I I 10.81 a)\ . LOT 39 \ 0.9522 AC 0.8966 AC .0.8966 AC 0.8988 A 0.8966 AC PROJSITECT \' O ' I I ' (0.8509) (0.0012) .I I. (0.8012) (0.8012) I I (0.8012) 08LOT 9 838 AC, 1.0599 AC . (0.9666) X09, I- �WO m 9p35) \ LOT 33- 16p�'1.9754 AC (0.8762) - I _ I LCT3 P+ ' U 9357AC (08484) A-9 R�S ' \ I I LOT 27 LOT 26 I I LOT 19 LOT 18 I I LOT 119 LOCATION MAP Aga \.' I 0.9980 AC 0.9960 AC I I 0.9980 AC O.BBB94) I 0.SSS.AC o 10A� �O \ 1a•( \ \ ` i (0.7684) (0.7694) \ (0.7494) (0.7694)10.7547) STREET ..' DoT 2 . LOT 40 LOT 43 ` �C. i 1.1350 AL - LEGEND. 4 1 °� 1.0001 AC ,I 1.0003 AG I �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / 2 .0001 A (0.78ss) LOT NUMBER LOT 100 FEMA X \ " GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE r 7 I _+Y LOT 44 \ LOT 45 - LOT 46 LOT 47 LCT 48 LOT 49 LOT 50 LOT 51 LOT 52 LOT 53 I " NET ACRES (0.8496) :- ,r> \ q D.BBeEAc 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6769 AC O.B701AC �y (0.6667) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) '(0.6007 (0.8007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) -A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, \ ' Lor41 LOT42 I I \ 0° ) LOT "C" ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND 1.00D1 AC 0.9462 AC 00 \ LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE \ (1.0001) (0.8 76) CONSTRUCTED: \ - - - - - - - CSA 87 SD AREA PA- - - - _ - � I T T Y 11 A \V IG D R I V � � CA- ROADWAY EXIS71N0 Ph FIRE HYDRANT (TO BE MOVED) se94201w ne2e1 ZONE A' ZONE X .. \ NOT A PART AP 047 260+tM GENERAL NOTES I SUBDIVISION INFORMATION 1� ,°�1a TM�2� I 8D \ - -- _ - _ 1. THISTINTIN AC MAP MAS BEEN DESIGNED AND 19 BEING PRO - CEO - TI. R. J 6eD IM ACCORDANCE WITH .TNe APPROVED 6R•1 ZONING OWNERS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN. SUBDIVIDER: EVELYN UPTRAP TNe INTERIOR SUBDIVISION STREETS SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED 331 WALL STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL TYPE L•III OR TYPE LV Or T CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95926 ROW. NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN, TET SMALL REMAIN PRIVATE �� jj w \` /' / P A Q / ' °TRE@T6 AND BUT 2i NOT ee OF XTE RIO FOR oe0¢AnOu To Tne ENGINEER: BOB FEENEY LOCAL TYPEL-V I I yl j/••\} `V/ EI/� (/-\'f/�!i/� couN77 OF BUTTS. TNe eITENSION TE IALKIT TYPE -M IN 128DEAST AVENUE, SUITEID SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED AB AN ARTeR NL Tree A•IV IN APPLIES TO STREETS D• E. F. G 6 H - - ACCORDANCE WITH TMe NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN AND I CHICO. CALIFORNIA 96973 • OFFERED FOR De DICATION TO THE COUNTY 01 BUTT!. - • V - LAND USE: PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL - - - - 3. .THE PROPOSED .LOT AREAS SHOWN ARE GROSS LOT AREAE i)j FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND INCLUDB THE PROPOSED PRIVp re CASEMENTS AND THE VESTING �TI�� - NET LOT . THE ((•ai54) EXAMPLE) BDI EXCLUSIVE OF ZONING: SR•1 V - \V E AEA C 9e S. NTS. THE TOTAL AREA (00. SUBDIVISION 1610N IB 52.7 230 AC Rl9. T By.., SUBDIVISION UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAS b EIECTRiC TENTATIVE V11p Dh/I�I®9L1 Ap /�P 4. THE Ne TnOD of Sew OUI DISPOSAL AND LOT ART 13 TELEPHONE: SBC �\ A Y UB N STA MA Pp ROP ME ETB ALL RE OUIRIM ENT6 OF AP PE NDII VII 01 TME BUTTe COUNTY CO... Bee END Ne MO •SOILS WAIVe R• SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC A 5M1 e..o.eM1 �4 t_1411 �9`�M1� 50 - WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY - t S. ALL Dp AINAO! RUNOFF SHALL BE RETAINED IN THE RETENTION AND LEACH FIELDS BA 81N PROVIDED. SOB I - 0. A .PRI Te Ir OWNED COMMUNITY WATER 9761lM SMALL BB APN: 047.260-197 AND 1147-260-199 - - ROW A DIVISION OF REMAINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON TRAT CERTAIN MAP OF roRMa.VA To PRovIDe DOMESTIC WATER iepv¢e ro me LOTS _ AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE II, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS Or ERe QUIRE I FON, INCLUDING PROVIDING Tne apo oFAr WATER REQUIRED IOP FIRE UDINGCTION. ° LOCAL TYPE L-111 ° AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 - LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 7. STORM WATER WILL BE RETAINED ON-SITE IN ROADSIDE LEACH o APPLIES TO STREETS A9AC o NORTH, RANGE I EAST, M.D.B. B M. - BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TRENCHES. „ S. THE SUBDIVISION HAS AN AVCRAOB LOT AREA OF .6044 ACRES. - FOR - - ANO THE DENSITY OF The SUBDIVISION MA BEEN BASED UPON p - THE OROSS AREA FOR SUBDIVISION Or THE PROPERTY AND THE .� SR .I ZON Mo. 7 .. - °. AB SHOYIN. TNe lI IB i1N0 SDR .A RlA Wlll BE REMOVED AND e O�TC� EVELYN C. LIPTRAP WILL BE RECONSTRUCT@O ON THE OUERN9 eY PROJECT TO TM@ SO U7N01'TKIS PPOJEC T.. NDI ATEfTNNR CONI L �� 1°. IN LIEU 01 LOT DIMENSIONS 'OI EACH O SA6 REO VIREO B7 THE OCG. CLfPPA. dA gE 18M1 APPLICATION, WE "AVE PROVIDED OR068 AND NET LOT AREAS BAY6a ASS00tlF5 10!01 BWEPW AND WILL PROVIDB LOT DIMENSIONS ON THI FINAL MAP. N.:.0 •IP R'I'r)Bi:ll FLO D JANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1 . R.o.w .. _ _ � - DM1aHAYSAYfXlgIES.[QM . ..�. ARTERIAL TYPE A -N' APPLIES TO KIRYIIAWK DRIVE _ - . 'c -LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT' _ 'NT made an' entered into this 14thday of De.cember< THIS AGREEMENT, L99a by and between , �► icy LrC:c i� hereinafter referred to. as "Owner"; and the County of Butte, a political,subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "County y WITNESSETH 'WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain real. property hereinafter described located ' within County and "+ '-WHEREAS, said propertyis devoted to agricultural uses; and - PRESERVE NO. WHEREAS, said`property is located within AGRICULTURAL ! _ Cj heretofore established by the County; and WHEREAS,. both Owner and County desire to limit the use of said property to vj 'cultural land, to agricultural, and compatible uses in order to preserve a maximum amount of agricultural ; l..' conserve the State's economic resources, to,maintain the agricultural economy, and assure fa 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, aestlietic; and economic asset to the County, to preserve the natural characteristics, beauty, or to,provide'.essential habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS, the placement of said propertyin 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: 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 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 Stipp lementing 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 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 . 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.d-emed null and void as to any land or interest in land subject to the Agreement which is taken by eminent domain: V: 'ThisAgreement 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 fora 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 p Aition by Owner; the Board of Supervisors of County; under the provisions of Government Code Seriion 51282, finds: (a) that cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; L,-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. 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 -_7_�_ 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 2 D acres, in accordance with the acreage standards in D-1, Column l,, of Resolution 99-124, provided that a Joint 1Vlanagement 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 Agreemerif for a homesite mgregation 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 minimum lot size of the base zoning district is Subdivision Map Act, and provided that the maintained. (d) Partial non -renewal of this Agreement is subject b 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 thanAb acres. 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: eE 0oh,57,� V� Pb-ef_5 CTn� hr.; -'o C) f 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 entitled "Autumn Park Subdivision Phase 1.", which map was recorded in the office of the County Recorder'of the County of Butte, tate of California, on August 12, 1999 in Book 147 of Mops, at pages 99 through 102; more particularly described as . follows: r . BEGINNING at the sou thwesterly'corner of Lot "A" as shown on said "Autumn Park'Subdivision Phasel"; THENCEalong 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-w2y line of California State Highway 99 E; , THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" West, a distance of 203.82 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line, North 63019'53" East, a. distance of 387.87 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; HENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" 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 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 42°17'50" 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 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 89°42'01" West, a distance o' 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. QROE USIoi A- N' ••. F� No. 33381. Bruce A. Nash > i R.C.E. 3338124.. •'•, Registration Expires 06/30/02 ti'•._ Cnr�� _ '.o XIV: If the Owner breaches the terms of this Agreement in a manne- which results , in all or any portion of the property which is the subject of this Agreement not bei-�g 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 ever 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 the Agreement the day and year above written. CO 'OF BUTTE By- an Dolan , Chair Butte ounty Board of Supervisors ATTEST: JOHN BLACKLOCK, Chief Executive, Officer and Clerk of the Board •. _ - C .. ° STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF �t J On =+ - �i S before me, •ersopersonally appeared nall known to me p Y. (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) or, 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 YLENOk M C0MM.j11 i 58507 V) _ No-jARy PUBUC-CALIFORNIA qa r s couN Y OF BUTTE t,a 1W Comm. Expires Oc .14,200.1 (This area for official notarial seal) u Title �of Document Date ,, of Document No. of Pages Other signatures not acknowledged MARION A. REEVES Commission # 1170840 z . Notary Public - C.alifomia Z Butte County . My Comm. F�iras pan 24,2002 Title of Document: LCA Agreement - Evelyn C. Liptrap Date of Document: December 14, 1999 Number of Pages:: ;12 plus this page EXHIBIT "A.. 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. ACREAGE STANDARDS Column 1 Column 2 Type of Activity Incoming Building & Contract Selling Minimum mini,i,um. Acres acres Orchards (vineyards, kiwi, fiuit, 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. only agricul Housing facilities (including trailers) to accommodate ti ral 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 includ_ng 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 ptuits. d... Mines, mineral extraction,, and quarries in Agricultural Preserve Numbers 7, 8, and .9. , KALCMAGUSES-AGR ` + LANDCONSERVATION COMMITTEE I MINUTES —JUNE 30, 2004 f� The meeting was called to order at 9:00.a.m. in the 3A County Center Conference Room, 93 County Center Drive, and Oroville. ' M I.: ROLL CALL Present:. Yvonne Christopher, Development Services, Chairman . Joe Connell, Farm Advisor . , . David Skinner: •` Clarence Daley :n �• �` F `,' Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Blake Bailey, Assessor's Office f. Lewis Johnson ' ' f Also'Preseiit: Rob MacKenzie; Deputy County Counsel Fred Holland, Assessor's Office ' 'Dan Breedon; Principal Plaiuler - GA r Yvonne Christopher 'introduced herself and, explained why.. she is now the Cliairman of this Committee and asked the •public members to state their expertise and how long they have been on the y: !' 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-. b Clarence Daley said he is a'cattleman and has been on the Committee for 15 years ' r Dave Skinner said'he was a farmer and has-been on the Committee approximately -.6 years. r II. Applications for immediate cancellation: ' Evelyn C. Liptrap --APN. 047-260-199 Mr. Breedon'gave a brief summary Iof this project. He explained the Williamson Act Easement. , i Exchange Program (WAEEP). He briefly 'read the findings necessary to cancel a c)iitract. He said,{_ he would like input from the Committee before developing findings which could b: handled by the _ } Comrriittee giving instruction on each finding for staff.to develop the findings, and ging thein 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 (;�CSP)., ; }' Mr. Holland said just the property. on the east side of Highway 99. y� Mr. Lewis said it is hard for farmers to deal with the intrusion of residential dwellings and their animals. Chairman.Cluistopher 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. Chainnan 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 Li trap 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 valine if unrestrictive: He said the memo submitted should read "fee" and not "value." • 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 eval cation: 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 fundings 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 betaken 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'/2 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 Linder contract for a ittee has to balance out what was done 4 '/z years ago minimum of 10 years. He said the Comm 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. 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've 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 deterrained 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 Agreerriznt in December 1999. Since the Liptrap property was clearly within a plamiing 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 poriicies 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 :.io other property- available ropertyavailable 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 oy an open area. Mr. Holland said one question is would development of this parcel provide for F_ 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 =s already built out. Chairman Christopher asked if there was a feeling from the.Committee on whether this property should stay in the Williamson Act: Mr. Price said he understands that this property will be developed eventually. Chairman Christopher said the question is whether itis appropriate to cancel this co:itract 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 :s 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 cal 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 tris property was allowed into the Act when there was a Specific Plan in place. Chairman Christopher said Mr. Hays makesa 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 thaturban-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 fcr the proposed use and that the development of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard would provide a more contiguous pattern of development, :seconded by Mr. Daley. The discussion continued: Mr. Skinner said he feels the applicant has satisfied the requirements and addressed the issues. . Mr. Bailey said lie 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 tliat are co lisidered 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 cf 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.ia 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 tie 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. LJ Mr. MacKenzie said there. needs .to be facts in the motion that define why it is that this particular parcel would provide fora 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. Conriell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Discussion on #1 = "That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non-R:newal 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 Goveriunent 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'bean 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 terminat✓s in 2013, so the form is wrong. He said technically the Coni nittee 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 disZussion. 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 =or 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 time -.y manner. Mr. Breedon said the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served pursuant to Government Code 51245.. Mr. Mackenzie read Goverment 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 fnom`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 Plait 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 irto 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 deed 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, acid hence with the Agricultural Element they recognize that there _ will be urban,interface issues with agricultural land use and, therefore, make it neci:ssary to create a buffer of 300 feet. She said the County already made a decision that this lane. 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 Boardacknowledges. and then the Notice is recorded. Chairmdn Christopher asked how aicon-renewal was handled in the past. Mr. Breedon said that basically_ a member of the public provides a Notice of Non-R-newal 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 Recorcer 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 if did not get to the Assessor, they do not kriow whether .o establish non- renewal calculations.. Chairman Christopher asked if there was some law, State law, Goveriunent Code, etc., that tells us black and white a procedure different than what the department has been followii�. Mr. MacKenzie said that in the evidence code there is a section called "Service by Mail" which, n 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/M3, 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: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #3- vote It was moved by Mr. Cormell, 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 Co-.intyGeneral 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 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. Joh_lson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding 42..- Vote It was moved by Mr. Skirmer, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to recommend -hat 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. 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, aiid 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 thinlang 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. April 26; 2004 Y DIVISION O F: jar. ,Dan Breedon, Principal Planner 'f LAND RESOURCE` D +;%*'Develo mental PROTECTION BULL County ep . `7 County Center Drive -' Or ' ille, CA� 95965 801 K STREET SACRAMENTO r+�•€ ..i. "< i "'• • '•• r , REl, Petition,for Cancellation of -Land Conservation Agreement; ii CALIFORNIA 95814 }' .0;*-' APN 04, 250-199, Landowner: Evel n Lipirap { PHONE Dear Mr. Breedon:,- 4 •r • • + FAX 916/327-3-430 ... r ,Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation. (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the above . r INTERNET consrv.ca.gov referenced matter. ' 4 + ■ Act nn ` �� petition proposes'to cancel .the Williamson contract� �yGRAY ° "V I s ,The approximately 48:23 prime agricultural acres, currently planted with GOVERNOR `t + productive walnut trees, for the -development of 53 residential building lots. The subject parcel was placed in the North Chico Specific Paan'(Plan) in `r 1995 with Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum`zoning.. The landowner' • . entered into the land conservation -agreement with Butte Coanty on Y_ "• December 22, 1999. The subject site is located east of Highway 99, -north ,+ of Wilson Landing Road in. Butte County. t; Cancellation Findings _ - The applicable Williamson Act contract (Section VII, page 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 inter--st. The , h contract requirements that both findingsrmust be made are more stringent,., than required in Government.Code §51282. 'Section'5128" requires that ; either the consistency'dr public interest findings must be made by the Board. Government Code §51240 provides that contract provisions may; 'P I rovid - e for restrictions, terms and conditions, including pal•ments and p Mees, more restrictive than or in addition to those required by the Act. Thera` .Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee,JviIl make a recommendation on the proposed. cancellation to the Board ofr Supervisors. i , •tom . ` - , •. • ♦.. 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 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 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 opn-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 Mousing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan it 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 shouldreview 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 agri.c.altural 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 . 0", Butte Count 'Department of Development Services �wYT� YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR co II o0 O C 7 County Center Drive , .4 c C Droville, CA 9596500 (530) 5384601 Telephone J qk. (530) 538-7785 Facsimile C0IJ Nay ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * CIS * PLANNING , t IT y - Date: , s April 7; 2005 To:. `Responsible and Trustee Agencies Subject: , _ : NOTICE OE 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' ualit Act ` CE A , of otential enviroiirnental 1 . Q Y.` ( Q ) p . . 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 juris3iction. • Any comments must be sent to the above address on or prior to May -16, 2005. 4 If you have any, questions regarding the ericlosed environmental document, please contact Dan Breedon at 530-538-7629, between the hours of 8::00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Dan Breedon" Principal Planner € . .i cc: . • . IDR Committee Members (via email) Citylof Chico M fV ! ' z ; CalTrans K:\Planning\PROJECTS\LCA\liptrap\Nei Dec Cover Letter.doc 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. AppUant/Owner: Evelyn Liptrap B. Staff Contact: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner, dbreedontaibuttecounty.nex1 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. Type of Application: linmediate 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. Tnere are no other improvements. The terrain is flat, with no defined drainage courses. The propert9 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 Will-amson 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 creat 48, 1 -acre . single family residential parcels. The Tentative Map application is currently consideree incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacs 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 2108=.3, if an. EIR has been certified for the adoption.of a Specific Plan, the application of CEQA shall :)e limitd to. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ii Planning Division s Page E ■ 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 DETERIVHNATION [ ] 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 ox agreed fo by the project proponent..A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepa_ed. [ . ] I find that the- proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment- and. an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] T 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. efficts 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 earlie- 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 _ Date Reviewed by: Stephen Streeter, Planning Manager Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services a Planning Division ■ Page 2 m 4 8 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 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 Transportaton/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 followntg 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 cased 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 f there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. . If there are one or .more "P �tentially 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 Signifrcan.: Impact" to a "Less Than Significant.Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation mea.-ures, 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, pursuF-nt. 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 chec'dist were within the scope of and adequately -analyzed in an earlier document pizsuant to s Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 mi 49' Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) . Potentially Less Than Less Than applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects. were addressed by rratigation Reviewed measures based on the earlier analysis. Significant c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Significant Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or Under refined from the earlier document and the extent to. which they address site-specific Impact conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources Previous 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 sourceE 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; andf- b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: • 4.1 P AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES: not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,. and historic .. 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 resour_es. 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 6f Development Services ■ Planning Division a Page 4 ■ 5C Potentially Less Than Less Than 190 Reviewed Would 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 X uality of the site and its surroundings? 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 resour_es. 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 6f Development Services ■ Planning Division a Page 4 ■ 5C Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 'j 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: 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 tzban uses . not agricultural uses. The CEIR for. the North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the impact of the North Chico Specif c 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 acre, 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 fu Cher 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 znder 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.rr Cancellation on stounding Williamson Act Contracts and agricultural land and determined that the cancellation would not have a 1 negative influence on these lands. C. See item a. above. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development. Services a Planning Division ■ Page 6 s52 Potentially Less Than. Less Than No- Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under t . 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 X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or, X a Williamson Act Contract? 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 tzban uses . not agricultural uses. The CEIR for. the North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the impact of the North Chico Specif c 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 acre, 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 fu Cher 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 znder 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.rr Cancellation on stounding Williamson Act Contracts and agricultural land and determined that the cancellation would not have a 1 negative influence on these lands. C. See item a. above. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development. Services a Planning Division ■ Page 6 s52 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 4:3 AIR QUALITY: . Potentially Less Than Less Than Ne 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 uantitative 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 estLblished 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" nonattainnient 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 Subdivis5on 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 measu_es 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 mirgations 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 Plana Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street lees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon f-ieir ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: . 1 - 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. s Butte County Department of Development Services n. Planning Division a Page 7 ■ 5.3 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 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 u -)on 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 revie-+. 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 ari additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minurn-m, with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the Aust 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 crezte a crust after each day's activities cease. • . 2,: During construction, 'water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas :)f 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 r-ote is placed on the Final Map. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. 3utte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services a Planning Division ■ Page 8 e 54 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: . er the normal activities of wildlife? ' 0 0 Butte County Department of Development Services s Planning Divisions Page 9 a -55* Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact 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 of 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 intemrption, 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 Conununity Conservation X X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 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 a hibians, 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 domestAm ic animals) which could X hind er the normal activities of wildlife? ' 0 0 Butte County Department of Development Services s Planning Divisions Page 9 a -55* Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 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 c-u-rently 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 Divers-ty 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. Tae 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 provid--d 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 ;hat 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 isrequired 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 shoves 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 wildlie 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 ta. 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 carncurrently 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 tl_c 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 Placea 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 'he 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 encountemd, 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 forlowed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utili-y installation, and building site development. e Butte County Department of Development Services .n Planning Division mi Page 11 ■ 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 § 1506415? 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 carncurrently 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 tl_c 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 Placea 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 'he 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 encountemd, 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 forlowed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utili-y installation, and building site development. e Butte County Department of Development Services .n Planning Division mi Page 11 ■ 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson t _ '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 116 - 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 J 1977): The 80 -mile -long. Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the R project site. This fault is considered active and has caused.historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to E Butte County Devariment of Development Services. ■ Planning Division a' Page 13 ■ Potentially ' Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impaa 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 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?. X X 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,7as 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 t _ '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 116 - 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 J 1977): The 80 -mile -long. Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the R project site. This fault is considered active and has caused.historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to E Butte County Devariment of Development Services. ■ Planning Division a' 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 sire has a moderatepotential 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 CountyGeneral 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 aidress 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 Kuttyhawk 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 shallbe 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, cs'otherwise e Butte County Denartmeni of Development Services ■ Planning Division e Page 14.m 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./seo:ond, 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. 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 hazardcus materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The property is located within Compatibiliiy 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 cc 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 con6tions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. s Butte Countv Department of Development Services ® Planning Division u Page 16 M 62 Potentially. Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal:. Significant Significant' Significant lmpsct 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 ' 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? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, , where such a plan has not been adopted, within 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 evacuation plan? 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 ar eas 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 hazardcus materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The property is located within Compatibiliiy 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 cc 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 con6tions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. s Butte Countv Department of Development Services ® Planning Division u Page 16 M 62 Potentially. Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal:. Significant Significant' Significant lmpsct 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 ' 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? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, , where such a plan has not been adopted, within 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 evacuation plan? 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 ar Proiect 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 tK7, 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 Semice Company through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer vol-imes. Valley aquifers at this location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■.6.3 Potentially Less Than Less Than N-) 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 pennits 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 tK7, 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 Semice Company through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer vol-imes. Valley aquifers at this location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■.6.3 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 Deparranent 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 Depa_-tment 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 Div -Sion, and kegional.Water Quality Control Board., The Department of Public Works has commented that F_ -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 cor_�ceming 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. Mitization Measure 94 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 Devartment of Development Services ■ Planning Division a' Par- 18 .n J Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) ' 3. .'All exposed slopes shall, beprotected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion, of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, . or otierwise 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, ir" accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./secone, 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 developme.at activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services ;hall review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. o Butte County Department of Developmenf Services a Planning Division v Page 19 ■ . 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 Teniative Subdivision Map contemplates development that is consistent wits the SR -1 zoning implemented by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore does not have - the -3otential 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, spe ific 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 o 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 ■• Pa;e 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 Toning 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 Teniative Subdivision Map contemplates development that is consistent wits the SR -1 zoning implemented by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore does not have - the -3otential 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, spe ific 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 o 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 ■• Pa;e 20 ■ Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: cant Significant Significant Impact Under TP.oially act, 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 recoverysite delineated on a local x general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? f Project Name: Liptrap immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc. 04-02) 4.11 Nom,: 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 tha_ has been concurrently submitted, (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application ie currently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to &..e project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR:for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that a 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 Par]: 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. consuvction, 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 si--e would be n Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division s Page 22 ■ .68. Potentially . Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal:. Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact. with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated xposure of persons to or generation of,noiselevels in cess of standards established in the local general plan rjaXgencies? X r noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other 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? 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 tha_ has been concurrently submitted, (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application ie currently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to &..e project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR:for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that a 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 Par]: 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. consuvction, 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 si--e would be n Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division s Page 22 ■ .68. Would the proposal: ' a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and 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 elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated X 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 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 a Planning Division s Page. 24 s . 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 Sheriff s 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 pro_ ect site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a note on the Kittyhavvk 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 :)f 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 mizgation'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 0 Butte Countv Department of Development Services a Planning Division ■ Page25 n 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 ublic 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 Sheriff s 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 pro_ ect site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a note on the Kittyhavvk 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 :)f 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 mizgation'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 0 Butte Countv Department of Development Services a Planning Division ■ Page25 n Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) the KittyhawkPark Tentative Subdivision'Map. These fees are intended to off -set impacts to, public services from the residential development anticipated by the'North Chico Specific Plana Mitigation: None required. 4.14 RECREATION: '4 Impact Discussion:.. a. - b. This project is not large enough to. require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code.- Impact ode: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 :he size of the proposal and collection of impact fees no.impact to recrational uses is anticipate. Mitigation Measure: None required iI ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division m Page 26 a Potentially Less Than Less ThanNo Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant. Significant Significant Impac: 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 ode: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 :he size of the proposal and collection of impact fees no.impact to recrational uses is anticipate. Mitigation Measure: None required iI ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division m Page 26 a 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 Kittynawk 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 Kitty"zawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Gamer Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Ch --co 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 pmject. 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 b' area roads and SR -99. County staff and the California Departmentof 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 environment#_ review and • analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map complete. Mitigation: None required. . e Butte County Department of Development Services ■ 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 ca acity 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 safey risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? X Result in inadequate parking capacity? X with accepted policies, plans or programs Lg.Conflict 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 Kittynawk 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 Kitty"zawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Gamer Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Ch --co 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 pmject. 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 b' area roads and SR -99. County staff and the California Departmentof 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 environment#_ review and • analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map complete. Mitigation: None required. . e Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 27 ■ 73 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc04-02) 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Impact Discussion: a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associat,-d with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would' not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additiona: 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 Ki:tyhawk 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. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 28 ■ 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 of 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 rovider'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 X regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associat,-d with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would' not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additiona: 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 Ki:tyhawk 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. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 28 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 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 budd 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 was?e 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 capacLy 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 ■ 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 Initia: 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 a Planning Division s Page 30 e Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant, Impa_t 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 rehistory? 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)? 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 Initia: 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 a Planning Division s Page 30 e Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) i 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 Noah 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 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 maintainedby the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation o' 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 earthwo_ k 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 re�.iew. 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): L During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill ma-.erials, 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 personto 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 B-CAQMD Rule 200 and 205.(Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). . m Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division v Pag, 31 v 77 • • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 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 clear_ng . 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 o 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 =ind 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, 3tate.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 SacranrTnto shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State. Law, to arrange for Native American participation I 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 c:)nstruction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. . No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have previsions 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. I. 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 e Butte County Department of Development Services a 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. standard..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 wF-ters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butt✓ 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. s Butte County Department of Development Services a Planning Division s Page 33 a Project Name:.LiptrapI 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 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 Environnwntal 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 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 Elemer-t. 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 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 Man 111-1, Safet-i 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. . • a Butte County Department of Development Services a Planning: Division s Page 34'a., Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract, (Cane 04-02) 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: [X] Environmental Health [X]. Public Works [X] Building ::vlanager [ J 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 [ J City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] 'Town ofParadise [ ] CA Department of Forestry [X] Caltrans (Traffic) [X] Central Reg. Water Quality [ ] Department of Conservation [ ] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highwa,- 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 [ ] Palermc Union School Dist. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services a Planning Division ■ Page 36 m • Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee Staff REPORT — March 19, 2007 Applicant: Evelyn Liptrap/George Supervisor District: 3 f ---N colaus—-) Attachments: File #: Canc. 04-02 A. Vicinity, GP and Zo_ze Maps B. Petition for Cancellction (01-30-06) Request: The applicant requests the immediate C. Applicant's Submittal (3-12-07) cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract D. DOC Comment Letter (4-26-04) pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — E. LCA Meeting Minutes (6-30-04) 51287, on a+/-52 acre parcel. F. Board Meeting Min:ftes (12-13-05) APN: 047-260-199 G. LCA Meeting Minutes (01-11-06) H. DOC Counsel Letter of 3-1-06 Location: The property is located at the I. County Counsel's letter (12-21-05) terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately J. Kittyhawk TSM 04-11 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane and east of and K. MOU, Coop. Plan., Chico Area of adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. Concern (10-21-03 Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre L. Area/Ownership Maps parcels), O (Open Space) l General Plan: Agricultural Residential Parcel Size: +/-52 acres Planner: Steve Troester, Associate Planner SUMMARY: The +/-52 acres proposed for cancellation is subject to a 1999 Williams() ct (LCA) contract between Butte County and Evelyn C. Liptrap, recorded as Instr.,iment 1. 99- 0052839 of official Butte County Records. The alternate use proposed for this land is subdivision ("Liptrap-Kittyhawk" TSM 04-11) into 48 one -acre residential parcels. Based on the analysis in following agenda report, staff recommends that the Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee (LCA Committee) make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract based on the draft "'consistency" findings only (Sec. 51282(0)),' here attached. Staff's analysis is that ',public findings_( ceS 5 T282(c))_canno` t � et=by this petition and the supporting information provided. Although the appli,-ant's original Petition for Immediate Cancellation (Attachment B) of January 30, 2004 End subsequent May 30, 2006 submittal of supporting information addressed both sets cf findings, the �Maich f2, 2.007 binder of supporting material from the applicant (attachment Q focuses on "consistency"findings. This report and staff's recommendations address only ® Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 1 of 14 ■ 1 Sec. 51282(b) ``consistency"'findings. It is staff's recommendation that the petition lacks • adequate factual information to support "public interest" findings (Sec. 51282(-�)). ' The Department of Conservation commented_in_their April 26,_2004, letter (Attachment D). that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided that the Board of Supervisors �rna-y==have=sufficient suppoin`g-e idence_ta-make=the=requir_ ed-required cancellation. �,'On June 30, 2004 the Butte County Land~ Conservation Aat Advisory Committee(LCA Committee) reviewed this petition for cancellation. By ajorit o e " the Comm_ i tee approved a motion of intent to approve the cancellation and directed staff. to ' bring back findings in support of the motion (see minutes, Attachment E). The' Committee's 'decision was misinterpreted by the then Director of Development Services as a direction`to staff to prepare cancellation findings for consideration by the Bo'ard ofI. jr Supervisors. On December 13,2005 see minutes, Attachment F)t� Boar3 opened -a t ' public hea ing on the petition for cancellation, and continued the public hearing, directing staff to take 'the draft cancellation findings which had been prepared back d_o the LCA Committee for review and recommendations, after County Counsel commented that the findings were not sufficient to approve this cancellation, specifically because of the lack of evidence ,supporting the finding regarding proximate non -contracted, suitable, available land.-;", : At its�anuary11, 2006 meeting, the LCA Committee assessed the draft findings that had ;i • been presented'to the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2005 (minutes, Attachment ' G). At that •meeting County Counsel again commented that the findings were not sufficient to • approve this cancellation, specifically because of the lack of evidence supporting the finding regarding proximate non -contracted, suitable, available land. This ! criteria is part of "consistency" finding Sec. 51282(a) 5 (first portion) and "public i interest" finding Sec. 51282(c)(2)(first portion)). County Counsel recommended that staff 'communicate with the Department of Conservation (DOC) for additional. - clarifications. -, The Committee instructed staff to work with the applicant on elaborating y� the required findings. The public hearing was continued at the applicant's request until J , ,. the March, 2006 meeting. In March 2006 the Development Services Depanment began j`{- drafting -revised Bufte!"•County�Administrative Procedures and Uniform Rules for • • Implementi g he Williamson Act. Aware that the Department would be recommending ' - � mcluston of the approach stated in Rule 6.D.3 (as described below), the applicant elected 1I to have consideration of the cancellation continued until such time as the Board might fl adopt those rules. • Please note that C-ou—nty Counsel had not had opportuni7 to review P unci nnmment nn con sistencv Finding #5 (Section 51282 (bl) as presented ir_ this re>7ort. hearin • .+.'�..' •. 7 r.. r• Yom• • Butte County Department Of Development Services e - ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 }"�, ■ Page 2of140 • • v. -A a •. ANALYSIS DOCRes.pons.e to Req.uest.fo.r_Clarification: DOC responded`March 1, 2006 (Attachment H) to County Counsel's letter o 12-21- 55 (Attachment I); ,,The In summary, the DOC commented that neither The landowner's intention or reasons, for entering into the. contract (stated by Mrs. Liptrap as avoiding the higher taxes which would be imposed on non -LCA land) nor; 2. "; The � County's knowledge that the land had been designated for �. ,residential use at the time of contract- signing, are relevant in making' . f.... ~; the statutory findings required for cancellation. r' DO -C sta edthat the only findings required—for cancellation are those requiredb_t he contract and by Government Code_51282.f-D0C-commented further"that the Williamson Act could not be interpreted to contemplate voiding a contract because a county failed to restrict.the use of the land by zoning it for agricultural use. DOC also -commented that decisions regarding "public interest" cancellation findings cannot be exclusively based on, `.`local" public'interests. DOC's comments letter also provided additional perspective on the definitions of the `terms "proximate", "suitable", and "available" as they pertain to cancellation findings. Site and 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 +/-52 acres currently plarited with a walnut orchard. 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 (Attachment J).. 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. - } 1999LCA Contract and LocarRegula`tions Regarding Cancellation Findings: , Clause VII of the MW -MV -contract -that restricts the cancellationparcelrequires that both consistency and public benefit findings be made in order to approve a contract - cancellation_. However, Rule 6.D.3 of the revised'. Butte County Administrative £ . Procedures and Uniform Rules for Implementing the Williamson Act adopted by the , Board on January 23, 2007 provide the following: A Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ WilliamsonAct Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ' - ePage 3of14■ " ,� •' Rule 6.D.3: Any application for immediate cancellation shall require that the Board of Supervisors make either consistency findings per Section 51282. (a) (1) or public interest findings per Section 51282. (a) (2). In March 2006,the Development Services Department began drafting these revised Butte County, Administrative Procedures and Uniform Rules for Implementing the :Williamson Act. Aware that the . Department would be recommending inclusion of the approach , stated in Rule 6.D.3 above, the applicant elected to have consideration of the cancellation continued until,such time as the Board might adopt those rules. Although the petitioner's initial. •petition i presentation to the county also requested considerations of findings of T "public benefit", this report, recommends that while the statutory "consistency" findings . _ can be made '(and 'are in and of themselves adequate to comply with State requirements i for cancellation) the applicant has not presented adequate supporting information and rationale to supportBoard approval of the statutory "public interest" findings- . - Alternate Proposed_Land Use after Cancellation: _ The alternate use proposed for this land is subdivision ("Liptrap-Kittyhawk" TSM 04-11) into '48 one -acre residential parcels (Attachment J). The TSM .04-11 application - is - curi•ently deemed incomplete, lacking submittal of an initial drainage plan, determined by the Public Works Department to adequately mitigate potential flooding and drainage impacts associated with this site. _ The proposed subdivision map. cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. It is important to note that the LCA • Committee is charged with focusing on assessing the adequacy of cancellation findings, ' V : and not land use issues such as the merits of the proposed residential subdivision. Project Location with North Chico Specific Plani I : The.Cancellation parcel=is located within the North Chico Specific Plan (h -CSP); which was adopted by the county as an amendment and supplement to the Butte County General Planin 1995 The NCSP is a specific plan for residential and mixed-use development of r the area surrounding the cancellation parcel to the north, south, and east. Highway 99 immediately West -of the site forms the western boundary of the NCSP. Az October -21, 2003 Memorandum of Understanding, Cooperative Planning in the C_lico Area of Concern (Attachment K) with the City of Chico encourages development of this area.to - urban -development standards. This 1999 (Liptrap) +/-52-acre LCA contract is the only. .•' Williamson Act contract within the bounds of the NCSP, apart from a 4.17 -acre parcel F,(047-700-002) 'on the extreme northeastern edge of the specific plan area, which is a part of a 256 -acre 1968 LCA contract. Environmentall Analysi 5' The cancellation of a Williamson Act contract is considered to be a project subject to , CEQA review., An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS71viND) is being prepared for.this project and will be circulated for a minimum 30 -day public review. The environmental assessment is being prepared to address the potential environmental impacts , of .both • the immediate cancellation of. the Williamson Act contract and the development of the related Kitty- Hawk (Liptrap) subdivision project (TSM 04-11). That .e Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ;o Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc. 04=02)0 Msrch' 19, 2007. ' ■ Page 4 of 14 ■ • environmental will also disclose the reasonably projected cumulative impacts of the pending Guernsey TSM 04-07 (immediately south of the cancellation parcel). Should the Board elect to approve this contract cancellation, it would first need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, to satisfy CEQA requirements. However, the IS -MND is not required for the LCA Committee to make a recommendation on cancellation findings to the Board. While the two parcels immediately north of the cancellation parcel ("Hauselt" and "Levy") underwent exploratory pre -development feasibility review consultations with the county in 2003 and 2005 respectively, no development entitlement applications have been submitted regarding these two parcels. . Cancellation Process 1 o In order toconsider contract cancellation, the county must give* notice of, and hold a public hearing on the landowner's petition for cancellation. 2. Notice must 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 must be .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).) 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. • . ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 March 19, 2007 ■ Page 5of14■ • C: tatutory wnnamson act t-ancenatwii rniunigN 11 —1: The Board of = Super-visors—may–grant tentative approval for cancellation of a Williamson Act contract only if it makes either, public interest or consistency findings. a) Iri order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act (GC 51282(b), the Board of Supervisor:; must also find: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. c4• , (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent t 1 s ' ' lands from agricultural use rF (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 non -contracted land which is both t� available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the . contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous ' patterns of " urban development than development of proximate noz-contracted land. As used in this subdivision "proximate, noz-contracted - land" means land not restricted by contract purs..rant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve as a practical alternative for the use which is .proposed for the restricted land. 'As used in this. subdivision' "suitable" for the proposed use means that the salient features of y the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by contract pursuant ,to this chapter. Such non -restricted land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels (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 gricult L -to which the la}ld may be put GC/ §51282(b)).�% _ The applic ts—ofi-ginaliJan y 29, 2004 PeJT titi'6 foi Cancellation (A.tachment B) proposed both public intefe�stla—nd consistency findings. On 5Ma 3-1;ZM6'the applicant also submitted a memorandum in support of immediate cacellation ofW'll niamson Act contract, providing additional analysis. On Ipscember 7, 2006the applicant submitted draft consistency findings. On March 12, 2007 the applicant submitted the binder of supporting materials (Attachment C w rch focus s on "consistency" findings. Staff has reviewed all of these , submittals and the requirements of Section 51282 and drafted the consistency findings found below. ' ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report - Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 6 of l4 ■ l • C: tatutory wnnamson act t-ancenatwii rniunigN 11 —1: The Board of = Super-visors—may–grant tentative approval for cancellation of a Williamson Act contract only if it makes either, public interest or consistency findings. a) Iri order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act (GC 51282(b), the Board of Supervisor:; must also find: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. c4• , (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent t 1 s ' ' lands from agricultural use rF (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 non -contracted land which is both t� available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the . contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous ' patterns of " urban development than development of proximate noz-contracted land. As used in this subdivision "proximate, noz-contracted - land" means land not restricted by contract purs..rant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve as a practical alternative for the use which is .proposed for the restricted land. 'As used in this. subdivision' "suitable" for the proposed use means that the salient features of y the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by contract pursuant ,to this chapter. Such non -restricted land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels (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 gricult L -to which the la}ld may be put GC/ §51282(b)).�% _ The applic ts—ofi-ginaliJan y 29, 2004 PeJT titi'6 foi Cancellation (A.tachment B) proposed both public intefe�stla—nd consistency findings. On 5Ma 3-1;ZM6'the applicant also submitted a memorandum in support of immediate cacellation ofW'll niamson Act contract, providing additional analysis. On Ipscember 7, 2006the applicant submitted draft consistency findings. On March 12, 2007 the applicant submitted the binder of supporting materials (Attachment C w rch focus s on "consistency" findings. Staff has reviewed all of these , submittals and the requirements of Section 51282 and drafted the consistency findings found below. ' ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report - Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 6 of l4 ■ a �+w, a .�,, ; •t ..,i��. r f �d 1 , e - - _ ry • r—Summary of Non -statutory Findings - 1: The Department of Conservation commented in their April 26, 2004- "letter .(Attachment D)'" 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. t 2. � The Department of Conservation points out that this area is currently bound*by the North Chico Specific Plari, which is a planning area identified by the General Plan for development. w 3. The North" Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the County in, 1995, and the Liptrap Williamson= t Contract was approved in 1999. •,4. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the iy 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. ' 6.•: The landowner has now filed a Tentative Subdivision Map with the County to divide this property into 48, one -acre parcels, a use that is consistent with the North Chico ` -Specific Plan. • 7.Y The North Chico 'Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future development in this urea, and the Plan ,supports the residential development proposed by the applicant:; 8. The Land Conservation Advisory .Committee discussed the information provided by r `the applicant and staff at their meetings of June 30, 2004, January 11, •2006 and + , March 19, 2006 and has reviewed the information presented in the application. 9'. The Committee. provided =instruction to staff to formulate findings supporting cancellation based upon information contained within the record. Findings that the Cancellation is Consistent with the Williamson Act (51282.b): _ ° .The statutory, findings pursuant to government code section 51282 (b) as recommended - by, Staff supporting the Cancellation is detailed below. Section 51282 (b) . Find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act as " follows: ` " Finding (1),That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal !has been served. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ - ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — a Cancellation (Canc 04=02)0 March 19, 2007 ` . : - ,' - .,�� =Page 7 ° f 14 ■ _ . ' , ' PA i Oyu ti '� The original request for cancellation was delivered to Butte County on �i • September 7 2 3 and was subsequently acknowled ed b a recorded >• �' �G / ,� ► Septe be , 00 , q y g y f ' Notice of Non -renewal in accordance with the Government Code. Finding (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal o 'adja an from agricultural use. Lands adjacent to this_parcels(see maps, Attachment L)f cre located tivithin the Nor h Chico Specific_ Plan, which- designa� tes'la'nds �• surrounding to the nom rth, south, and east for residential development r �• 4 The Autumn Park one-acrelots residential subdivision (immediately • -., t t w ,. east of the cancellation parcel) is already fully built -out. The 49 -acre : . • }t,parcel immediately south of the cancellation parcel has been' the subject of a tentative parcel map application to Butte Couniy (TSM 04- G z t '"`+�s 07="Gun—erse "� nce 2003 (see Attachment J). While the two parcels ~ immediately nor h of the cancellation parcel ("Hauselt" and "Levy") underwent exploratory pre -development feasibiliti v ` review " consultations with the county in 2003 and 2005 respectively, . no development entitlement applications have been submittedregarding '► '"` ese• o parcels. (th `i ', ... ` • SR -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenliney 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 Specific Plan, the General Plan's. Greenline policy reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this l; • property would result in the removal of adjacent land from !k agricultural use. The limitations on development imposed by the Greenline help ensure cancellation is not likely to,'result in the { removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. • The letter pf comment from the California Department of Conservation a `(DOC) of April 26, 2004 (Attachment states= that the proposed it cancellation appears to be consistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (51282, findings 1 through 4). , _ The proposedKitty Hawk tentative subdivision map (TSM 04-11) +h application (on the cancellation parcel) proposes a 135' -wide open ' space/storm drainage detention basin combined with a 55' building exclusion area, which together with the 100' -wide Highway 99 right-. of -way combine to create a 300' -wide buffer between lie proposed t residential uses and agricultural uses to the west. This buffer, helps ensure—thatcancellation isnot likely to pesult—in the removal of •. adjacent lands from agricultural use. - ` ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007. J ■Page 8of14■ V i G �, • ie Based on the preceding endings d -in Emadon_in-tke- or it ' • determined that this ca cellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands fro agricultural use. T Finding (3) That cancellatio is for an alternative use which is consistent with . S ithe applicable provisions of the city orcounty general plan. 66 ' 1 14 The cancellation parcel is located within the �orth Chico Specific ��+0 ' s;'f, PIan(NCSP) and since 1995 has been zoned SR -1 (Suburban i! S,e� Residential, one acre lot minimum). The site is located 1/3 mile north of the 'City of Chico's Sphere of Influence. The NCSP is a guide for �! t •growth and development within the overall context of the Batte County tJ,VAV (�`' G ' �-.�-a. °' General Plan. Cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on this site will allow the property to be used for the residential purpose u,5 designated in the NCSP. { -: rThe applicant has filed an application with the Department W of Development Services for a subdivision map ;(Kittyhawk Park TSM ' - #04-11). Although this Map' application is c`�`uerently deemed �;. "incomplete and is still under' -review, the proposed 48 one -acre parcels, are consistent with the provisions of the North Chaco Specific ' f Plan's SR -1 (Suburban Residential; 7 -acre minimum parcel size) . zoning and the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation • • Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that this cancellation is for an alternative u. a which is •'r - ;� consistent with the applicable provisions of the Butte Cowry general ' plan. , Finding (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of --- urban development. it • The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous , 'r 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 develo� pment� The cancellation parcel is located immediately to the west of ithe Autumn Park - . ° - ' j 5 Subdivision Phases 3, which is fully built -out. . tit tl. • The letter of comment from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 20041 Attachment D) states that, ' - "The express purpose and intent at (the time the North Chico- Specific hico- Specific Plan was adopted) was that this property would cease to z' be considered as viable agricultural property and would convert ' to residential housing. The Department notes thae the County adopted the NCSP in 1995 and the County and the Landowner' ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04.02)0 Marc71 19, 2007_ 0 Page 9 of 14 ■ Finding (5) That there is no proximate anon -contracted land which is both avt Table andr sui b e for the use to which it is proposed tre contracted q land be put; or that development of the contracted- land would provide than proximate non -contracted land. §51282 '7S aff is re�ommen in at there is adequatFsuppo frig factual information for the second portion of finding of GC §51282(b)(5) to be made: y •' 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 cancellation parcel is zoned for residential use 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, ■ Butte` County Department Of Development Services ■ S Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)0 March 19, 2007 ■Page 10 of 14■ • entered into a Land Conservation Agreement. in December, 1999. �r '{ Since the° Kit hawk property.was clearly within a plqnning area identified for development, the initiation of ' the Land 'f f , ' ''Conservation Agreement in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to reserve agricultural lend. ' p - �( • The proposed Guernsey Subdivision (TSM 04-05, located immediately south of the cancellation parcel, is a flex lot Proposal on a'..+/ -49 -acre parcel for development of SO residential lots of approximately 1/2 acre . each, - and 22 acres of Open ' Space on the northwestern portion adjacent to Autumn Park Drive and Highway 99 S).. The Guernsey TSM 04-07 application -has been deemed (R -99 i _ "complete'. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration F VS/MND) has been completed, but the project has not been advanced Y to public hearing because the applicant disagrees with some proposed - ' mitigation measures and has elected not to Sign the IS/MND, " preventing that document frombeing nofic`edand circulated for public review and subsequent public hearing. �SR-99�t�o the west demarcates the western limit of the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Arec Greenline. !� • .' *' The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are "appropriate east of SR -99 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 Speci; is Plan and 4' s Greenline Policy. Based on the preceding findings and information in the. record it is -determined that. this cancellation will not result in d!scontiguous .patterns of urban development. { Finding (5) That there is no proximate anon -contracted land which is both avt Table andr sui b e for the use to which it is proposed tre contracted q land be put; or that development of the contracted- land would provide than proximate non -contracted land. §51282 '7S aff is re�ommen in at there is adequatFsuppo frig factual information for the second portion of finding of GC §51282(b)(5) to be made: y •' 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 cancellation parcel is zoned for residential use 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, ■ Butte` County Department Of Development Services ■ S Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)0 March 19, 2007 ■Page 10 of 14■ Greenline.. The Chico Area Greenline spec e 4 u>r 6 appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural; uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposed alternative use for the cancellation parcel would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline po.'icy. 4*/3 • ` The letter of comment fry the' California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 (Attachment D) states that, Ce c o it does appear that development of the contrzcted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development ii than development of proximate non -contracted land. " P The area within which the cancellation parcel,is located consists of an d approximately65-acre residential in -fill `pock"seeL a r :�it" i. _, Attachment L) of currently undeveloped land sepa a ed�fr•�m 5 " of the North Chico Specific Plan Area by the Keefer Stouge WJ Ke'efer Slough'represents asign f cant physical barrier which prevents immediately contiguous patterns of urban developmen� Tine 265-acr S area is`composed `as fellows: _J I , APN Owner Acres Status ,047-430-003 Hauselt 94 * No adjacent roajs/acces . Separated by Keefer Slough. 047-440-012 Levy 67 * No adjacent roads/access. 047-260-199 Nicolaus 47 CANC 04-02, TSM 04-11 047-260-198. Guernsey 49 TSM 04-07 - 047-270-033 Carij 8 Bounded on north by TS VI 04-07. TOTAL 265 Acres cV y Q� u `J W *,NCSP does not provide for access off of SR -99. The • f ve parcels' listed above (within the North Chico Specific Plan) rP ? . . comprise a 265 -acre undeveloped pocket which share a common a V boundary with properties already developed. Development, of any of these five parcels would appear to represent some degree of "contiguous pattern of urban development". However, only • the • % ( Nicolaus/Kitty Hawk TSM APN 047-260-199 (cancellation parcel) and G j1�'� the Guernsey (047-260-198) properties are located ad`acent to an I arterial roadway as designated by the North' Chico S�)ecif c Plan i� Circulation 'Element. Development of this arterial roadway. is ® considered key to ,.ensuring that contiguous patterns of urban development in -the North Chico Specific Plan Area ary adequately Gi r served by roadways and a circulation pattern that provides optimum . access, provision of emergency services, and of kient traffic , circulation. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)0 Mar•;h 19, 2007 ■ Page 11 of 14 ■ r , e Guernse property (immediate south of the cancellation parcel) has `'been the subject of a r sidential development Entitlement application (TSM 04-07) under separate ownership since October 31, . 2003 (prior to the submittal the c ellat' n application). This land is therefore dot considere to b L'available'for the alternative use proposed by the cancel ation. The criteria detailed in the March 1, 2006• letter (Attachm t H) from the DOC's Acting Chief Counsel (in response to the Bu e County Counsel's letter of,12-21-05, Attachment - 1) appears to co irm this interpretation. • TheAutumn Park subdivision. (immediately east of the cancellation • parcel) has two east -west oriented streets which. `dead-end' into the t- cancellation parcel. These are identified as Anjou Court and Magness, V. _ Court. These two streets are shown on their final map as continuing in _.a westerly direction and connecting directly to future deveeopments on + the parcel. The configuration of these two streets appears to indicate . �4 the county's intention that these streets will eventually connect to and ' extend to the west in an effort to create a circulation conreciivity and _a 3 a more contiguous pattern of urban development". The presence of Anjou Court and Magness Court indicate that. immediate-:ancellation of the Kittyhawk LCA will allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban development than other p_roximate„non-;contracted_p�xcels in the area which do not have o portu� pities for connectivi f cirtion, which encourage more contiguous patterns o urban development. • The location and configuration of the Guernsey (TSM 04-07) property (immediately south of the cancellation parcel) and the configuration of the existing residential development (immediately east of the Guernsey TSM does not provide opportunities for circulation connectivity --and a more contiguous pattern of urban development". The only points of circulation access for the Guernsey TSM are off of Kitryhawk Drive. • The cancellation petitioner reported to th county o December 7, 2006 that he is in escrow on the 6&c e"Lev operty located immediately to the north of the subject p o er Mcrch 2005 the petitioner undertook a Pre -Development Review consultation, with the County to begin assessing the feasibility offuture suburban -residential development. However, to date the county has not .received any development entitlement applications for this property. While this land may be considered to be proximate,non contracted,—and available, it is not suitable for more contiguous urban development as ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 March -19, 2007 ■ Page 12of14■ • , ` ; • : The?Levy property cannot be developed to. its zoned suburban- residential potential until access can be provided by way of the cancellation parcel. While there is the potential for acee.,s at Bosc t. r .. Drive, Butte County Subdivision Code Section -20,13 ^ requires additional points of ingress and egress to a resi ential subdivision ^where cul-de-sac streets serve more than 20 lots (Section 20- 133). These access points=can only take place through- the Au.`umn Park I ` < subdivision and the Kittyhawk property. This limitation exi-ts because -there is an insufficient 60' cross section to the east.to cGnnect with 'Garner lane as required by Butte County Subdivision Code 20-134. o �; ,r ; Connecting to Highwa 9y 9 to the west is not an option as the east -west J' «+t• arterial for -this area is alread;pplanned for the extension o(Kittyhawk y �.�Q 5 ; Drive. Specif Cally, a sixty f_oo:t_easementlwas established 'in 1999 for .the purpose of extending Kittyhawk_ Drive on the south side of the CP cancellation parcel. The long range build -out plan or Mis arterial iJ� '• P g g P f roadway is detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis for Kitt�hawk Park and Guernsey Subdivisions (February 8, 2005, RKH Engineering). rt Construction of this arterial is also. detailed in the nel orth Chico Specific Plan Circulation Element.' • Th resence of Bosc Driv as it connects to the Levy property clearly indicates that immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk LCA will allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban development (onto the Levy property) thantdevelopment of_proximate_nonrcontracted land because ' the restrictions_ of the Williamson Act _on.the -Kittyhawk percel prevent Jf the construction of additional roads required for ingress and egress ontoahe Levy parceb� • t' , oThe immediate development potential f the r96 -acre Hauselt property t (to the north of the Levy and Kitty Hawk parcels)_fis const ained by the lack of access roads and adequate circulation patterns as described Q�� n .� - above for the Levy property. This property would therefore not allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban development. :'.• Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that development of the parcel proposed for canczllation would = provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land. Cancellation Fee 1. The cancellation fee is payment made to cancel a Williamson Ac_ contract that provides a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(f)). • " ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ MF.rch 19, 2007 ■ Page 13 of 14 ■ ,. 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 e 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 Recommend that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: 1. 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 detailed in this staff report 2.Condition the Tentative Immediate Cancellation to require that a . tentative ' subdivision map be approved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ N Williamson Act Committee Staff Report —Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 0Page 14 of 14■ rATTACHMENT A . , . ��i�� ■off i► oil son miss M SIM Miisbn La'nding Rd 875 437.5 0 875 1,750 2,625 .. ... 7,875 Feet . BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION .: .. .. /1\ Hearing 1 District #3 • •, ,,Request: Immediate Ccancellation from a Williamson Act Contract (CLCA) of 52+/- acres Superv'isorial pursuant to Governnient Code• :1 251287. i U . ��i�� ■off i► oil son miss M SIM Miisbn La'nding Rd 875 437.5 0 875 1,750 2,625 .. ... 7,875 Feet . BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION .: .. .. /1\ Hearing 1 District #3 • •, ,,Request: Immediate Ccancellation from a Williamson Act Contract (CLCA) of 52+/- acres Superv'isorial pursuant to Governnient Code• :1 251287. ■ aMEN.s ••.�` A ■�i��i .� ■1■fir �� ■■■■ ■� CEOINN ■r ■■■�� - �� ` �� ■ �� ■ - . . LM - A� � ii��iii�■ � ��I ■■moi, 'Wilson• • Rd Cil ��■■��■--��I IN11i11111i11�� !■■■■■■■� 10,1001 ■��ii11i�ii��l 11 ■ ■�� ®�.. o., .. .,. 7,875 •COMMISSIONApplica_►, . , ... ..'HeaSupervisorial pursudnt to G. .. :, District #3' m �s PETITION T0. CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION "AGREEMENT (Submit Original and 4 Copics) To the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte. The undersiped hereby petitions) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte to Cancel the Lane! Conservation Agreement executed betwocn the County of Butte and P f—i'ti f (� on j d `� ` as it relates to land in Agncultural Preserve No. of the z County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. [n support of this petition; the undersigned: alleges: That the undersigned prescntly owns the land covered by said �} 09r7- ah9 -GOQ agreement described as follows:" eOQ St Si Off �. °q �� 3 H t n`t �E&ALSGKfpI !U� rt 1�T'T-/tGtRf 7 r 2. -111.,11 Cvlcellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (Government l Code 51200 et seq.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that:* �I /-rac,i+L ------------ The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed this day it California. Petitioners) Date Hied. Environmental information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION - 1/vL:L i O �. I P -I-RA n 1. Nairne and address of developer or project sponsor: �. -331 C. i+ 1'C �n c . AfPIZK 3ocv' I � �� GvrtrsoN 2. /address of project: �`f1 - d o 2 c.�D Assessors Block :and Lot Numbcr: � U L� -- ( i y - �- d cs ;. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted coneing�thtip2Y�3 G£. "iCot�;tvS i-P�CCAiJr N� RAIVG It 4. Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivisi ) L j i ui,ft E`v�S° n� t4�T SAS£ m � / S�z��stsl.O'u. related permits and other public approvals required for this project, S. List and describe any other • inclu 'ng those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: tit AI -I v Sv .3Divt'ti0IV 11'1AP C��rf�_% R- A 06. Existing zoning district: (;ii � R ' ( r •;�t-r � u j�©jZ Trt- � tf f c v .5�� c t'�r c 7_ Proposed use of site: ti, 2�st �� N i I. � } a; -;F rES PROJECT DL-SCRIp"r10N 3. Site sl -/-C. 9 Square footage of building(s). 10. Numbcr of floors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. . 12. Attach site development plan. j9" 7`T/}4 { D 13. Proposed scheduling. AJ 6— .14:- —.14:- Associated projects. ?' 1 S. Anticipated. incremental development. lG. ff residential, include .the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type oChousehcld sire expected. � 3 i e g_ 5 `rte -, /V _��L' D/ G l cis S l 7 If commercial,. indicate the type„whether neighhorhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of salts area, and loading Facilities. 13. If indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and lording facilities. 19. If institutional, . indicate the- major function, ,estimated employment fr m thper�� ;timated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefi.s to be den project. 20. 1f the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, stare this ane indicalc clearly why the application is required. items applicable to the project or its eEfzcts? Are the following s checked yes (attach additional sheets as Discuss b i � clow a11 tem . necessary). YES NO. ting features of any beaches, lakes, or 21. change in existing round coutours. — hills, or substantial alteration of.g • 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 titter. h, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. 25. Change in dust, as 26. Significant change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patters. _ xisting noise or"vibration levels in the vicinti}- 27. Substantial, change in e 2S. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more. _Az 29.. Use ordisposal of potentially hazardous materials, such a_5 coxa � substances, Dammublcs or explosives. V e in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage 30. Substantial chang, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel,consumption (electrictiy, oil; natural gas, etc.) Retalionsttip to part of a larger project or scncs of projects. I,I ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33- 'Describe,the project site as it exists before the project, including information saspectto De.s phy, soil ultural, historical, or sceni stability, plants and c s. escribe any animals, and any c existing structtttes on the site, and the use of the structures: 14. 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, set -back; rear yard, etc.). its CERTIFICATION: l hereby certify that the statements furtto the bemished st of my abild in the tity, and that the present the data and information required for this initial evaluation facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct.to the best ofmy knowledge .).nd belief. -. Date a (Signature) • For • January 29, 2004 • Attachment to "Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Ag e282ent" addressing Item 2 under Government Code Section 5 Itis the intention of the Petitioner to show compliance with all government codes and identify the corresponding public interests served by (a) cancella io of the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject proFerty. 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 Froperty, 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, Gamer Lane, Hicks Lane and several additional smaller streets i -i the area east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire station located across from the proposed Kittyhawk and Highway 99 intersecton. 1 2. InD Emergency personnel would gain accessto rapidly ci ml orerdirect route residential areas east of Highway 99 by to the Garner Lane intersection or than the existing drive south -north to the Keefer Road intersection. This road, as it is already shown on the toap, also and from Keiffer allows for additional, non -emergency routes Road, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing formaavailable to enhancement of general traffic circulation. As discretion y Butte County are very limited, the completion of and iniverent community benefits of 1Cittyhawk Drive may not be reaLzed _ct on the anytime soon. Cancellation of the Land Co k to u proceed, which m subject property will allowforva r g for the onstructicn of turnwill provide for private Kittyhawk Drive. Conti ous Growth Pattern a). The nd cancellation of the Land Conservation nAgr eek mow for 'subsequent application for the WA . e contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an o`pressa frons as within Butte County. to provide for contiguousgr P evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resulting orderly growth of residential neighborhoods allows for the t services, ranging from utilities effective addition of various suppor to emergency services. st border with an The subject property is contiguous on theme south border with a existing subdivision and contiguous on hich was re proposed 50 unit subdivision walmond orch-ard on tguous Butte County planning staff. older with and to the north of the subject property wi an� aS to ated d of all trees within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR 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 remov :!d almond orchard. 3. Aghcultural Element Issues a). Butte County adopted the Agricultural Element in 1995. While the Element's express purpose is to preserve agricultural 2 'I land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "Allow for the conversion of 1; 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) i 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 a 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 n noted above is the result of several factors which are also pointed out in the Agricultural Element. Under Goal 2, Policies, Programs, . y 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. i 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 shat , 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: z 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 vici--.ity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout tze 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 througr 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 anc 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 fawn. The • application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing ch.;micals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pestcides 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 issue 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 ef`icient 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 woulc 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, tc be in • substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department can agree is acceptab ie and suitable for the exchange. 4 In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found to De 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 Purposes of the Code. Subsequent to the issues regarding Public Interest as described, Code SE.ction 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the followMg 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 SOecific Plans designated area for.development and are not currently, in agricultural use or. are already utilized as suburban resid 2ntial. 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. 5 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 developmI. ent 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 fat=s 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 Phis. i •ro er • P , p tY .Y4,;Zme, _g; . Petitioner" Date • it LCAExc*ggeDraft103 • 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 `ibration 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.corne into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the in ended 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 tile. proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nrture 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 "steriching 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 viva 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 SO 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 Please see white binder' titled Land Conservation. Advisory Committee Petition for � Immediate Cancellation Application 04-02 Parcel 047-260-199 Petitioner George R. b F ' � 1 C DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N.I A April 26, 2004 DIVISION OF Mr. 'Dan Breedon, Principal Planner LAND RESOURCE PROTECT -ION Butte County Dept. of Developmental Services a v 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 801 K STREET SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814 PHONE 916/324-0850 FAX 916/327-3430 INTERNET c�v.ca.gov GRAY DAVIS GOVERNOR • 0 RE:. " Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation AgreemEnt; APN 047-260-199, Landowner: ► vElyn Lipti ap Dear Mr. Breedon: Thank you -for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the above referenced matter. The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres, currently planted with 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. ThD 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 51.282 requires that either the consistency or public interest findings must be made by the Board. Government Code §51240 provides that contract previsions 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 wi I make a recommendation on the proposed cancellation to the Board of Supervisors. 14 I 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 3 of 4 for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to the east and south. The Department agrees that development of the subject parcel will nct result in a discontiguous pattern of urban development. 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 Ch co 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 tl� Mr. Dan Breedon •Apri1 26, 2004 Page 4of4 �i 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 commitme-It 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 tc 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 arra 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 agricu tural 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 cancel ation. After reviewing the documentation and information provided, it appears that the Board may have sufficient supporting evidence for making the required findings. Pleas,3 provide our office with a copy of the Notice of the Public Hearing on this matter ten I: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 n U LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES — JUNE 30,209 4 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 C'zairman 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 tirr_e 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 tal=ped 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 thatthe $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 e June 30, 2004 ■ Page 2 s y • the penalty fees which are based on the fair market value of Mr. Holland explained how to figure p ty 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 '/2 years ago to put this property into the. Williamson Act and now say itis 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 uncer 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 m Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 m Pale 3 e • 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 we.:e 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 befcre 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 iE 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 foi 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 will be developed eventually. Chairman Christopher said the question is whether it is appropriate to cancel this con.ract 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 devei-opment 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 hada 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 fB-om its contract quickly or long term and if the Committee can meet the findings to release it quick�.y. 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 herds 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 determine that • there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for _he proposed use and that the development of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard would provide a more cont_guous pattern of development, seconded by Mr. Daley. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes n June 30, 2004 ■ Page 5m • The discussion continued: Mr. Skinner said he feels the applicant has satisfied the requirements and addressee the issues. Mr. -Bailey said he would disagree, that the NCSP has been in effect for 10 years End 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 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. i Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 6 0 r__1 LJ • 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 # 1 "That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non-Re-iewa1 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 terminate3 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 ■ ti 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 anc 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 alrea(fy 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 wiereas there is a 300 -foot setback, there is agricultural land to the west which would be protected 7)y this 300 -foot setback, recognize that this cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjF-cent 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. m- Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■. 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 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, 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 #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. • 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: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #3- vote It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to find that Gari ;ellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or Cowity 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,Daley, Mr. Connell, Mr. 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 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 t -ie 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 fmd 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. s Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 e Page 10 ■ I BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 2005 0525-009 Continued Public Hearing - Petition for Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Agreement (Evelyn Liptrap - consideration of a petition to immediately cancel a Williamson Act agreement on a 52.72 acre parcel, located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane, and east of, and adjacent to, State Route 99, in the north Chico area and identified as APN 047-260-199. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been prepared•for this project and the Planning Division is recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration- action requested PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51282, AND SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2005, APPROVE THE TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF THE WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT FOR EVELYN LIPTRAP, APN 047-260-199, INSTRUMENT NO. 0052839, RECORDED DECEMBER 22, 1999, SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE APPLICABLE CANCELLATION FEE; AND DIRECT THE RECORDING OF A CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION. -(FROM 11-8-05 [5.02]) (**1205) PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED: 11:39 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 11:45 A.M. THIS ITEM TO RETURN TO THE LAND CONSERVATION ACT COMMITTEE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD ON THIS MATTER. 0525-010 'Continued Public Hearing - Ken and Mary Brown - Tentative Parcel Map Appeal - consideration of an appeal of conditions of approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 2.3 acre parcel into two parcels of 1.03 and 1.3 acres. Sanitary sewer service to the property is available through a recorded "Sewer Service and Annexation Agreement" with the City of Chico. Water service would be provided by the California Water Service Company. Access for the additional parcel is proposed by Via Morro Court.. The project is located on the north side of Via Morro Court, and identified as APN 011-020-083 (TPM 04N-29) - action requested - DENY THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONS 12, 13, 16 AND 17 FOR THE BROWN TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM 04N-29) APN 011-020-083.(FROM 11-8-05 [5.031) (**1745) MOTION: J VOTE: r RECESS: i) RECONVENE: MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED: 11:54 A.M. THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THE APPEAL OF CONDITION 17. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 12:13 P.M. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. M - , S 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) 12:15 P.M. 12:17 P.M. PAGE 21 DECEMBER 13, 2005 1 n. LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES — January 11, 2006 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. County Center Drive, Oroville. I. ROLL CAL Present: Absent: Also Present: in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room, #25 Blake Bailey, Assessor's Office Pete Calarco, Development Services Joe Connell, Farm Advisory Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner David Skinner Lewis Johnson and Clarence W. Daley Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Steve Troester, Associate Planner Stu Edell, Public Works Ken Reimers, Assessor Rob MacKenzie, Deputy County Counsel • II. MINUTES -None III. APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION — Continued from October 18, 2005 A. Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 Mr. Troester gave a brief summary. He said the application was sent back to the LCA Committee from the .Board of Supervisors to expand on the findings to in support of this cancellation. He said staff has provided additional findings. He discussed the _-xtension of Kitty Hawk Drive to link with Highway 99. Mr. MacKenzie said it is the opinion of County Counsel that the findings an,, not sufficient to approve this cancellation. He said the findings need a broader review. He said the possibility of Kitty Hawk Drive being extended should be further explored. He read Finding #5 — "Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is not available in tie vicinity or the development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North'Chico Specific Plan." He was not sure the first part of the finding has been met. He said staff needs to look at the entire North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) area. He said we need to make sure that there is no non -contract land available or that this will be a more contiguous pattern of urban development. He gave a brief summary of his letter to the Department of Conservation (DOC) requesting additional interpretations. He said he would like to see a response from DOC before the LCA Committee makes a decision on this application. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ January 12, 2006 ■ Page 1 of 3 ■ Mr. Troester said the above finding is an either/or finding and he believes they have met the second half of that finding. He said staff will continue the review of the findings so that they can be better, supported. Mr. MacKenzie said it is important to note that this land was only put into the Williamson Act in 19,99. He said this was noted in the letter from DOC and it infers that if we feel it was put into the act by mistake its ok to take it out of the contract. He said that is not the position the courts have taken, the courts have indicated that it is not in the County favor.to have -only recently put the property into the act, and it is not ok to put the property in for a few years, charge a cancellation penalty fee, and then take it out of the act. The hearing was opened to the public. Evelyn Liptrap said she asked that the property go into the Williamson Act because of her health and the fact that the taxes were going to be tripled. Mr. Bailey explained that this is prime agricultural land. He said the NCSP was adopted in 1995 and the applicant was aware in 1999 of the development potential. He said the applicant still wished to put the land in the Act. He said the LCA application in 1999 met all other criteria for inclusion. • Mr. Troester said if the County find that cancellation is in the best interest of the public due to the extension of Kitty Hawk Drive, then it would be beneficial to condition the cancellation to insure that the extension of the road occurs. Mr. Bailey said the parcel to the south is being developed. He asked if the Guernsey owner could extend Kitty Hawk Drive. Mr. Troester said the right-of-way is shared between the Guernsey property and Nicholaus property. Mr. Edell clarified and said the 60 -foot right-of-way was dedicated to the County in August 1999, with the Autumn Subdivision. He said the road extension could be dom by the Guernsey parcel map, but it makes more sense to share the cost of the extension between the Kitty Hawk Park and Guernsey subdivision Mr. George Nicholaus noted that the Guernsey project has a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration because of the Liptrap LCA contract in proximity. One of the mitigation measures would require a 300 -foot setback from the Liptrap property. Mr. Bailey said the 300 -foot setback would be required from agricultural property, not just property in the LCA. • Mr. MacKenzie said they definitely need further investigation. ■ LandConservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ January 12, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 3 ■ • It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded b Mr. Connell and unanimouslyc.3rr' y y ied to continue this hearing open to February 21, 2006. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 A.M. Richard Price, Chairman Land Conservation Act Committee L� • ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ January 12, 2006 ■ Pag- 3 of 3 ■ • ' i y y ' �� n . C=i i z�� y" J BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL WJou3/uu5 03/02/06 09:32 FAX 530 538 6891 P 02 iui,%, v, cvvv wcv UG•41 rri tri t' uum,.jr_KVHIIUN LtUHL PHK NU. y16.^^5 9916 STATF OF CALIFORNIA W50URCES AGF`h,_, rM01. Q SCIJW8MENrQUR. GOVFRNnR: r L DEPARTMENT OF C0NSERVAT10N LEGAL OFFICE BOiKSTREET - MS24-03 - SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9551 a BMWPhone 916 / 323-6733 • FAX 916 / 445.9916 . Tib 916 / 324-2555 . Intoaug conservovon.capov March 1, 2006 . Mr. Robert W. Mackenzle, Chief Deputy County Counsel Butte County, Office of County Counsel 25 County Center Drive Orovllle, California 95965-3380 Re: Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement; APN 047-260-199, Landowner Evelyn Liptrap Dear Mr. Mackenzie; in your December 21, 2005 letter to Dennis J, O'Bryant you requested clarification on the Department of Conservation's interpretation of relevant law on the subject of findings necessary to sustain a Williamson Act cancellation. Specifically, you requested answers to the following issues posed in your questions. �ndowner's State of Mind 1 As you correctly observed, Government Code section 51282 does not address the landowner's state of mind when entering a Williamson Act contract. Both Govemment Code section 51282 and Friends of East Willits Valley v. County of Mendocino 101 Cal. App. 4th 191, 209 (2002) make clear that.at-a minimum, the only findings necessary for cancellation are those explicitly stated In se•:tion,51282 and those required by CEQA. However, the Williamson Act permits local jurisdictions to incorporate into their contracts restrictions in addition to those required by statute. Government Code § 51240. For . example, in the present case, the contract requires a finding of both consistency with the purposes of the Williamson Act and the cancellation be in the public -interest. Even so, this contrast does not contemplate the Landowner's state of mind. Thus, state of mind is not relevant to these cancellation findings. County's Knowledge that Area was Planned for Residential Use when Contract was Executed Similar to the Landowner's state of mind, the County's knowledge that an area was planned for residential use when the contract was executed Is not directly relevant to the findings necessary to cancel this contract. Again, both Government Code section 512132(f and Friends of East Willits Valley make it clear the only findings necessary.for cancellation are those explicitly stated in section 51282, those required by CEQA and, if applicable, any additional findings required by the terms of the r contract. The County's knowledge of planned residential use is not a required finding) under section 51282, CEQA or the terms of the contract. • rMe Department of Cmuermadon's ldssfa s is to. pmtrci C:ai fomiarts aid truir err ronment by: Tratecay fives audproperty from eartlepvakes and (andjCfi%s; !rwu>irg safe mining andel)am (gar dri(Irc& C:onsaving Orl7fornia's farm[and aid saving energy and resources t(trotrigh recyr.(vg. 03/02/06 09:32 FAX 530 538 6891 BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL lejOU4/UU5 11t1rc-U1-eUUd wcu Ue;gl rrl U" IV U=itKVH'ftUN Lt:UHL M NU. 916 "45 99.16 P. 03 Mr, Robert W. Mackenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel utte County, Office of County Counsel age 2 of 3 However, even if a County had knowledge that the General Plan called for the residential use of an. area before the contract was executed it is not clear that the inconsistency alone could be used to show that the county acted in a manner that undercuts the Williamson Act's purpose. Even though Government Code section 51242(b) only allows the county to contract with respect to any land that "is located within an area designated by a city or a county as an agricultural preserve," it is the language of Section 8 of Article XII I of the California Constitution that control in this instance, requiring land to be "enforceably restricted" in order to gain the preferential tax treatment. The Williamson Act itself anticipates that zoning may trail behind the designation of an agricultural preserve. "An agricultural preserve may contain land other than agricultural land, but the use of any land within the preserve and not under contract shall Within tow years of the effective date of any contract of land within the preserve be restricted by zoning including appropriate m`nimurn parcel sizes that are at a minimum consistent with this chapter, in such a way as not to be incompatible with the agricultural use of the land, the use of which is limited by contract in accordance with this chapter," Government Code section 51230. Accordingly, the statute would not prVvent the county from designating an area as a preserve where some or all of the preserve area is previously zoned for less restrictive uses. We cannot see how the Williamson Act could be interpreted to contemplate voiding a contract because a county failed to carry out the responsibility to subsequently designate a restrictive zoning ordinance on the preserve. Local and Statewide Public Interest We agree with your assessment of the relevant aspects of the Supreme Court's decision in Sler Club v City of Hayward, 28 Cal. 3d, 840, (1981). In order to find that "other public con cams ra substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson AcIr (Government Code § 51282(c) (1)) the California Supreme Court directed that the Board must consider the interest of the public as a whole in the value of the land for open space and agricultural use. Though the interests of the local and regional communities involved are also important, "no decision regarding the public interest can be based exclusively on their parochialism." Sierra Club, 28 Cal. 3d at 856. Moreove6j without substantial findings by the board to the contrary, the paramount 'interest' Involved is the preservation of land in agricultural production. In providing for cancellation, the Legislature has recognized the relevance of other interests, such as housing, needed services, environmental protection through developed uses, economic growth and employment. However, it must be shown that open space objectives, explicitly and unequivocally protected by the act, are substantially outweighed by other public concerns before the cancellation can be deemed "in the public interest," JA.. at 857. Ultimately, it is the role of the County Board to apply this standard and determine whether or not there is enough evidence to support a finding that cancellation is in the public interest. Each petition needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The same fasts that allow the Board to. make the necessary findings for one situation may not be sufficient in another. Unfortunately, there is not a simple litmus test for the County Board to follow. Availabilily In order to support a finding that the cancellation is in the public interest the Board may find under Government Code section 51282(c) "that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both • Mr. Robert W. Mackenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel WButte County, Office of County Counsel age 3 of 3 available and suitable for the use to which It is proposed the contracted land be put." The Department of Conservation understands "availability" as used in Government Code section 51282(c)(2) to be the same as set forth in Friends of East Willits Valley at 208, that is "at a minimum, the property is available for sale." Presumably, this means under a similar arms -length transaction. However, the Board must still weigh the facts of each petition for cancellation on a case-by-case basis when deciding if other suitable, proximate land Is "available." In your first hypothetical you question whether non -contracted land "proposed for residential development by an individual other than the individual proposing to residentially develop the contracted land" is considered available. Strictly following Friends of East Willits Valle "it may appear that it Is not. Nevertheless, if there are other facts to suggest the individual proposing building a residential development on contracted land had an option to buy the non -contracted land at an earlier point or even was the owner of the non -contracted land before the current own Br began development a different result may be found by the Board. Likewise, under certain fact patterns non -contracted land may be available, yet not necessarily for sale. With out prejudging the issue, your second hypothetical appears to bear out this notion. There Is no need for 1he land to be for sale when the developer wishing to develop the currently contracted land already owns the proximate and suitable land. Ultimately, a presumption of availability exists in this case subject only to the property's proximity and suitability. As a result the land in your second hypothetical is unquestionably already available for development by Its, owner. if you have any further questions concerning the Liptrap petition for cancellation or the Department of Conservation's policies please feel free to contact Kyle Nast or Steve Oliva at (9 16) 3,23-6733. Very Truly yours, STEPHEN E, OLIVA Acting Chief Counsel By, J, Nast St Counsel Cc; Dennis J. O'Bryant, Acting Assistant Director • 03/02/06 09:32 FAX 530 538 6891 BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL toUu5/UU5 jLnLL ui cuuv 4icv vc-41 rn I' '.lr UUNZJtKVH I I Uri LtUHL M -NU. Ulf; 114b 9916 P. 04 Mr. Robert W. Mackenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel WButte County, Office of County Counsel age 3 of 3 available and suitable for the use to which It is proposed the contracted land be put." The Department of Conservation understands "availability" as used in Government Code section 51282(c)(2) to be the same as set forth in Friends of East Willits Valley at 208, that is "at a minimum, the property is available for sale." Presumably, this means under a similar arms -length transaction. However, the Board must still weigh the facts of each petition for cancellation on a case-by-case basis when deciding if other suitable, proximate land Is "available." In your first hypothetical you question whether non -contracted land "proposed for residential development by an individual other than the individual proposing to residentially develop the contracted land" is considered available. Strictly following Friends of East Willits Valle "it may appear that it Is not. Nevertheless, if there are other facts to suggest the individual proposing building a residential development on contracted land had an option to buy the non -contracted land at an earlier point or even was the owner of the non -contracted land before the current own Br began development a different result may be found by the Board. Likewise, under certain fact patterns non -contracted land may be available, yet not necessarily for sale. With out prejudging the issue, your second hypothetical appears to bear out this notion. There Is no need for 1he land to be for sale when the developer wishing to develop the currently contracted land already owns the proximate and suitable land. Ultimately, a presumption of availability exists in this case subject only to the property's proximity and suitability. As a result the land in your second hypothetical is unquestionably already available for development by Its, owner. if you have any further questions concerning the Liptrap petition for cancellation or the Department of Conservation's policies please feel free to contact Kyle Nast or Steve Oliva at (9 16) 3,23-6733. Very Truly yours, STEPHEN E, OLIVA Acting Chief Counsel By, J, Nast St Counsel Cc; Dennis J. O'Bryant, Acting Assistant Director • ° ` ' " • • l j r f - /- 'o� - ~'/ KEEFER `SSL. ' \ - s� .. k •. � W�E d4 ` E, �•- ^A •f f V �� a ^ - \ �+— — —� �a. ... - - } , SCALE V-200'! HAUSELT - - `'� •.1 '�; ''� _ - - q KEEFERs T � z • ; �\y�.,l� I,AA i � � - ` fir.. = i' -- ��. J �.] I AUTU�'(� PA RA \1 ! H WK I I �-SUBDIVISION' USD VISIO I ' PHASE 1 I _ � Llj CONCEPTUAL LOT LAYOUT ' KITTYHAWK PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP S Er 1 N •. , �m cmccr v�enmvnNl TOTAL AREA 52.10 ACRES \ / APN: 047-250-197 @ 047-260-199 • \` / ' - GEORGE NICOLAUS T \\ - +l 66 MARYBU CA 959OAD 26 �, - `• '` �\ • - THE ENGINEERING CROUP - ROBERT J. fEENEY. RCE /22972 •. .. _ _ •. '- 1250 EAST CHICO. CA 99925 SUITE 10 - 4, k { - I, •. " \ / - Y'- PH: (530) 699-0409 EAX (530)699-094J 700 v S w 6, 0�i , s i I t r MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO AND THE COUNTY OF BUTTE REGARDING COOPERATIVE PLANNING IN THE CHICO AREA OF CONCERN WHEREAS, the City of Chico ("City") and the County of Butte ("County"), sometimes referred to collectively herein as the "Parties,"each have final land use authority within portions of the North Chico Planning Area, as that Area is defined herein; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement ("Agreement") is to permit and encourage a cooperative planning approach by both jurisdictions and a sharing of personnel, costs and ideas regarding land use within the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, while both jurisdictions intend to retain their independent governmental authority to amend applicable general plan provisions and land use regulations, both jurisdictions desire to cooperate in an attempt to develop a coordinated approach for the processing and review of applications for land use entitlements in the North Chico Planning Area which will be acceptable to both jurisdictions and will protect and enhance the health, safety and welfare of citizens residing in the said Area and of the public generally; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to protect agricultural land and to ensure that its conversion to urban uses, when appropriate, shall be done in a well-planned manner, based on sound planning principles, and to work cooperatively to provide for urban growth within the Chico Area of Concern for a 30-50 year planning horizon, and WHEREAS, the North Chico Planning Area is partially within the unincorporated area of the County, and partially within the City's Planning Area, as depicted in Figure 3-1 of the City's general plan; part of the North Chico Planning Area has been designated as a special study area by the Butte County Local -Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo); and the entire Area will be the subject of a Sphere of Influence Study by LAFCo; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Planning Area is approximately 5000 acres in size, and the development of such a large area will generate complex social, economic, environmental and other concerns and a need for sensitive stewardship of the governmental and private resources available to address such concerns; and WHEREAS, it is desirable for the convenience of interested citizens, organizations and various interested groups to establish a central clearinghouse for the compilation and dissemination of information relative to land use in the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 1987, County and City entered into a Municipal Affairs Agreement to resolve issues pertaining to the annexation of properties in the Chico Urban Area, defined as the Chico Sphere of Influence as then or thereafter adopted by the Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission; and -1- • WHEREAS, the Municipal Affairs Agreement recites the desire of the Parties to set forth mutual understandings which would permit a cooperative approach to the futur-_ annexation of properties in the unincorporated portion of the Chico Urban Area to the incorporated territory of the City; and WHEREAS, section 1.03 of the Municipal Affairs Agreement recites the intent of the Parties that in the future City would assume responsibility to provide the followin; services to the unincorporated portion of the Chico Urban Area, subject to negotiation of a detailed agreement between the Parties relating to the level of such services, the reimbursement of costs incurred by City in providing such services, the obligation of the owners of property benefitted by such services to annex such property to the incorporated territory of City, and any other matter of concern to either County or City: Animal Control; Parks; Planning and Building Inspection; Law Enforcement; Sanitary Sewers; Storm Drainage; Street Lighting; Street Maintenance; Street Trees; and Public Transportation; and WHEREAS, section 1.03 of the Municipal Affairs Agreement further recites the intent of. the Parties to meet and confer to explore the feasibility of an agreement between the Parties in the following matters relating to the fire suppression services provided by County and City within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the Chico Urban Area: Automatic Aid; Location of Fire Stations; and any other matters relating to fire suppression services determined to be of mutual interest to both County and City; and • WHEREAS, the Parties have not fully implemented the intent of sec -don 1.03 of the Municipal Affairs Agreement, but have moved effectively towards certain of the goals therein by subsequent agreements, including but not limited to execution of (1) the Chico UrE an Area Fire and Rescue Agreement, dated June 29, 1099, implementing the desire of the Parties to provide the finest and most cost-effective level of fire and rescue services in their respective jurisdictions and to augment such services by responding to emergency calls within the Chico Urban Fire and Rescue Service Area, based on the closest County or City fire station rather than by the jurisdiction where the emergency exists, and (2) that certain Agreement between the County of Butte and the City of Chico for the Extension of Sewer Services and Installation of Certain Public Improvements in the Chico Urban Area, dated December 5, 2000, which recites the desire of the Parties to cooperate in solving the groundwater nitrate contamination problem in the Chico Urban Area addressed by order no. 90-126 of the Regional Water Quality Board, and to cooperate regarding the funding and construction of specified road improvement projects in the Chico Urban Area, including some within . the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, use of septic systems was determined by the Regional Wate_ Quality Control -Board to be the primary cause of groundwater nitrate contamination in the Chico Urban Area; and WHEREAS, the use of septic systems in the North Chico Planning Area has occurred and is occurring and, if allowed at densities greater than one residential unit per acre, clay cause similar problems in that Area; and -2- WHEREAS, the Parties desire to prevent such groundwater problems and prc tect the health, safety and welfare of persons residing in the North Chico Planning Area and in th. Chico Urban Area by cooperatively planning to provide appropriate infrastructure to allow the connection of new development in the North Chico Planning Area to City's sewer system; and WHEREAS, the historic pattern of flooding within the North Chico Planning Area and new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements require planning for appropriate flood control measures, and allowing additional development in the Area may jeopardize funding for such measures; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan ("the Plan') was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte on March 28, 1995; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan Area is defined in Butte Count} Code Section 3-152 F as the unincorporated area of the County described approximately as that area north of Eaton Road, east of Highway 99, south of Keefer Road and west of the Chico Municipal Airport and more particularly depicted in Figure 3-1 of the North Chico Specific Plan; and .WHEREAS, a substantial amount of new residential, industrial, commercial, office and school development can reasonably be expected to occur within the North Chico Specific Plan Area as a result of the implementation of the Plan and the rezoning adopted as a part thereof; and ' 1 t •WHEREAS, such development will create a need for the acquisition and dTvelopment of additional public facilities within the Plan Area, because the existing public facilities zre insufficient in number, size, and location to meet the needs generated by such new development; and WHEREAS,- such needed public facilities will include new street, trail, drainage, fire protection and park facilities, as contemplated by the Plan and the Environmental Impact Report for ,1 the Plan. However,- adequate funding for such infrastructure facilities is not available, and the infrastructure needs and funding - therefore need to be further addressed, before' additional development imposes undue burdens upon the existing infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan Area is partially within City's Sphere of' Influence; and WHEREAS, City is developing a specific plan known as the Northwest Chicc Specific Plan and a related general plan amendment, both of which contemplate changes in land u_sse in the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan and the City general plan both contemplate development in the North Chico Planning Area, but are not in full agreement regarding the type and density of development therein and the type and level of infrastructure necessary cr desirable to provide necessary public services within said Area; and -3- _ k • - WHEREAS, the independent, uncoordinated development of properties within the unincorporated portion of the North Chico Planning Area , which properties may at a future time be annexed by City, could cause conflicts between the respective general and specific plans and zoning of the Parties, and conflicts between the infrastructure provided by the Parties, including but not limited to roads, sewerage,.storm drainage and flood control, and water supply and WHEREAS, County'is currently conducting a general plan.technical update and will, upon the completion of such update, conduct a full general plan review, including a reviTw of the North Chico Specific Plan to determine its consistency or lack thereof with the Airport Land Use Commission's Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan as ameneed in 1999 and 2000; and WHEREAS, City has reviewed its general plan to determine the consisten ;y of it with the Airport Land Use Commission's Chico Municipal Airport Land Use Plan as amended in 1999 and 2000; and WHEREAS, the approval of substantial development in the North Chicc, Planning Area prior to the completion by the County and the City of such update and reviews and the coordination of the Parties' goals for development of the Area would be premature and inappropriate; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is desirable to foster and encourage orderly • development in the North Chico Planning Area, to coordinate the actions of City anj County so that necessary infrastructure and public services will be provided without wasteful conflict or duplication, and to consider the amendment of their respective general plans, zoning ordinances, and development regulations and standards to facilitate such coordination; and WHEREAS,'Government Code Sections 65351 and 65352 contemplate that the public interest beyond individual city or county boundaries shall be considered and that general plan amendments by a legislative body shall be referred to any city or county within or abutting the area covered by the proposed amendments; and . WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65101, subsection (b), provides that two or more legislative bodies may create a joint area planning agency, planning commission, oradvisory agency for all or prescribed portions of their cities or counties which shall exercise those powers and perform those duties under Title 7 of the Government Code, entitled "Planning and Zoning," that the legislative bodies delegate to it, and .further authorizes their planning agencies,. or any components of them, to meet cooperatively to coordinate their work, conduct studies, develop plans, hold hearings, or cooperatively exercise any power or perform any duty common to them; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for an agreement to be reached regarding the sharing of the costs of such coordinated efforts; and WHEREAS, the cooperative planning approach reflected in this Agreement has been • developed to meet the above concerns and to best serve the citizens within The North Chico Planning Area; and -4- WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Parties, through this Agreement, to work together, diligently, to achieve concurrence on general and specific plans, zoning, and related actions to be taken concerning the future development of the North Chico Planning Area. NOW, THEREFORE, City and County agree, in view of the above recitals, as follows: 1. Cooperative Planning Approach. A. Goal - City and County agree to a cooperative planning approach for the North. Chico Planning Area, with the goal of amending their respective policies and land use development regulations as appropriate to make them as consistent with each other as is reasonably feasible. Oversight of this effort is vested in an ad hoc committee to be known as the City/County Cooperative Planning Committee, composed of two county supervisors appointed by the Butte County Board of Supervisors and three city council members appointed by the Chico City Council. B. Establishment of a Cooperative Decision-making Process -The County shall provide to the City information on requests for Initial Development Review and copies of all applications or proposals for general plan amendments, rezonings, and development permits within the North Chico Planning Area. The City shall provide staff to attend such Initial Development Review meetings and shall provide written input for all such applications and proposals. Comments from the City shall be incorporated into the reports and analysis of these applications and proposals. • C. Coordination of Staffing for Development Projects - The City and County shall create a specific process for the compilation and dissemination of information relative to coordination of land use in the North Chico Planning Area and designated staff shall prepare a report to be submitted to City/County Cooperative Planning Committee within 45 days as follows: (1) Overview. The report shall provide: a) an overview of the existing general and specific plans of the City and County in the North Chico Planning Area; b) a brief discussion regarding the consistency or lack of consistency between such plans, and between them and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission regarding the Chico Municipal Airport; c) the zoning and subdivision regulations and improvement standards of City and County applicable in said Area; and d) the development impact fees which apply within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the North Chico Planning Area. (2) Recommendations. The report shall include recommendations regarding any initial and immediate amendments in the respective general and specific plans, regulations and fees of the City and the County deemed necessary or desirable in order to make them as consistent with each other as is reasonably feasible. (3) Infrastructure. The report shall include a discussion of the infrastructure needed for the anticipated development within the North Chico Planning Area which would be allowed . pursuant to the development approach recommended. This report shall include recommendations regarding a) infrastructure required to provide necessary or desirable -5- • public services, including roads, sewerage, storm drainage and flood control, and water supply, b) appropriate uniform development standards and impact f6_ -s within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the North Chico Planning Area, and c) other sources of funding, such as Mello Roos districts, assessment districts, and County Service Areas, for the capital outlay and other short and long term facilities costs, including related operation and maintenance costs. D. Duties of City/County Cooperative Planning Committee The City/County Cooperative Planning Committee shall review and consider the staff report and shall make a recommendation to City Council and Board of Supervisors. E. Action to Implement Recommendations The City and the County will cond-ict workshops and hold meetings to fully inform the public of the analysis and recommendations to enact a cooperative planning approach. If the City Council and Board of Supervisors fail to reach consensus regarding the implementation of recommendations of the report, the City Council's position shall be given greater weight as to implementation affecting that part of the North Chico Manning Area which is south of Mud Creek and the Board of Supervisor's position shall be given .geater weight as to implementation north of Mud Creek. F. Resources to be Provided. The City and County shall each provide necessary staff or consultant resources to achieve a cooperative planning program for the North Chico Planning Area.. • G. Related Documents. Environmental review shall be conducted before adoption of any resolutions or ordinances. subject to review under the California Environmental Qualiy Act ("CEQA"). The procedures for CEQA compliance and the designation of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA shall be the subject of a future agreement to be negotiated and implemented by and between the Chico City Manager and the County Chief Administrative Officer. 2. Cost Sharing. City and County shall share equally the costs incurred to implement the cooperative planning program approved by the Parties, pursuant to an agreement to be negotiated and implemented by and between the Chico City Manager and the County Chief Administrative Officer. The Master Property Tax Agreement adopted by both the City and County on November 4, 1987, shall not be affected by this Agreement. 3. Timeline for Implementation. It is the intent of the Parties to establish the cooperative planning process contemplated by this Agreement by January 1, 2004, in order to implement and foster a cooperative approach to the immediate development projects and pressures for develDpment in the North Chico Planning Area. The City and County will work in good faith to extend tre cooperative decision-making process to the Chico Area of Concern by December 31, 2004. 4. Definition of North Chico Planning Area For purposes of this Agreement, the North Chico Planning Area is defined as follows: that certain area which includes County's North Chico Specific Plan, the City's Northwest Chico Development Area, the areas between these two areas and the west side of the Chico Municipal Airport, extending south to Lassen Avenue, west to the City's current Sphere of Influence line, and east to Cohasset Road, as shown on the diagram attached at Exhibit -6- • "A" to this Agreement. 5. Definition of Chico Area of Concern. For purposes of assuring coordination of planning for the fiiture growth needs of the City, the cooperative planning process shall be expanded to include the Chico Area of Concern, generally defined as: Meridian Road on the west, starting at Big Chico Creek, northerly along Meridian Road to State Highway Route 99, then northwesterly along State Route Highway 99 to the County boundary line with Tehama County, then easterly to the southeast corner of the southeast quarter of section 36 of Township 24 North, Range 2 East, .hen southerly along the range line to Durham -Peutz Road, then westerly along Durham-Pentz Road and Oro -Chico Highway to Midway, then northerly along Midway approximately one mile, then southwesterly to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, then north along that right-of-way to Comanche Creek, then westerly along Comanche Creek to Lone Pine Road, then north along Lone Pine [load to Chico River Road, then southwesterly along Chico River Road to the southerly extension :)f the western boundary line of the Ranchaero Airport property, then northerly along that line to Bid Chico Creek, then along Big Chico Creek to Meridian Road, all as shown more particularly on the diagram attached at Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. 6. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the County's Chief Administrative Officer on behalf of the County and the City Manager on behalf of the City. 7. Enforcement. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Neither Party shall file an action against the other Party to compel performance or • other relief unless such Party first makes a 30 -day written demand' for cure of a default of the Agreement on the other Party and such demand has not been satisfied. The prevailin€ Party in such action shall recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 8. Duty to Defend and Indemnify. The County agrees that, upon demand by the City, it will defend and indemnify the City, and the officers, employees and agents of the City, from any claim, liability, loss, damage, cost, expenses (including attorneys' fees), awards, fines or judgments (Claims) arising out of the acts or omissions of the County, or its officers, employees and agents, as to work done or caused to be done by the County pursuant to this Agreement. The City agrees that, upon demand by the County, it will defend and indemnify the County, and the officers, employees and agents of the County, from any claim, liability, loss, damage, cost, expenses (including attorneys' fees), awards, fines or judgments (Claims) arising out of the acts or omissions of the City, or its officers, employees and agents, as to work done or caused to be done by the City pursuant to this Agreement. However, neither Party owes the other a duty of indemnification under this section as to any act or omission of the other Party that is the sole legal cause of the Claims and that constitutes an act or omission of sole negligence or willful misconduct on the pars of that Party or any officer, employee or agent of that Party. - 9. Effective Date and Term. This Agreement is effective upon its execution. However, the County and the City understand and agree that the ability of the City and County to perform all their respective obligations hereunder is dependent upon the availability to each Party of adequate is financial resources to implement this Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for the time necessary for the Parties to complete the work contemplated herein or until such time in the future -7- • as it is jointly deemed appropriate by the Parties that this Agreement shall no longer have effect or shall be amended. This Agreement is limited to the above -listed work and no other work shall be undertaken pursuant to this Agreement unless authorized by both jurisdictions. 10. No Service Guarantees or Entitlements. The provision of land use planning services by the City or the County to any property within the unincorporated portions of the North Chico Planning Area shall not obligate the City or County in any way to 'provide any other service of any kind whatsoever, and neither the City nor. the County assumes any responsibility to make available or provide any. other service. Nothing in this Agreement creates an entitlement to or guarantees the availability of any particular City or County service or public improvement or any particular level of City or County service to any persons or property within the North Chico Planning Area. 11. No Admissions, Assumptions of Liabilities, or Third -Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made solely by and between the County and the City as public agencies committed to public health, welfare, and safety. Therefore: A. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be an admission by the County or the City that either, or both of them, has caused or permitted, or is causing or permitting, or threatening to cause or permit, any improper development in the North Chico Planning Area.- B. rea: B. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be an assumption by one Party of any duty or liability, should any exist, of the other Party to alleviate, remediate or otherwise abate the effects of any land use development in the North Chico Planning Area. C. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create any third -party beneficiary rights with respect to any person, agency or entity, whether directly or indirectly affected by this Agreement. 12. Notice. Reasonable notice shall be given to the other Party when either the City or County Planning Commission, the City Council, or the County Board of Supervisors places a land use. item on their respective agendas pertaining to the North Chico Planning Area. 13. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document approved by the legislative bodies of both Parties. COUNTY OF- BUTTE H V� A"q I ON X �_ R.7: Beeler, Chair Butte County Board.of Supervisors -8- CITY OF CHICO* By Trish Dunlap Assistant City Manager • -9- • ATTEST: *AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL.MINUTE ORDER NO. 51-03 ADOPTED Octoter 21, 2003 _ ul McInt `Chief AdAinistrative Officer and Ex -Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors `! APPROVED AS TO BUDGETARY AND FISCAL CONTROL: By •w, ` ,. 11-1-0 Dave Pouser Auditor -Controller County of Butte API OVED. F APPROVED AS TO FORM:: By By - Bruce S. Alpert ° David R. Frank County Counsel City Attorney County of Butte . - City of Chico • -9- 0 S RLW IjR1E Tehorno County j T24N Tehalna/Butte County Line ST HWY 32 r C al o 'QI " a 0�t .6 t z � RLW IRLE North Chleo Planning Aroa.Including: Count,/s North Chico Specific Plan Area, CSA S7 . F, CJVs Northwest Chico Development Area (Specific PI IMWkRemaining Land in North Chico Planning Area Arra of Coneem g Chico Area of Concern Butte County Land Not Included 3 E)dsting City of Chico Sphere of Influence Boundary MEMORANDUM OFAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OFCHICO AND THE COUNTY OF BUTTE REGARDING COOPERATIVE PLANNING IN THE CHICO AREA OF CONCERN -10- Exhibit A r 19 I �M]Aetrr- hii -mil 1:1 Fid 1�1 go F -I R PI M. AM ! -9 'wi IN rz AL08 i .41 ho 54 i,•�, Z� reRim '�•r�•'�`siui: 1 y1iYi��s' -i 1l 6 n 4i "row ar orth Chico Specific: FlanArea- (pink) IRS• 0000 us MUM ism I c) Developed FT Project P�rcel •a, ' r •' 7 % _ !.. • • • �,'n:rs,' '♦ j��aZP�4l �fl �, �, �� ',�' � f . .� i I /, �yry � ; - �.�" _M�' 1" i ^4 M1S`- �>..tir/C a, ,� f'Jir�. �e f,: N- 'fy ;t.;- .rF'.• •c �; 'i-"1 { ` Y" 4i jr zl't ..9w— ,, f % Iv fj �.y ,q y APN: 047-430-003 i f 3� } r .JW, HAUSELT, NAWAM H. & MARGARET S n r.. . M - ti R I� LEVY SUBDIVISION k K� —... APN: 047-440-012 PAUL LEVY REVOCABLE TRUS s� _. + a.O.N.Mwj•+'`.,w+XyN � �' . _.. 1. ;' �r a L ... .= L p -' t • ;wes s, t y, ; r+ . 1. 4t.: i 2j" 7> *;- .f ti- � ' a e } J_ ±y ,* r, v i..'s I - r . u � r:=': r ''✓ , ;� �� 'y ''s:1 .r ! ^ f�"'ral YY ,�, r _ , , .II�' s 5 a: , , ,ti #� : � .. , � , :..' « j` J ' �-,:�5 S T �,' .:� s * ;.,. ter'• � i- ,i � � k'. � — a,.r��" � Jj�^ ,rr ..,�j'�y ;.i'R,i• e..�, r .L'v.ih� } ,. '�, 1. ,i - •r►,.' '.,c` TT Yi T�" �" .d•. s -,� -,�^ KI 1 1 YI'IA WI{ :-x 3e'"s,: �� f3..rFs ',�,r' I "t - .a •Y., r ,�� R i :t i. a., 1' SUBDIVISION - - AUTUMN PARK �° APN: 047 260 199 r AUTUMN PARK ry y: NICOLAUS, GEORGE R. AND SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION CONNIE J. 1. f'� PHASE 3r �� PHASE 1, « : «��, �,• tl' il��;,X ,.a .AA'I" L' 4'. '{.. S'v � _t F.. R. , �J r J r 1 ,�5 'I= , Jr ` •I � 4'� .� �_ I!>, f&4 1 ♦ ��. f y � - i b �I , � ' 'WI ,TIf< ��?i r'' _J � ,I .. .. _# �_T�: t` `Qn, +,� •'�kJ,-� i:.,41i .i. {� .�1" - lip ,� GUERNSEY SUBDIVISION 047-260-198 REDI 047-26MENTA s , MEREDITH TESTAMENTARY ,.: �,tii �� Qcl GUERNSEY C. TRUST ET AL �r ,31 N W E S SCALE 1"=500'