The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About047-260-199Butte Countv Williamson Act Supplemental Staff Report Applicant: Evelyn Eipt'rap/George Nicolaus� File #: Canc. 04-02 L Request: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. APN: 047-260-199 Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels), O (Open Space) General Plan: Agricultural Residential Parcel Size: 52.72 acres Planner: Steve Troester, Associate Planner ry Supervisor District: 3 Attachment: County Counsel Letter of April 10, 2007 to DOC. SUMMARY: The +/-52 acres proposed for cancellation is subject to a 1999 Williamson Act (LCA) contract between Butte County and Evelyn C. Liptrap, recorded as Instrument 41999- 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. This map will be conditioned to require cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. 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(b)) here attached. Staff's analysis is that "public interest" findings (Sec. 51282(c)) cannot be met by this petition and the supporting information provided. The Petitioner's January 30, 2004 submittal which address both "consistency" and "public interest" findings. However, this report and staff's recommendations address only Sec. 51282(b) consistency findings. It ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 ■ Page Iof15■ is staff s recommendation that the petition lacks adequate factual information to support "public interest" findings (Sec. 51282(c)) The applicant's Petition for Tentative Immediate Cancellation was received by the Planning Department on January 30, 2004. On June 30, 2004 the Butte County Land. Conservation Act Advisory Committee (LCA Committee) reviewed this petition. By, majority vote the Committee made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that both "consistency" and "public interest" cancellation findings can be made. The Committee directed staff to prepare cancellation findings for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. On December 13, 2005 the Board held public hearing on the petition for cancellation,: and continued the public hearing, directing staff to take the draft cancellation findings back to the LCA Committee for review and recommendations. At its January 11, 2006 meeting, the LCA Committee assessed the draft findings that had been presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2006. At that meeting County Counsel commented that the findings were not sufficient to approve this cancellation, specifically related to Finding #5 issues of lack of proximate non - contracted, suitable; available land. This criteria is part of "consistency" finding Sec. 51282(a) 5 (first portion) and "public interest" finding Sec. 5 12 82(c)(2) (first portion)). County Counsel recommended that they would communicate with the DOC for additional clarifications (April 10, 2007 letter). The Committee instructed staff to work with the applicant on elaborating the required findings. The public hearing was continued at.the applicant's request until the March, 2006 meeting. In March 2006 the Development Services Department began drafting the County's revised 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 (see below), the applicant elected to have consideration of the cancellation continued until such time as the Board might adopt those rules. ANALYSIS Project Description 1. A petition to Immediately Cancel a Williamson Act Contract has been received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn C. Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2. This Williamson Act Contract was entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999 (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3. The contract covers a parcel of 52 acres currently planted with a walnut orchard. 4. The property is located within the North Chico Specific Plan and is zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential 1 -acre minimum lot size) for single-family 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, consistent with the SR -1 zone. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 ■ Page 2of15 0 6. This proposed Map is currently considered incomplete for purposes of addressing flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed Map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. Project Location with North Chico Specific Plan: The cancellation parcel is located within the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), which was adopted by the county as an amendment and supplement to the Butte County General Plan in 1995. The NCSP is a specific plan for eventual residential and mixed-use development of 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. A memorandum of Understanding with the City of Chico commits to development of this area to urban -development standards. This 1999 (Liptrap) 48 -acre LCA contract is the only Williamson Act contract within the bounds of the NCSP, apart from a 4.17 -acre parcel (047-700-002) on the extreme northeastern edge of the specific plan area, which is a part of a 256 -acre 1968 LCA contract. 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. The TSM 04-11 application is currently deemed incomplete, lacking submittal of an initial drainage plan, determined by the Public Works Department to adequately mitigate potential flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed subdivision map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. It is important to note that the LCA Committee should focus on assessing the adequacy of cancellation findings and not the merits of the proposed residential subdivision. The 1999 Williamson Act Contract Regarding Cancellation Findings: Clause VII of the 1999 LCA contract that restricts the cancellation parcel requires 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: 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). Although the petitioner's initial presentation to the county requested consideration of findings of "public benefit", this agenda report recommends that while the statutory. "consistency" findings can be made (and are in and of themselves adequate to comply with State requirements for cancellation) the applicant has not presented adequate supporting information and rationale to support Board approval of the statutory "public interest" findings. DOC Response to County Counsel Request for Clarification: ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ S Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 ■ Page 3of15■ The DOC responded March 1, 2006 (Attachment) to County Counsel's letter of 12-21-05. In summary, the DOC commented that neither: 1. 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 the statutory findings required for cancellation. DOC stated that the only findings required for cancellation are those required by the contract and by government code 51282. DOC 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 can not 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. Environmental Analysis: The cancellation of a Williamson Act contract is considered to be a project subject to CEQA review. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) was prepared for this project and will be circulated for a minimum 30 -day public review. This environmental assessment was prepared specifically for the immediate cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, but also references and addresses the potential subdivision project (TSM 04-11) for the non -speculative environmental impacts of the Liptrap/Kitty Hawk TSM 04-11 and the Guernsey TSM 04-07 applications pursuant to CEQA. Should the Board elect to approve this contract cancellation, it would first need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, to satisfy CEQA requirements. As of the writing and distribution of this report the IS -MND was not yet ready for circulation. Cancellation Process 1. In order to consider contract cancellation, the county must give notice of, and hold a public hearing on the landowner's petition for cancellation. 2. Notice has been provided to all landowners with land under contract of which any portion is within one -mile of the exterior boundary of the property subject to the cancellation request. 3. Additionally, notice of this hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition has been mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to this hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). 4. Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the County must forward a copy of the published notice of the decision to the. Director of the Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Cancellations 1. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and &51252. Williamson Act contracts are ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 ■ Page 4 of 15 0 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. Statutory 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 3r consistency findings. .a) In order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act (GC 51282(b), the Board of Supervisors must also find: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. (5) That there is no proximate non -contracted land wh-ch is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pattens of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land. As used in this subdivision "proximate, non -contracted land" means land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve as a practical alternative for the use which is proposed for the restricted land. As used in t1is subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the salient features of ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 ■ Page 5of15■ the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such non -restricted lard may 'be 'a single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels (GC §51282(b)). 2. The imeconomic- 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)). The applicants' original January 29, 2004 Petition for Cancellation proposed both public interest and consistency findings. On May 31, 2006 the applicant also submitted a memorandum in support of immediate cancellation of Williamson Act contract, providing additional analysis. On. December 7, 2006 the applicant su0mitted draft consistency findings. Staff has reviewed all of these submittals and the requirements of Section 51282 and drafted the findings found below. Summary of Non -statutory Findings The Department of Conservation commented in their April 26, 2004 le -.ter that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided that the Board cf Supervisors may have sufficient supporting evidence to make the required findings for cancellation. 2. The Department of Conservation points out .that this area is within the North Chico Specific Plan, which is a planning area identified by the General Plan for development. 3. The North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the County in 1995, and the Liptrap Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1999. 4. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the implementation of agricultural land and Williamson Act Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. 5. Further; the Department of Conservation points out that the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. 6. 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. 7. It is important to note, however, that the North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future development in this area, and the Plan supports the residential development proposed by the applicant. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ Apr! it 23, 2007 ■ Page 6of15■ 8: The Land Coriservatiori Advisory Committee discussed the information provided by t_', ,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. 4 '� 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 (S1282.b)� ' The statutory: findings pursuant to government code section 51282, (b) as recommended - < by staff supporting the Cancellation are detailed below. Section 51282 (b)� r 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 6f nonrenewal has been served. -'ci)" The original request for cancellation was delivered to Bv'tte County on September 7;'°2003, and was subsequently acknowledged by a recorded Notice, ofNon-renewal in accordance;with the Government Code. f Findi g (2) jThat.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 r S eci is Plan, which designates lands surrounding to the north, south, u . p f ' _g t, and east for Yesidential development. The 49 -acre parcel immediately south of the cancellation parcel'"is already the subject of a tentative , w�: `� •, r, . '. , parcel amp application to Butte County (TSM 04-07 "Guernsey'). -b) State'Route (SR) -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenline at this location; which allows for urban type development only, east of SR -99 and agricultural uses to the west. The pattern for development of this' ' area. identified by the North Chico Specific Plan and the General ..` ` -Plan's Greenline policy reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this . property is likely to result in the removal of adjacent,'land from agricultural use. ; c) � The letter of comment from the California Department oFConservation :' , `_ • `- * , . (DOC) of April 26, 2004 states that the proposed cancellation appears - -- to be consistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act . (51282, findings I through 4). ' d) - The proposed Kitty Hawk tentative subdivision map • application (cancellation parcel) proposes a 135'=wide open space/norm drainage .<< ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ~` ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ Axil 23, 2007 u' 4^{ ■ Page 7 of 15 ■ n .. ' t - • • 1, • ` - .h 1• , , ., � /: . ,, - -� .- detention basin combined with a 65' building exclusion area, which .;,• =`'' ' together -with the 100' -wide SR -99 right-of-way combine to create a 300' -wide : buffer between the • - proposed residential uses and `agricultural, .uses to the west. This buffer - helps ensure-_ that ,.' -_• cancellation is not likely to result. in the removal .of adjacent lands .' from agricultural use. e) Based "on''the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that this cancellation is not likely to result in the removal ,. �'of adjacent lands from agricultural use. '• ,. r �'. ,fit' ?- . � r � f4i-.. Finding (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with, the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. ;. a) � The 'cancellation parcel is located within the North Chico Specific - Plan (NCSP) and was zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential, one acre lot -minimum) in 1995. The site is located 1/3 mile -north of the City�of + ' Chico's Sphere of Influence. - The NCSP is the Butte County's guide for g" o hand development in this area, wifhin the overallacontext of ripe'&utte-County'-General Pldn Cancellation of the—Yl'illiamson: Act contract--onithissite—will—allow the property to be. used for the ,residential purpose" designated in the NCSP. + L b). The.,applicant has filed an application with the Department of ' Development Services ' for a subdivision map (Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map). Although this Map application is -' currently deemed "incomplete" and is still under review,' the proposed 48 -one -acre parcels 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. h'c)' Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that this cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general --t _ -plan. Einding:(4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of ` urban development. C_ a) Cancellation of this property would be consistent with the definition of "contiguity" as discussed by the California Court of Appeal's opinions , in Honey -Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 157 • Cal.App.3d 1122, in the context of a proposed LCA contract Y� cancellation, in that: ` - ®'Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ -? , v Williamson Act Committee Staff Report = Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)0 April 23,•2007 ` " .. ■ Page 8 of 15 0 ;, Y n�, • Actual contiguity to existing urban development, either at the time of cancellation or soon thereafter, must be the d standard, because any appreciable delay between c� construction of the alternative use and achievement of �� I contiguity results in the very evil the contiguity requirement & was intended to abolish, i.e., premature and disorderly � patterns of suburban development. We believe the contiguity requirement may be satisfied by showing the owners of intervening parcels have the current ability and intent to develop their land within a reasonable time. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1145. )b)Based on the California Court of Appeal's opinion in Honey Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 1 `7 Cal.App.3d 1122, is able to approve this cancellation of this propero: in that: • The board or council is not required to find that the alternative use will be immediately contiguous .to like development. In rendering its finding, the board or council acts in its own discretion to evaluate the . proposed alternative use according to existing and projected conditions within . its local jurisdiction. Id. at . 157 Cal.App.3d 1138. c) The cancellation property meets the Court's standarai for "urban " development in that: • Whether the particular property ... is to ce considered "rural" or "city", depends largely upon its surroundings and the character of the property in the neighborhood. If the buildings and improvements in the neighborhood are few and scattered; they partake of the character of the country, rather, than of the city or town, and are occupied by persons engaged in rural pursuits-- the hcality should be considered rural. On the other hand, if tie houses and improvements partake of the character of the city or town, and are mainly occupied by persons engaged in city pursuits, the locality should be considered as city and not rural. A locality which is laid out in small lots, of the usual size, for city or town lots and partly built upon with city improvements, such as paved streets and gas or water pipes, should be considered in the class of city property. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1140-41. eVVd)� The proposed development on the cancellation properti is consistent with the Court's interpretation of the relevant factors used to determine whether a dugk=ent or area is rural or urban in character include density, surrounding development, proximity to or potential of becoming an incorporated area, existing pvblic facilities, ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ April 23, 2.007 ■ Page 9of15■ water availability in the region, steepness of natural slope, minimum parcel sizes, availability of public transit, ability to cluster housing to preserve open space, height of buildings, on-site sewage capacity, landscaping, lighting, space between structures, proximity of employment centers, preservation of open space easements, Size—�f signs. Id. at 157'Cal.App.3d 1141-42. The closest bus stop to the Liptrap parcel is approximately 3/4 mi. away. e) The proposed alternative use (development of one -acre minimum k, euI, parcel size residential lots), proposes residential development to the maximum density allowed under the County's General Plan and zoning ordinance, as well as the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), adopted by the County of Butte in 1995. The northern boundary of the incorporated area of City of Chico is approximately 7250 feet south of the Liptrap parcel. The northern boundary of the City of Chico Sphere of influence is approximately . 1750 feet south of the Liptrap parcel. The western boundary of the Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Area is approximately 8150 feet east of the Liptrap parcel. The development of this parcel is consistent with a contiguous pattern o f urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. n.00gThe property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned residential development. The cancellation parcel is located immediately to. the west of the fully -developed Autumn Park Subdivision Phases 3, and is adjacent to the proposed Guernsey tentative subdivision map application immediately to the south. h) `-The Liptrap parcel is within the "North Chico Planning Area ", also referred to as the "Area of Cooperation' j subject to a joint planning Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) executed by the County of Butte and the City of Chico in November 2003, which explicitly recognizes that "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. " i) The County concurs with the letter of comment from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 in that it agrees with DOC that, • "The express purpose and intent at (the time the North Chico Specific Plan was adopted) was that this property would cease to be considered as viable agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 0Page 10 of 15■ . Department notes that the County adopted the NCSP in 1995 and the County and the Landowner entered into a Land Conservation Agreement in December, 1999. Since the (Kittyhawk) property was 'clearly within a. planning •' area identified for development, the initiation of the Land Conservation Agreement in 1999 ' was contrary to the .r expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. " j) The proposed Guernsey Subdivision (TSM 04-07),. located immediately south of the cancellation parcel, is a flex lot proposal on.' -49-acre parcel for development of 50 residentiallots of approximately 1/2 acre each, and 22 acres of Open Space on the northwestern portion adjacent to Autumn Park Drive and Highway 99 : (SR-99). The Guernsey TSM 04-07 application has been deemed "complete ". A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated , Negative Declaration' (IS/MND) has been completed for this project. However, the project' has not . been advanced to public hearing because the applicant disagrees with some proposed mitigation measures and has elected not r to sign the IS/MND, preventing that document from being noticed and , circulated for public review and subsequent public hearing. ,. k) SR-99 to the west demarcates the western limit of 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 ; . t. • "`_ the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of ` --SR-99. The. proposal would be in keeping with existing and planned urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and : ,Greenline policy. 1) Based on the preceding findings and information in the record itis determined that this cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. Finding (5) That there is no proximate non-contracted land which 'is both availabl 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, contiguouspatterns of urban development than development-of proximate non"- contracted land. (GC1§51282(b)). ' 5 A (Staff is recommending that there is adequate supporting factual information for the second portion of finding of GC §51282(b)(5) to be made: , a) Much of the property in the vicinity of this project -is either 3i contemplated for future development or is proposed for urban development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. ` The 3{ cancellation parcel is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park 7 , ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson'Act Committee Staff Report - Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 ■ Page 11 of 15 0 Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west ' demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the 3utte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Ar?a Greenline specifies that urban uses are 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 Speoif c Plan and Greenline policy. b) The letter of comment from the California Department of conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 states that, r • ... it does appear that development of the co.wracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non - contracted land. " c) The area within which the cancellation parcel is located consists of a 310 -acre residential infill "pocket" of currently undeveloped land as follows: APN Owner Acres Status 047-430-003 Hauselt 94 No adjacent roads/access. 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 TISM 04-07. 047-440-036 Fox 19 Minor in -fill, separated from lands to the south by Keef;r Slough. Constrained access. 047-440-037 Schuster 26 Minor in -fill, separated from lands to the south by Keefer Slough. TOTAL 1310 The seven parcels listed above (within the North Chico Sbecific Plan) comprise a 310 -acre undeveloped pocket which share a common boundary with properties already developed. Developm ?nt of any of these seven parcels would appear to represent - some degree of "contiguous pattern of urban development". However, only the Nicolaus (Liptrap) APN 047-260-199 (cancellation parcel) and the Guernsey (047-260-198) properties are located adjacent to a County arterial roadway right-of-way. d) In 1999, the County accepted a sixtyfoot easement for the purpose of extending Kittyhawk Drive on the south side of the cancellation parcel. Developmetn of that roadway is consistent with the Circulation ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)s Apri s 23, 2007 ■Page 12 of 15■ Element of the NCSP which designates such an arterial road in this general location as a key component in are -wide circulation. ' The long range build -out plan for this arterial roadway is detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis for Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey .Subdivisions (February 8, 2005). Construction of this arterial is also detailed in the North Chico Specific Plan Circulation Element. e) Development of this arterial roadway will help ensure that contiguous patterns of urban development in the North Chico Specific Plan Area are adequately served by roadways and a circulation pattern that provide optimum access, provision of emergency services, and efficient traffic circulation. fi The proponent of . the Guernsey subdivision and owner of the - (noncontracted) parcel immediately to the south of the L19trap parcel, Mr. Guernsey, has refused to fully fund the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. However, Mr. Nicolaus, the proponent of the Liptrap cancellation, intends to participate in funding the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. g) As the Guernsey property has 'been the subject of a residential development entitlement application under separate ownership since October 31, 2003 (prior to the submittal of the cancellation application), this land is not available for development. �) TAutumn Park subdivision(immediately east of the cancellation parcel) has two east -west oriented streets which `dead-end' into the cancellation parcel. These are identified as Anjou Court and Magness Court. These two streets are shown on their final map as continuing in a westerly direction and connecting directly to future developments on -the parcel. The configuration of these two street indicates the county's intention -that -these -streets eventually connect to and extend to the west to ' c` reate_circulation_c_onnectivity and contiguous pattern of urban r_ _ developinentJ Immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk LCA will allow ;o�r� a more contiguous pattern of urban development than other proximate non -contracted parcels in the area which do not have similar opportunities for connectivity of circulation. /i) Although there are two roadways dead -ending at the easy edge of the Guernsey property (Rancho Road and Stable Lane), the Public Works G Department reports that these are privately owned roadways. Improvement of these two roads to County standards ana extension of these roadways through the Guernsey Subdivision would require permission of all 51 property owners along the two roads. ® Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 ■Page 13 of 15■ aV0 j) The cancellation petitioner reported to the county on December 7, 2006 that he is in escrow on the 68 acre "Levy" property located immediately to the north of the subject property. In March 2005 the petitioner undertook a Pre -Development Review consultation with the County to begin assessing the feasibility of future suburban -residential development. However, to date the county has not received any development entitlement applications for this property. k) The Levy property cannot—be—developed to its zoned suburban - residential potential until a_second point pf access an`be provided. _ The proposed cancellation and subsequent development of —the Kittyhawk subdivision would provide the Levy property with additional points of access to satisfy Butte County subdivision development standards. While there is the potential for access to the Levy property at Bosc Drive, Butte County Subdivision Code Section 20-133 requires a second point of ingress/egress to a residential subdivision where cul- de-sac streets serve more than 20 lots (Section 20- 133). These access points are most likely to take place through the Autumn Park subdivision and the Kittyhawk property. This limitation exists because there is insufficient width for a 60' right-of-way to cross the property to the east of the Levy property, to connect with Garner :eqre Securing a Highway 99 access for the Levy property would approval by CALTRANS and Butte County. l) The presence of Bosc Drive as it connects to the Levy pro erty, indicates that immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk L A co and the proposed subdivision development would allow or a contiguous pattern of urban development (onto the Levy property) than development of proximate non -contracted land because the restrictions of the Williamson Act on the Kittyhawk parcel prevent the construction of additional roads required for ingress and egress to the Levy parcel. m) Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that development of the contracted land 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 Act contract that provides a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(f)). 2. Prior to any action by the Board of Supervisors approving tentative cancellation of any contract, the county assessor must determine the current fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contractual restriction (GC §51283(a)). ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 ■ Page 14 of 15 0 i " {: . is .+, • n. r • ` .. 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 Acta (GC §§51283(b) -and 51297(c)):, The Cancellation fee for this property would therefore equal $343,060.00. r. 5M This -amount was determined by the Assessor's Office under Appeal X04-020. ACTION S.FOR CONSIDERATION - Staff recommends that - the Land Conservation Act . -Advisory Committee-'. make recommendations thk the Board of Supervisors: ti. 1. Approve the Tentatively Immediate Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for ,Evelyn. Liptrap. (APN 047-260-199) Instrument No. 0052839; recorded r December 22, 1999, subject to the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee,- and recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cane: llation, with, the findings as detailed in this staff report, pursuant to Government Code Section _ :1282,'' �� 2. Condition thethe Im edtate Cancellationr,to r'equire�t�a tentative subdivisionrmap.be approved prior to issuance of>a'Certificate'of Cancellation.- -. �/�.. •�..1'' _ � �.:�`� �•�f=`-�.•,,.,,• �*�"r � _ • ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ «. - ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007: ■Page 15of15■ ;I „ HONEY. SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 157 Ca1.App.3d 1122 [Civ. No. 28701. Court of Appeals ofalifornia, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. June 29, 1984.] HONEY SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; PRESENTING JAMUL et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. (Opinion by Work, Acting P. J., with Butler, J., concurring. Separate dissenting opinion by Lewis, J.) COUNSEL Stephan C. Volker for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr., County Counsel, Howard P. Brody, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Sandra J. Brower, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent. McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Barry P. Goode, Antonio Rossmann and Christine Sherry for Real Parties iri Interest and Respondents. OPINION WORK, Acting P. J. Honey Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., and the Sierra Club (petitioners) appeal a judgment denying their petition for a peremptory writ of mandate, seeking to vacate the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (Board) resolution cancelling certain long-term land conservation contracts restricting development of rural acreage. The restricted land has now been purchased by investors intending to immediately develop it into a "clustered" residential/commercial community housing and providing a commercial center, security facilities and utilities for residents of 389 luxury homes. We review the lawfulness of the Board's action in light of the constitutional and statutory effect of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, "The Williamson Act" (Gov. Code, § 51200 et seq.), fn. 1 as amended by the [157 Cal.App.3d 11281 Robinson Act (Stats. 1981, ch. 1095, pp. 4249-4255) and article XIII, section 8 of the California Constitution. This statutory scheme restricts the early cancelling of agricultural and other open space preserve contracts in which landowners agree to not otherwise develop their lands for at least 10 years in exchange for property tax assessments lower than could otherwise be constitutionally obtained. As applicable here, early cancellation is prohibited statutorily unless the landowner's proposed alternative use both is consistent with the local government's general plan and will not result in "discontiguous patterns of urban development." Only the latter finding is contested. Petitioners contend the Board breached its public obligation under section 51282. 1, subdivision (f)(1) by cancelling three land conservation contracts to allow the investors to build a clustered housing development which petitioners claim will promote�discontiguous�patterns of`" urb_ awn" development even though similar residential and commercial"clustered"�'de elopment is classtfied as "rural" in the county's general plan. They claim the mere designation of a project as ,"rural development" by the local government does not fulfill the overriding statutory requirement 11 a r l r l wUW that the development be o iguous to existing or soon to be developed "urban" areas and that ' constructing this massive residential and commercial cluster-type development miles from any similar existing-or-pyres ntl`y proposed d! evelopmeet, will be the catalyst for the precise disorderly growth the Williamson Act was designed to curb. Alternatively, they contend the finding is not supported by the evidence because the record shows the project is in fact an urban development and is not contiguous to an urban area. For the reasons which follow, we list a nonexclusive list of relevant factors to aid in determining whether a project meets the statutory characterization of "urban development"; we hold the contig iug ty requirement and its temporal=natureTrequires the_project beSac ually contiguous to existing urban development or property soon to be developed;iwe hold our constructio f the phrase "urban development" satisfies`the eriforceable restriction requirement of article XIII, section 8 of the California Constitution; we find as a matter of law the Honey Springs Project is "urban" development; and we remand the matter to the Board to determine whether the project satisfies the contiguity requirement when applying the guidelines in this decision. Factual and Procedural Background 4 • 1 • The Honey Springs Ranch, encompasses approximately 2,022 acres, including 1,422 acres subject to 3 land conservation contracts. It is located in a relatively remote rural area west of the Cleveland National Forest, five [157 Cal.App.3d 11291 miles southeast of Jamul, twenty-three miles "east of downtown San Diego, and eight miles southeast of the "urban limit line" for the San Diego metropolitan area as designated by the county general plan. In October 1979, Presenting Jamul (Presenting), fn. 2 a real estate developer, purchased the ranch knowing it was restricted to non-developed uses for 10 years by existing Williamson Act contracts, but believing it could have the restrictions removed early to allow prompt development and sale of sites for residential units. The project's overall density averages approximately 5.2 • acres per residence;'however, the homes will be "clustered" on a portion of the property so the actual lot sizes range from 1 to 2.5 acres. More than 40 percent of the total acreage will be dedicated to permanent open space and up to 90 percent will be retained or restored to a natural, rural appearance. The luxury homes in this ambitious project feature passive and active solar design, situated around a 17-acre artificial lake. It further includes eight acres of commercial buildings, a fire station; equestrian facilities, security services, tennis courts, and other recreational amenities. Commercial uses include a convenience store, membership club, a restaurant (indoor and outdoor dining), cocktail lounge, health spa, drycleaners, homeowners association office, real estate sales, outdoor tennis courts, a pro shop, service station, boat rental office, security facilities, a beach, pool and recreational facilities. Presenting's first application to cancel the agricultural preserve contracts was denied because it could not meet the Williamson Act requirement that it prove its project could not have been -. placed on available nearby lands not under land conservation contract. fn. 3 On.January 11, 1982, Presenting renewed its application within the "window-period" of the Robinson Ac `which amended the Williamson Act and temporarily eliminated the foregoing requirem� ent. h s time the Board unanimously approved the cancellation, finding: "the cancellation and alternative use will not result in disc�tiguous pafterns of urban development because the property and project is [sic] properly categorized as Tural' ... [and] the alternative use is consistent with the applicable provisions of the San Diego County General Plan 1990 which was in effect October 1, 1981 ...." 4 Petitioners contend the Board incorrectly interpreted the findings requirement of section 51282.1 and, in any event, no substantial evidence supported its findings. [157 Cal.App.3d 11301 Historical Background: The Williamson Act as Amended by the Robinson Act [1] The Williamson Act is a legislative effort to preserve open space and agricultural land through discouraging premature urbanization and, at the same time, to prevent persons owning agricultural and/or open lands near urban areas from being forced to pay real property taxes based on the greater value of that land for commercial or urban residential use, a factor which would force most landowners to prematurely develop. The act responds to the alarming phenomena in California of "(1) the rapid and virtually irreversible loss of agricultural land -to—, residential and other developed uses ... and (2) thedisorderly patterns of suburban development [fn. omitted] that mar the landscape, require extension of municipal services to remote residential enclaves, and kinterfere wwith agri turalLLacti_vitigs ...." (Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Ca1.3d 840, 850-[17-14Ca1:R`ptr: 619, 623 P.2d 180].) fn. 4 Under the act local governments may, but are not required to, establish "agricultural preserves" (§ 51230), i.e., areas devoted either to agricultural use, recreational use, open space use, or the combination of any such uses (§ 51201, subds. (b), (d), (n) and (o)), by executing voluntary contracts [157 Cal.App.3d 11311 with property owners fn. 5 restricting land use for an initial term of no less than 10 years. The contracts are automatically renewed each year unless notice of nonrenewal is given pursuant to section 51245. (§ 51244.) By agreeing to restrict the use of land, the landowner receives a reduced property tax assessment based upon the value of the land for its current use rather than its market value. The required term of no less than 10 years, automatically annually renewed, was intended to guarantee a long-term commitment to agricultural and other open space use, to deny the tax benefits of the act to short-term speculators and developers of the urban land, and to insure compliance with the constitutional requirement of an "enforceable restriction." (Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, supra, 28 Ca1.3d 840, 851.) A landowner may terminate his contract at any time by giving notice to the contracting governmental entity; however, he may not develop the land during the remaining contract term. (§ 51246.) On notice of nonrenewal, property taxes gradually return to the level of taxation upon comparable nonrestricted property during the remainder of the term of restriction. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 426.) Originally, a governmental entity had limited discretion to cancel a contract only if the cancellation was not inconsistent with the purposes of the Act and would be in the public interest. (Former § 51282.) Moreover, the Act further restricted the local entity's discretion by providing: "The existence of an opportunity for another use of land involved shall not be sufficient reason for the cancellation of a contract. A potential alternative use of the land may be considered only if there is no proximate, noncontracted land suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put. M The uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall likewise not 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." (Former § 51282.) To further discourage premature cancellations, the Legislature required a cancellation fee (§ 51283) and later imposed an additional. charge partially recapturing the landowner's accrued tax benefits. (§ 51283.1.) Subsequently, inSierra Club v. City of Hayward, supra, 28 Cal.3d 840, the Supreme Court shocked local governments, landowners and developers [157 Cal.App.3d 1132] (including Presenting) by insisting the cancellation provisions of the Williamson Act be construed narrowly, establishing that the propriety of cancellations should be reviewed by administrative mandamus, and declaring the nonrenewal procedure was the "preferred termination method" and the "intended and general vehicle for contract termination"(28 Cal.3d 840, 852, 853) and prohibited a local government from cancelling a contract unless the act's express prerequisites for contract cancellation were strictly satisfied. The court emphatically stated "cancellation is inconsistent with the purposes of the act if the objectives to be served by cancellation should have been predicted and served by nonrenewal at an earlier time, or if such objectives can be served by nonrenewal now." (Id, at p. 855.) The Supreme Court also confirmed the governmental entity must determine whether cancellation serves the public interest, as well as make the necessary findings regarding the alternative use including (1) whether there is any proximate, noncontracted land suitable for the proposed use and, (2) whether, if the the land is uneconomic for agricultural use, there is any other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put. The court concluded the Legislature intended the cancellation provision be available only in "extraordinary situations in which the ordinary nonrenewal and expiration procedures would pose insurmountable obstacles to the accomplishment of pressing public needs." (Id, at p. 864.) In response to Hayward, several bills were introduced in the California Legislature in 1981, the majority of which were designed to countermand the decision, while Assemblyman Hannigan's bill attempted to codify its restrictive interpretation. In the Senate, Senator Boatwright introduced Senate Bill No. 836, an antithesis to the Hannigan bill, declaring in pertinent part "[n]o special circumstances to justify a cancellation need be shown" and which would transform cancellation into a routine and virtually unreviewable legislative decision. The Boatwright bill easily passed the Senate 21 to 13, and was forwarded to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources. The Boatwright -Hannigan differences made compromise inevitable. The committee adopted a completely new text for the Hannigan bill (now designated Assem. Bill No. 2074), codifying much of Hayward's restrictive holding but offering a one -time -only, easy exit from the act to landowners. fn. 6 Senator Boatwright sponsored the bill in the Senate. [157 Cal.App.3d 11331 [2a] Following Senate amendments, Ass ly BiilI No. 20 the Robinson Act, was enacted for the declared purpose "not to weaken or strengthen the Williamson Act but simply to clarify and make the law workable in light of problems and ambiguities created by the Supreme Court decision in the case ofSierra Club v. City of Hayward, 28 Cal.3d 840." (Stats. 1981, ch. 1095, § 8, p. 4254.) The Robinson Act amended the Williamson Act to permit local governments to cancel a contract upon finding either it is consistent with the purposes of the act or the cancellation is in the public interest. (§ 51282, subd. (a).) fn. 7 However, to prove consistency with the act, the Legislature not only retained, but expanded the requirement for detailed subfindings required by Hayward. fn. 8 Of relevance here, the Robinson Act created a "window period" during which a landowner seeking cancellation need satisfy only two of the required subfindings (§ 51282.1): (1) that the cancellation and alternative use will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development, and (2) that the alternative use is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. (§ 51282.1, subd. (f).) This section intended to provide a one-time opportunity to correct inconsistent applications of the cancellation 1157 Cal.App.3d 11341 provisions and to alleviate present and potential hardships, both for affected cities and counties and for affected landowners. The .provisions of the "window period" legislation are alternative to the provisions for cancellation of contracts contained in the Williamson Act. (§ 51282. 1, subd. (a).) fn. 9 , Presenting renewed its application within the "window period." y During the appeal of this case, Assemblyman Robinson successfully' carried anothei bill (Robinson Act, I1) through the Legislature for the avowed purpose of avoiding possible misinterpretatins of the "window -period" cancellation provisions regarding applications which have been approved by county boards of supervisors or city councils and are subject to litigation which he believed might result in their wrongful denial. Robinson Act II thus declared the findings requirements of the "window period" "were and are satisfied if a local board or council has acted in accordance with Section 51280.1, as added by this act." (Stats. 1983, ch. 1296, § 1.) , Section 512M 1 provides in its entirety: "As used in this chapter, the finding of a board or council that 'cancellation and alternative use will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development' authorizes, but does not require, the board or council to cancel a contract if it finds that the alternative use will be rural in character and that the alternative use will result within the foreseeable future in a contiguous pattern of development within the relevant subregion: -The --boa d or councilTis-not-required-to-find that the alternative'use will be immediately contiguous to like development. In rendering its finding, the board'or counc� it "acts in its°own,discretion to evaluate the pro pos&alternative use according to existing and projected'conditionss wi hin-its local'jurisdiction., - The provisions of this section -sMqll`4pply'on1y t those proceedi g for the cancellation of contracts which were initiated�pursuant to Section 51282.1, and, consistent with'the provisions of Section 9 of Chapter 1095 of the Statutes of 1981, shall apply to the same extent as the provisions of Section 51282.1, notwithstanding their repeal." (Stats. 1983, ch. 1296, § 2.) [157 Cal.App.3d 1135] It is conceded the Honey Springs project is consistent with the county's general plan. We are asked only to determine whether the Board correctly concluded that, because the Honey Springs project is defined as a rural development under its own general plan enacted to control county developmental growth patterns, it necessarily could not create a discontiguous pattern of urban development as that term is used in the Williamson Act, an enactment_involving different far- reaching statewide concerns.,In this T s regard, petitioners contend no development may be } approved unless it -is presently contiguoLto existing-tt ba n,de�elopmentor-'to intervening parcel- s which soon will be developer. [4] Respondents counter that the language "will not result in discontiguous patterns" permits "window" cancellations where the proposed alternative use is part of a pattern of indefinite long-term future development within the city or county, as well as where parcels are presently immediately adjacent to existing or imminent developments. fn. 10 T 'The-Probative-L-egislative fftent Value of the Record ----------------- This litigation classically illustrates the difficulty in determining legislative intent when opposing'• factions each muster massive documentation, the majority of which constitutes unreliable and/or inadmissible documents of minimal probative value. [4] The contradictory declarations of Assemblymen Hannigan and Robinson, two key legislators involved in enacting the Robinson Act, regarding the meaning of the language in dispute "fortifies judicial reticence to rely on statements made by individual members of the Legislature as an expression of the intent of the entire body." (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 258 [104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049].) Not only do we have the postenactment declarations of Assemblymen Robinson and Hannigan, we have special interest correspondence to the Governor urging his signing of the bill; the postenactment declarations of special interest lobbyists describing individual perceptions of the underlying legislative intent of the disputed language in the Robinson Act; and the postenactment declaration of a director of the California Department of Conservation reflecting her understanding of the effect of the Robinson Act induced her to recommend the bill become [157 Cal.App.3d 11361 law. We review the applicable rules of statutory construction fn. 11 and their effect upon this voluminous record. [157 Cal.App.3d 1137] [5] Preliminarily, regarding Robinson Act Il, we are not bound by its construction of the disputed finding; for "[o]ne session of the legislature has no power, strictly speaking, to construe the acts of a former session .... [Fn. omitted.]" (58 Cal.Jur.3d (1980) Statutes, § 171, p. 579.) Rather, it is firmly established statutory construction is a judicial function within which the "courts have consistently held that 'declaratory or defining statutes are to be upheld ... as an exercise of the legislative power to enact a law for the future.' [Citations.]" (People v. Cuevas (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 189, 199 [168 Cal.Rptr. 519].) In other words, "[t]he right to construe a preexisting statute belongs to the judiciary ... [as it] may not be forced to construe such a statute in accordance with legislative interpretation though the Legislature has a right to define the terms of the statute for the future." (Cal. Emp. Stab. Com. v. Chichester etc. Co. (1946) 75 Cal.ADR.2d 899, 901 [172 P.2d 100].) Consequently, the Legislature "'may not revise the operation of an existing law in the form of an amendatory statute to affect past transactions."' (People v. Cuevas, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 199, quoting Cal. Emp. Stab. Com. v. Chichester etc. Co., supra, 75 Cal.App.2d at p. 901.) "Although a legislative expression of the intent of an earlier act is not binding upon the courts in their construction of the prior act, that expression may properly be considered together with other factors in arriving at the true legislative intent existing when the prior act was passed." (Eu v. Chacon (1976) 16 Cal.3d 465, 470 [128 Cal.Rptr. 1, 546 P.2d 289]; Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 497, 506 [113 Cal.Rptr. 539]; see County of Sacramento v. State of California (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 428, 433-434, fn. 5 [184 Cal.Rptr. 648]; People v. Cuevas, supra, at p. 199.) As the court in Del Costello v. State of California (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 887, 893, footnote 8 [185 Cal.Rptr. 582], succinctly summarized, "[t]he Legislature has no authority to interpret a statute. That is a judicial task. The Legislature may define the meaning of statutory language by a present legislative enactment which, subject to constitutional restraints, it may deem retroactive. But it has no legislative authority simply to say what it did mean. Courts do take cognizance of such declarations where they are consistent with the original intent. '[A] subsequent expression of the Legislature as to the intent of the prior statute, although not binding on the court, may properly be used in determining the effect of a prior act. [Citations.]' [Citation.] The Legislature may also, as it did here, define the term 'amount owing' "'as an exercise of the legislative power to enact a law for the future." [Citations.]' [Citation.] Our task is to discern the intent of the statute from its applicable language and context." [157 Cal.App.3d 11381 a_ Guided by the applicable rules of statutory construction, we find that of those materials probative of legislative, intent, few show the intent of the entire legislative body. For instance, casting aside Assemblyman Hannigan's declaration, the Sierra Club relies upon the analyses of Assembly Bill No. 2074 prepared and circulated in the Senate and certain enrolled bill reports it believes coincide with its own broad construction of thephrase "urban development." fn. 12 However, we find the failure to include the term "urban" when speaking of discontiguous development in each of these reports of little significance, because each legislator also had a copy of the bill containing the adjective "urban" modifying the word "development." Had an analysis or enrolled " bill report of a proposed statute making it a misdemeanor to paint your barn red, _ailed to refer to . . the color red, we would not construe the underlying legislative intent as making it a misdemeanor to paint your barn any color. Simply stated, we would presume the legislators were cognizant of the word "red" when considering the bill before them. Consequently, most materials presented only show there was compromise between the respective .. supporters of the Hannigan bill and the Boatwright bill. They offer no clue as to the precise meaning attached by the Legislature to the language in controversy. Accordingly, we employ the cited fundamental rules of statutory construction without relying upon the proffered extrinsic '-aids." —Tlefinina the Phrace "TTrhnn Tleuelnnment" [2b] In construing the phrase "urban development," we consider the Robinson Act in light of the Williamson Act of which it is a part. The Robinson Act's parallel use of the phrase "discontiguous patterns of urban development" as a permanent finding and also as one of the - "window -period" findings suggests we interpret the phrase uniformly, consistent with [157 Cal.App3d 11391 the �underlyying obje� es'oma h Will"� iamson,Act, because the Robinson Acs s dem cla a its purpose i not to weaken7or strengthen the Williamson Act but simply to_clarify.and make he law workable in'light-of problems and. ambiguities created by th California_ Supreme � ZCourt decision `in the case of Sierra Club v. City�of Hayward.." (Stats. 1981 095, § 8, p. 4254.) The'Legislatuie's delicate compromise of requiring the two cited findings Cinstead of . simply requiring no findings) during the "window period" fortifies our belief the requirement was imposed to guarantee accomplishing the Williamson Act's principal objectives. Accordingly, although the "window period" should be construed liberally to provide a simplified exit opportunity for "dissatisfied" contract holders, that construction must be temperee. by.the y Objectives of the Williamson Act. The Supreme Court inSierra Club v. City f Hay -ward,, supra,, 28 Cal 3d 840, 850, stated amson Athey Willictwas enadted'to curb"the,rapid'and virtuall-y_irreversilile loss of a€ncultur 1 la to residential and other rdeveloped ususes ...." (Italics added.) [6] In reaching its conc.lusion,.the court considered the effect of the findings required by section 51220, subdivisions (b) and (c) (ante; fn. 4), which employ such language as "urban uses," "discourage discontiguous urban _ development patterns," "a rapidly urbanizing society," and "urban or metropolitan developments." Nothing in the Robinson Act suggests the Legislature intended the term "urban development" in section 51282. 1, subdivision (f)(1) to have a meaning different from the same or a similar phrase in section 51220. To' construe fi e�term "urban development"' e narrowly iri sectio' n 51282.1 would-defeat`-ttFe underlying ose of th Williamso_.`n_ Act, contrary to express intent of the Robinson Act: A-narrow-construRion would permit the very condition the Williamson Act was designed to curb --disorderly patterns of suburban development, also known (DO , as "leapfrog" development orVrban-spra`' chara'cte'rized by scattered, low-densi' ty ssi glee' family-subdivis"i&is. fn. 13 The inevitable effect of encouraging clustered residential development in rural areas is ' effectively the •same as urban development; for, regardless whether a subdivision consists of one unit per acre or averages one unit per [157 Cal.App.3d 11401 five acres, it removes the land from agricultural or protected open space uses. Clustered residential development is inevitably accompanied by a host ornecessities and amenities -including utilities, commercial' facilities; } rooadways,�,lot fences, et which combine o`preclude open space uses regardless of density. o�V1 reover,,the=injurious effect of such development in rural areas upon protected open space lands is far greater than urban development, because the low density of the former is more - inefficient, consuming relatively more acreage of open space land than its high d;,nsity. counterpart.` Because of these concerns, petitioners arguezwe,must,presufne''tKiE:Williamson Act - includes -all developed-land;uses•within•its,term,-"urban development." t -: ,� ; , •�.. .�.. � �,. .• a,.. - Jam-- i . < However, petitioners' argument fails in light of settled rules of statutory construction and the general scheme of California land use law. Here, the Legislature consciously employed the Ca`djectiye urban"Tin describing,the.noun-'development.Z;;Vrban is defined as "of, relating to,, characteristic -of : or takui lace.in a,ci constituting or includin and centereoi on a cit ,s _.� g P 1' ty_.... , - g g y ... of, relating to, -or concerned with an urban and specif. a densely populated -area :.'. belonging or shaving relayonn to buildings that are characteristics of cities '" (Webster's Third New Internat.� Dict. (unabridged 1968) p. 2520,col. ; see_also=Black's Law Dictionary-(5th,ed:,91979) p. 1381; col. 1, defining urban as "[o]f or_belonging to a city or town. Within city, limits see also 91' C.J.S. "URBAN" p. 512.) The only judicial California definition we find echoes..his definition. , (South Pasadena v. San Gabriel (1933) 134 Cal.App. 403, 409-410 [25 P.2d 516-1.) fn. 14 A practical definition appears in City of Philadelphia v. Brady (1931) 104 Pa. Super. 79 [157 A.. : 694, 695-696] (affd. 308 Pa. 135•[162 A. 173, 174]), regarding liability for asses;mentpurposes. Quoting City of McKeesport v. Soles (1896) 178 Pa. 363 [35 A. 927, 929-930], the court held: Whether the particular property ... is to be considered "rural" or "city", depends largely upon its surroundings' and the character of the property in the neighborhood. If the buildings and improvements in the neighborhood are few and scattered; they partake of the character of the country, rather than of the city or town, and are occupied by persons engaged in rural pursuits-- the -locality should be considered rural. On the other.hand, if the houses and improvements artake of the character. of 6F—city or townp and are maim o+ c u ied'b ersons en a ed"in ci' h' �. Y P� YP- gg ty pursuits, the locality should becon_sidered.as.city-and.not rural: A`locality�which s-laid'outin srnall lots of.the usual;srze=for city.ortowri=lots an p partly built up with city improvements, .�w�sv..w�wJti, _ ._.. __..max, s..� x[157 Cal:App:3d 1141] such as,pavedKstreets and gas or water pipes, shouldbe considered in the 'class of c ty property:"` `' ' Title 42 of the United States Code, section 1500d-1 regarding public health and welfare in the t preservation of open -space land, defines"urbai n� n area" "any area which is urban in character, including those surrounding areas which�irfthe judg em nt of the Secretary, form an economic " and socially related region, taking into consideration such factors as present and future population trends and patterns of urban growth, location of transportation facilities and systems, and distribution of industrial, commercial, residential, governmental, institutional, and other activities." Finally, in construing "urban," we perceive the differences between li✓ing'in urban and ruial areas are not so marked today as during the early years of this century, Because inh`abr ansLLof many rural locations now e y (indeed'expect) available`transpor tion, light, dower,,water andsanitary facilities ;and, services,, just as,,their.counterpartsin, urban cente-`rs7.(1 McQuilliin;,Miinicipal Corporations (3d. ed. 1971) § 1.07, p. 9.) " Unlike the descriptive ete 'urban" which has no fixed, objective and easily ascertainable mean" i� ng,"development" carnes its -ordinary ,.meamng, expanded m sects 76592? to;include almost any pliysical improvement oaf lby gradinge e tharth and erecting trucures. -f J410We conclude the phrase "urban development" as used in the relevant state statutes, has no fixed, r precise definition. Whether a,res!i ential development is urban or rural,therefore must be.:,,, �deter`minedby:evaluating:factors relating—to the,varyng charactenstic_s of:indivc.ual projects, Employing these guidelines, local governmental entities can determine whether the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts will permit urban development resulting in a discontiguous patte> of urban development within the context of the state's conservation plan. fn. 15 Presenting contends the only relevant factors are those the San Diego County Bcard of Supervisors now uses to determine whether a developmentior" 'area is rural or urban in character for its own parochial land -planning purposes—These include density, surrounding development; -proximity. tor p, otential of becoming inc rporated,areaxisting public.iacililies,�water; c; ailability in thee regioii;� steepness of natural slope, minimum parcel sizes, avaih, bility of public' transit; ability to cluster housing to preserve open space, height of buildings, on-site sewage capacity, -landscaping, lighting; [157 Cal.App.3d 11421 space e- strucct re7s;'prokimity of''. employmentc ters, preservation of open space easements, size ofarea o b eKedtby commercial -facilities he attractiveness of commercial facilities to regional travelers, and the size -of Petitioners list other characteristics of a development bearing directly on its compatability with ' open -space values of the affected land, including residential density; lot size, lerigth and width of paved streets, amount of traffic generated, presence of commercial or industrial development, presence of urban infractures (i.e., public water supply, sewer, fire, police, schools, and attendant facilities), and the general impact of the proposed development on the scenic, recreational, t wildlife or agricultural values and uses the Williamson Act is designed to protect. fn. 16 All these factors'and considerations are probative to a varying degree of whether a development is either urban or rural. Although the respective weight given to each of these factcrs enumerated in these nonexclusive lists will vary among themselves and from county to county, we believe using this definitional approach to identify="urban=development,,;will:allow an'accurate'°` 'characterizat'ion'of the development, consistent with the`objectives of preserving open space, t insuring orderly development of our urbanized areas, and ecognizing the reasor_.able expectations of all concerned parties. -Further, our construction of the term "urban development" comports with California. land use law of which the Williamson and Robinson Acts are integral parts. California has de- Neloped two strong -and equally dignified doctrines, includin (1) -the need for principled plaming according - .., t tolgeneralpractices and polic"res required by the Legislature (e.g. adoption of a general plan and consistency of local decisions with that general plan), an(t(2),the authority of earh local jurisdiction to apply state-wide goals and plan the substance of their local land use subject to' only limited state oversight. (See § 65030.1.) Consequently, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) [157 Cal.App.3d 11431 was established and directed to prepare such land -use guidelines of an advisory nature to each city, and county:.(§65040.2.) fn..17 The OPR General Plan_ Guidelines provide- "In California the-State-has.delegated much of theresponsibility of res, the -conflicts to`local governments, with the-central`mechanism for balancingLLpolicies andrn necessary trade-offs being the localgeneral plan-"=(OPR General Plan Guidelines (1982) p. XXIV.) Concerning the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, section 65800 states in pertinent part: "[T]he Legislature declares that in enacting this chapter it is its intention to provide only a minimum of limitation in order that counties and cities may exercise the maximum degree of control over local zoning matters." As the court in Kelsey. v. 4 Colwell (1973); 30 Cal.App.3d 590, 594T[1,06,Cal:Rptr-420]; aptly summarized:.;The=�,,,� W,illiamson*Act,embraces statewide purposes;=it-was adopted.by the.Legislature,to preserveTopen paces,ito conserve rrreplacable agricultural.lands and�to eliminate socioeconomic problems associated,witli`urban sprawl. (§.51220 -)Nevertheless, the,state aims; envisioned by the.la_w, by ./J!wf i / ' fir' �: w.. OeM�s,it:y, mustbe correlated with.local environmental and community needs;=And; byy . r implication,.the state object�s.mu/ b r(1rel�a e&� yith�g-range commumty,planning ...." fn. Petitioners argue developmental pressure on the urban fringe land comes largely from speculators such as Presenting, interested in creating lucrative low-density subdivisions by purchasing the generally cheaper acreage far removed from those more expensive lands nearer to, existing developed urban areas and already subject to the inflated land value caused by encroaching urbanization. They argue it is especially true here where the developer benefits both '01from the rural location of the acreage and the land's additional depressed value resulting from long-term use restrictions facially preventing early development.fPetitioners-further contend'low- density project is pr m t ru ely destr pen s` spa abe a though-high-density�_hou_s"ing.:and" ' [157 Cal.App.3d 11441 commercial uses occasionally replace fringe open space, this is the exception rather than the rule. (See Land, Unraveling the Rurban Fringe: A Proposal for the Implementation of Proposition Three (1968) 19 Hasting L.J. 421, 424, citing Snyder, A New Program for Agricultural Land Use Stabilization: The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (1966) 42 Land Econ. 29, 31.) They urge Presenting's construction of the act would actually encourage low-density suburban expansion, emphasizing the same contiguity requirement ; appears both in the "window" as well as the permanent cancellation provisions. Further, they point out that focusing on the relative density of the proposed development creates a situation where high-density developments, more efficient for land conservation purposes, will be avoided because they will be characterized as "urban," while sprawling suburban projects consuming' .much greater amount of open space land per dwelling unit, will become the "safe" way to obtain early removal of land use restrictions. We believe, however, that Presenting's proposal of low-density, clustered developments accompanied by the dedication of surrounding lands to open space and restricted by local growth management plans to preserve the rural character of the surrounding lands, is a practical response to the competing state interests of the preserving open space and the guaranteeing of adequate housing,for its residents through orderly development. The Terminology "The Cancellation and Alternative Use Will Not Result in Discountiguous Patterns of Urban Development" Requires Actual Contiguity to an Existing Urban Development or Property Soon to Be Developed With regard to authorizes "wir development in the reasonably nea development was chosen pragmat �urban.a erdoes`riot alw y o cur i must.be,measured-in-relatiori to exi propo ed de elopment is oras he contiguous to^existing.urban;develi of the disputed finding, we believe the Robinson Act vhere the alternative use will be integrated into similar future. We find flhe tt m "discontiguous pattems;of.uiban -ally, a legislative recognition thatdevelopment from an sm`h, sequential'progression. Accordingly, contiguity ting urb-an`development-and will be-6s6blished o ly;whei -esult-of development of intervening parcels will soon be, We do not adopt Presenting's more relaxed interpretation, in essence requiring mere consistency with indefinite speculative future development envisioned within the city or county general plan. To do so would eliminate the state's contiguity requirement in favor of a vague standard of foreseeability. [157 Cal.App.3d 1145] Actual contiguity to existing urban development, either at, the time of cancellation or soon thereafter, must be the standard, because any appreciable delay between construction of the alternative use and achievement of contiguity results in the very evil the contiguity requirement was intended to abolish, i.e., premature and disorderly patterns of suburban development. [7]=We b'elieve'the contiguity`requirement-may-be�satisfiedTbyTshowin 97 _, the owners,of;intervening,parcelg�have-the'current ability and, intent -to d velop their land -within a,reasonable,time The -legislative su e of the phrase "will not'resultfin.�does not -imply a legislative int nt to bestow upon a local agency any greater latitude in determining the ultimate ramification of its land -use decision. To avoid mer"` e phecy wwe hold such a finding -must be n aseupon substantial ev den`ce;establishing o o -1y consistency with local ps nd zoning, C bL-d �+ �3.Y but alsothe,presentrintent of�thintervening=landowners to^` s_ oon-S develop th�eir land__'ince fn. 194Since delay would thwart the objectives of the Williamson Act, the'period of abeyance, clearly cannot -I Yexceed`niiie y�'en"r"s the��ter'm do tperi�d wifli n the nonrenewal pro d e becaus !cancellation.is-4inconsistent with the purposes of the act if the objectives to be served by cancellation ... can be served by nonrenewal now." (Siena Club v. City of Hayward, supra, 28 Cal.3d 840, 855.) Otherwise, what constitutes a reasonable and permissible period of time depends upon the -factual circumstances of each individual case. fn. 20 11-5 rniriary; we believe our: interpretation-, of dispu`ted`finding:perrnits a reasonable and ractical constu tion vhich-.will's`afe uard t�rima 157`Cal"A 3d 46]`06 ective of _• pp_. , �.,,. �,.aw._ a.-�. x.: a ICbo h he Williamson,Aaand:the�Rob son.Ac A o ed above, the Robinson Act was not enacted merely -to easecancellation restrictions for a limited time and to weaken the enforceably restrictive nature of agricultural preserve contracts. To the contrary, it also established a new set of permanent limitations on contract cancellation requiring, of pertinence here, five new subfindings when determining a cancellation would be consistent with the Williamson Act. The Robinson Act is a delicate compromise of competing environmental, farming, governmental, and development special interest groups waiving only three of those restrictions during the "window" period; the Legislature expressly declined to waive either the contiguity or the general plan consistency requirements. Since the retained findings are also permanent restrictions on cancellation, we construe them uniformly to further the objectives of the Williamson Act. The Phrase "Urrbbbaann'D el0p enf'sMust Be Construed so as to Satisfy the "Enforceable Restriction" Constitutional Requirement Article XIII, section 8 is the enabling amendment of the Williamson Act, fn. 21 and requires any Williamson Act contract to enforceably restrict the use of contracted land. Further, the Legislature provides in section 51252 that: "Open -space land under a contract entered into pursuant to this chapter shall be enforceably restricted within the meaning and for the purposes of Section 8 of Article XIII of the State Constitution and shall be enforced and administered by the city or county in such a manner as to accomplish the purposes of that article and of this chapter." (Italics added.) Consequently; petitioners argue not only must the act's cancellation restrictions be construed to fulfill the constitutional mandate to protect open space, they must also be interpreted so as to require enforceable restrictions. Not to do so violates the California Constitution, article XIII, section 1 which mandates all real property be assessed and taxed on the basis of its fair market value. The Supreme Court observed: "Finally, it is the purpose of the act to extend tax benefits to those who voluntarily subject their land to 'enforceable restrictions.' (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 8.) If cancellation were a simple matter of showing that the restricted land is now more valuable [157 Cal.App.3d 1147] for developed use, we doubt whether Williamson Act contracts could qualify as 'enforceable restrictions' making the land eligible for taxation on use value rather than market .value under the Constitution. Lax cancellation procedures might thereby defeat the intent of the Legislature to reduce the taxes on agricultural land in return for long-term binding commitments.". (Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, supra, 28 Cal.3d 840, 855.) [8] Upon reviewing the cancellation procedures of the Williamson Act, as modified by the Robinson Act, highlighted by the stringent findings required under the permanent provisions, our construction of the disputed finding and the nonwaiverability of the cancellation fee for "window -period" cancellations, we find the statutory procedures satisfy the enforceable restriction requirement. Our interpretation of the required finding does not make the land -use contract cancellation provisions so liberal as to be unconstitutional. Viewing the permanent cancellation provisions in their entirety, the expanded requirement of more precise findings when applied by the local governmental entity to a given situation in accordance with the spirit and purposes of the Williamson Act, insures facial constitutional validity in accordance with article XIII, section 8. These findings detail and address all considerations necessary to assure any cancellation will further the purposes of the act. fn. 22 To further prevent speculators and developers from using the Williamson Act as a "tax shelter," it imposes a cancellation fee (§ 51283) or an additional deferred tax (§ 51283.1), whichever is greater. Granted, under the permanent provisions, these penalties may be waived by the local governmental entity (§§ 51283, subd. (c) and 51283.1, subd. (e)); however, such waivers must be in the public interest and waiver of the cancellation fee must be approved by the Secretary of the Resources. Agency. fn. 23 We find the "window -period" cancellation provisions are also sufficiently enforceably restrictive to promote the underlying objectives of the Williamson Act, the Constitution and the Robinson Act. Although we believe the proper application of the findings as construed in this opinion assures constitutional [157 Cal.App.3d 11481 compliance with the enforceable restriction requirement, the "window -period" cancellation clauses specifically prohibit waiver of the cancellation fee. (§ 51282.1, subd. (i).) fn. 24 The Honey Springs Project Is "Urban" Development [9] Using those principles we adopt above, our review of the entire record for substantial evidence to support the Board's finding (Code Civ. [157 Cal.App.3d 11491 Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c)), establishes as a matter of law the Honey Springs project is "urban" development in context of the issues presented. Even though the record amply supports the Board's finding the project consistent with the San Diego County General Plan and the Jamul/Dulzura subregional plan, that issue, indeed that finding, is not in controversy. Rather, our issue is whether substantial evidence supports the Board's determination the project is not an urban development as that term is used by the applicable state statutes. We conclude Presenting's reliance upon essentially the residential density of the project, the portion of land to be dedicated to permanent open space, statements regarding environmental preservation and the rural character of the project within its own planning reports, and the consistency of the project with the governing loca: plans, is misplaced. Evaluating this proposed, thousand -resident community by the considerations we find relevant, the evidence in this record establishes as a matter of law the proposed Honey Springs project is "urban." It will include 389 luxury homes and 8 acres of commercial services. Although the residential density is 5.2 acres per dwelling unit, the average residential lot is approximately 1.4 acres in size and the lots cover 553 acres distributed primarily on the ranch's hills, ridges and peaks. The development entails approximately 15 miles of roads, a fire station, equestrian facilities, a sewage plant, a public water system, and a commercial service center approved without limitation as to the size or number of commercial buildings. The planned, commercial uses include a convenience store, a membership club, a restaurant (indoor and outdoor dining), a cocktail lounge, health spa, dry cleaners, homeowners association, real estate sales, outdoor tennis courts, a pro shop, a service station, a boat rental office, security facilities- a beach, pool and recreational facilities. The project requires importing water through a 12 -mid main, with attendant pumping facilities and storage tanks, and a sewage treatment plant with the capacity to process .12 million. gallons per day to be built on a 3 -acre pad. Inevitably, projec=s of this magnitude affect and alter the open space and rural character of surrounding arees, regardless of what efforts are made to preserve the environment and the amount of land dedicEted to open - space use. Even casting aside the substantial excavation required for development of the roadways and the housing sites, the project involves substantial environmental impact offensive to the rural environment including the visual impact of the project's sewage plans constructed adjacent to Honey Springs Road; the admitted potential that increased runoff could cause extensive downstream erosion even if effective erosion control measures are taken at the construction site within the draft EIR; the numerous [157 Cal.App.3d 11501 environmental impacts of the residents' 2,723 average daily automobile trips, quadrupling the pDesent traffic burden on Honey Springs Road; the inevitable impact upon wildlife; and the aesthetic impact of a clustered housing tract accompanied by a commercial center and the necessary service facilities. The project will substantially burden existing public services, as it will bring into the school districts approximately 292 students; it will extend to some degree the fire and police responsibilities of adjacent urban areas; and the extension of all utilities to the project area, illustrated by the installation of a 12 -mile water pipeline. Finally, we consider the growth -inducing effect of the proposed project. In a letter to the Board dated November 20, 1981, OPR characterized the Honey Springs project as representing a "leapfrog" development situated in an area not currently serviced by existing facilities making it inconsistent with the "urban strategy report, a policy document which encouraged development 3 contiguous to existing urban boundaries and discourages the premature development of agricultural lands when possible." Inevitably, extending existing services and the creation of new service promotes additional development, while the influx of new residents to the area creates growing demands for shopping areas, gas stations and services characteristic of an urbanized area. Accordingly, upon considering the cumulative impact on public services (e.g., schools, fire, police and emergency), the magnitude of the proposed project, the necessity to import water, the necessity to extend basic utility services, the inevitable environmental and visual. impacts upon the open space, the residential lot size, the length and width of 15 miles of paved. streets, the amount of traffic generated potentially causing the necessity of widening the man road to the area, the multi -planned commercial center, the residential character of the propoEed clustered development and its relationship and compatibility with open space values in the surrounding area, we conclude the Honey Springs project is manifestly urban in character. The Matter Must Be Remanded so the Board May Determine Whether the Project Satisfies the guity Requir m `nt C� However, even though the Honey Springs project is an "urban development," cancellation of the contracts is permitted if the contiguity requirement is satisfied. Respondents argue the record shows the Honey Springs development corresponds to present developmental patterns on contiguous and neighboring lands, noting that there are more than 200 homes in the area. They urge the Board found -contiguity when it adopted, without discussion, two subfindings stating: "[T]he land is a logical site for the location of rural development ...." And, "[t]he County General - Plan [fn. omitted] [157 Cal.App.3d 1151] ... prescribes the location of urban development." (Public Ex. A, Findings 1.A and 1.B.) fn. 25 The former was followed by the following language: "[T]he"proposed project will produce, within the forseeable future a contiguous pattern of development within the Jamul/Dulzura Subregion ...." (Ibid) pe�ry �� 'L [I Oa] Although the Board facially made the necessary finding, fn. 26 it did so perfunctorily . without defining`its`'analytical base, making it impossible for us to review the record to determine h—ether`substaritial:-evidence Once it. [11] Implicit within a review of the Board's ye pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 is the requirement that it net'khlr factual �- VPindings-sufficient t bridge,the analyti gac p be ween -the ram w evidence and the uhimate`d iec sion. # (Topa g Assn o a Scenic Community v. County-of_l:dsXngelEs(1974) 11 Cad.3d 506, 515 [113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12].) [1 Ob] There are none in this record; however, leither Presenting nor the Board had the benefit of our analysis to use in factually determining the developmental character of the proposed site's surrounding areas. Moreover, the record shows the "finding" was made without discussion or deliberation and thus does not show the Board's analytical route from evidence to finding. (Seeln re Pipinos (1982) 33 Ca1.3d 185, 202 [187 Cal.Rptr. 730, 654 P.2d 1257].) Under these circumstances, "even the existence cf substantial evidence to support a necessary determination would not compel a conclusion that the determination was in fact made. The substantial evidence test compels courts only to sustain existing findings supported by substantial evidence, not to hypothesize new findings." (Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, supra, 28 Cal.3d 840, 859.) We have examined the record carefully and are satisfied it presently contains littl,-, if any, evidence to suggest the Board could have factually supported a finding that the project meets the statutory requirement of contiguity. We remand to the Board for it to determine whether the ' project satisfies the contiguity requirement and to hold new hearings and take additional evidence on this issue if it chooses to do so. Disposition , The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the superior court with directions to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the Board to vacate [157 Cal.App.3d 11521 its cancellation of the Williamson Act agreements and to conduct such further proceedings as it deems appropriate consistent with this opinion. Butler, J., concurred. LEWIS, J. I respectfully dissent. The Board of Supervisors of San Diego County determined that respondent Real Party in Interest was permitted to cancel the agricultural and open space preserve contracts pertaining to the respondent's land, under the "window" provisions of the Robinson Act amendments to the Williamson Act, and to proceed with development of their property based on a finding the planned development would not "create discontiguous patterns of urban development." .There is no question but what this finding, if proper, is a valid basis of the board's action. The Board's finding the development would not "create discontigous patterns of urban development" is based on a finding the planned development is "rural" in nature and therefore by definition not "urban." The majority of this court determine the planned development is in fact urban. The proposed development, having been scaled down from 862 dwelling units to 389 units to comply with the "multiple rural use density limitations of the Jamul-Dulzura Subregional Area Plan," has a density of .18 units per acre or 5.2 acres per unit, with actual lot sizes ranging from 1 acre to 2.5 acres and more than 40 percent of the land dedicated as permanent open space, and up to 90 percent of the 2, 022 acres retained or restored to a natural rural appearance. The development will, include related commercial, service and recreational facilities. As proposed, the project does qualify as "multiple rural use" according to the subregional area plan, and the comprehensive general plan as adopted by the San Diego County Planning Commission and San Diego County Board of Supervisors. It is plain under these statutes the Legislature has left to local government agencies the land use determinations of what is "urban development" and what is not. It also seems plain "rural" development is not "urban" development. What the planning commission and board of supervisors find to be "urban" or "rural" may not be quite the same in Sierra, Shasta, or Siskiyou as in San Francisco, Sacramento or San Diego. That would seem to be exactly why local governments should be permitted to make these land use decision in terms consistent with their other land use decisions and with [157 Cal.App.3d 1153] the terms of their locally adopted land use regulations, plans, and ordinances. I would suggest the courtshould refrain from defining "urban" or "rural" in different terms or by different standards than those adopted after extensive public hearings by the elected supervisors on the recommendation of the planning commission and with the advice and participation of local planning groups. Even though some judges might have backgrounds in local agency law or land -use regulation, that is not the qualification of office or the profession of the 3ourts. The particular decisions about what is "rural" or "urban" in particular counties is, in the area of land use, left, and properly so, to different planning commissions and boards of super-isors rather than to different courts. I suggest the court's review of this case should be confined to determining whether by the duly considered and adopted land use regulations of San Diego County, the board's decision the project is "rural" and not "urban," and therefore ::got the prospective cause of "discontiguous urban development" is supported by the evicence. By this standard of review the decision of the trial court upholding the action of the board of supervisors should be affirmed. FN 1. All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified. FN 2. The real parties in interest are Presenting Jamul, a California limited partnership, and Presenting, Inc., a California corporation. FN 3. Previously, the Honey Springs project had been approved by the Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group and the San Diego County Planning Commission. FN 4. Section 51,220 provides: "The Legislature finds: [¶] (a) That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic resources, and is necessary not only to the maintenance of the agricultural economy of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for future residents of this state and nation. "(b) That the agricultural work force is vital to sustaining agricultural productivit.r; that this work force has the lowest average income of any occupational group in the this state; that their exists a need to house this work force of crisis proportions which requires including among agricultural uses the housing of agricultural laborers; and that such use of agricultural land is in the public interest and in conformity with the state's Farmworker Housing Assistance Plan. "(c) That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public interest and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves in that it will discourage discontiguous urban development patterns which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents. "(d) That in a rapidly urbanizing society agricultural lands have a definite public -✓alue as open space, and the preservation in agricultural production of such lands, the use of wl-_ich may be limited under the provisions of this chapter, constitutes an important physical, social, esthetic and economic asset.to existing or pending urban or metropolitan developments. "(e) That land within a scenic highway corridor or wildlife habitat area as definec in this chapter has a value to the state because of its scenic beauty and its location adjacent to or -within view of a state scenic highway or because it is of great importance as habitat for wildlife and contributes to the preservation or enhancement thereof. "(f) For these reasons, this chapter is necessary for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of the public interest in agricultural land." FN 5. The Williamson Act is not limited to agricultural lands. The act was "'[o]riginally available only to owners of certain agricultural lands, [but] subsequent amendments shifted the emphasis of the Williamson Act to the preservation of open space in general, including virtually any land in nonurban use." (Comment, The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 and the Fight to Save California's Prime Agricultural Lands (1979) 30 Hastings L.J. 1859, 1865, fn. omitted; see Note, Proposition 13: A Mandate to Reevaluate the Williamson Act (1981) 54 So.Cal.L.Rev. 93, 100.) FN 6. The coauthors of amended Assembly Bill No. 2074 included not only Assemblyman Hannigan, but also Assemblymen Robinson, Cortese and Marguth, all of whom had introduced bills designed to counteract Hayward and enhance local discretion in cancelling. The fact Robinson carried Assembly Bill No. 2074 as the principal author has persuaded at least one writer on the subject the "assignment symboliz[ed] the success of the Decision's opponents in at least neutralizing its more restrictive effects." (Widman, The New Cancellation Rules Under the Williamson Act (1982) 22 Santa Clara L.Rev. 589, 611 (hereinafter The New Cancellation Rules).) Widman states: "[s]ignificantly, even supporters of the Decision came to accept the 'window' as a device for correcting the essentially retroactive impact of the Decision upon existing contracts entered into under a different sense of the law years earlier. [Fn. omitted.] The alternative of wholesale nonrenewals by landowners frightened or confused by the Decision appeared far less palatable. Opening the 'window' would at least let out the discontented before the new permanent rules for cancellation became the only path to cancellation. "Whatever the considerations of fairness and policy behind amended A.B. 2074, the danger that S.B. 836 might actually gain support in the assembly created pressure that secured this initial compromise." (The New Cancellation Rules, supra, at p. 611.) FN 7. Regarding cancellation in the public interest, section 51282, subdivision (c) provides in part: "For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a contract shall be in the public interest only if the council or board makes the following findings: (1) that other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter; and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land." FN 8. Section 51282, subdivision (b) provides in pertinent part: "For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a contract. shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter only if the board or council makes all of the following findings: "(1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245. "(2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. "(3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. "(4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. "(5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land." FN 9. "The 'inconsistent' applications of the cancellation provisions, one may infer, arise from the [Hayward] Decision, on the one hand, and the historical practice of local agencies in granting cancellations under far less strict requirements, on the other. In relying upon local practice, many landowners may have entered the Act in the expectation that cancellation would not become the 'strictly emergency' affair that the supreme court later made it. The 'window' provisions were apparently intended to compensate for that disparity between landowners' expectations for cancellation and the reality of the Decision." (The New Cancellation Rules, supra, 22 Santa Clara L.Rev. at pp. 621-622.) FN 10. As to our scope of review in an administrative mandamus action where no limited trial de novo is authorized by law, the trial and appellate courts occupy in essence identical positions with regard to the administrative record, exercising the appellate function of determining whether the record is free from legal error. (Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, supra, 28 Cal.3d 840, 849, fn. 2;Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 71 Cal.2d 907, 915-916 [80 Cal.Rptr. 89, 458 P.2d 33].) FN 11. The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that "the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law." (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [335 P.2d 672];California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 698 [170 Cal.Rptr. 817, 621 P.2d 856];Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230 [110 Cal.Rptr. 144, 514 P.2d 1224].) The court first looks to the language of the statute, attempting to give effect to the usual, ordinary import of that language and seeking to avoid making any language mere surplusage. Significance if possible should be attributed to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose. (Ibid) "[T]he various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole." (Ibid) Further, wherever possible, the statute will be construed in harmony with the Constitution. (California Housing Finance Agency v. Elliott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 575, 594 [131 Cal.Rptr. 361, 551 P.2d 1193].) The provision must be given a reasonable and common sense interpretation consistent with the apparent purpose and intention of the lawmakers, practical rather than technical in nature, and which, when applied, will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity. (United Business Com. v. City of San Diego (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 156,170 [154 Cal.Rptr. 263]; City of Costa Mesa v. McKenzie (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 763, 770 [106 Cal.Rptr. 569].) "'The court should take into account matters such as context, the object in view, the evils to be remedied, the history of the times and of legislation upon the same subject, public policy, and contemporaneous construction."' (Cossack v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 726, 733 [114 Cal.Rptr. 460, 523 P.2d 260], quoting Alford v. Pierno (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 688 [104 Cal.Rptr. 110]; United Business Com. v. City of San Diego, supra, at p. 170. To ascertain the legislative intent behind a statutory amendment, we may rely upon committee reports provided they are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of a statute. (Smith v. Rhea (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 361, 369 [140 Cal.Rptr. 116]; People v. Swinney (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 332, 342 [140 Cal.Rptr. 116], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 564-565, fn. 26 [134 Cal.Rptr. 784, 557 P.2d 75]; In re Marriage of Bjornestad (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 801, 805 [113 Cal.Rptr. 576], disapproved on other grounds inIn re Marriage of Lucas (1980) 27 Cal.3d 808, 815 [166 Cal.Rptr. 853, 614 P.2d 285].) Regarding reliance upon statements and letters of individual legislators in construing a statute, "we do not consider the motives or understandings of individual legislators who cast their votes in favor of it. [Citations.] Nor do we carve an exception to this principle simply because the legislator whose motives are proffered actually authored the bill in controversy [citation]; no guarantee can issue that those who supported his proposal shared his view of its compass." (In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 589-590 [128 Cal.Rptr. 427, 546 P.2d 1371 ];California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist., supra, 28 Cal.3d 692, 699-700.) "A legislator's statement is entitled to consideration, however, when it is a reiteration of legislative discussion and events leading to adoption of proposed amendments rather than merely an expression of personal opinion. [Citations.] The statement of an individual legislator has also been accepted when it gave some indication of arguments made to the Legislature and was printed upon motion of the Legislature as a "letter of legislative intent."' (Id, at p. 700.) Correspondence within the Governor's file on a bill from interested parties "does not represent the intent of the Legislature ... [where] it is neither a statement of the legislator nor a report to the Legislature from the bill's proponents." (People v. Stepney (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1020, fn. 4 [175 Cal.Rptr. 102].) "Nor will the courts give much weight to post -enactment statements by administrators or other . public officials to their understanding of the underlying legislative intent, even though such persons may have actively supported the measure and irrespective of the fact that the subject matter of the enactment may have directly involved their official responsibilities under existing law. [Fn. omitted.]" (58 Cal.Jur.3d (1980) Statutes, § 163, p. 567;Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880, 887 [153 Cal.Rptr. 842, 592 P.2d 329].) FN 12. The staff analysis prepared by the Senate Committee on Local Government states in pertinent part: "The local agency may grant tentative approval for cancellations of a contract if it makes the following findings: 1. the cancellation and alternative uses will not result in a pattern of 'discontiguous' development, and 2. the alternative uses are consistent with the general plan in effect on October 1, 1981, or as amended after that date under proceedings which were initiated prior to January 1, 1982." (Italics added.) The digest on Assembly Bill No. 2074 prepared by the Senate Republican Caucus contains the identical language. Moreover, the enrolled bill report prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research described the "window" cancellation procedure as follows: "If the county or city wants to cancel a contract, it would have to make two findings: that cancellation will not produce 'discontiguous' development; and, that development of the land is consistent with the local general plan." (Italics added.) Similarly, the Department of Finance's enrolled bill report stated: "Assembly Bill No. 2074 also establishes 'special contract cancellation procedures' that for a limited time would allow local agencies to cancel Williamson Act contracts if they found that: (1) the cancellation and alternative use would not result in discontiguous patterns of development, and (2) the alternative use is consistent with the city or county general plan ...." (Italics added.) FN 13. "[U]rban growth does not proceed in a gradual, contiguous manner, progressing slowly outward from the central city. Rather, expanding communities have tended to grow in checkerboard fashion, with development jumping from area to area within the region in a process known as leapfrog development. Generally, land decreases in cost as the distance from an urban y center increases. Developers therefore tend to bypass (leapfrog) high-priced parcels adjacent to urbanized areas, in favor of lower-priced outlying lands. This pattern of scattered, noncontiguous development merely serves to increase the rate at which California's prime agricultural lands are urbanized." (Comment, The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 and the Fight to Save California's Prime Agricultural Lands, op.cit. supra, at p. 1864, fn. omitted.) . FN 14. Courts of other jurisdictions similarly track the dictionary definition of "urban." (See, e.g., annotations within 43A Words and Phrases (1969) "Urban" and related phrases, p. 235, as supplemented by the 1983 cumulative annual pocket part, pp. 33-34.) FN 15. Our view is not shared by the dissent which would subordinate the state's interest in these land -use contracts to that of the local governmental entity's growth management plan. FN 16. Similarly, OPR in a memorandum entitled "Opening the Williamson Act Window: Implementing AB 2074" (Dec. 1, 1981), at pages 6-7, suggests: "In many communities, the following land uses can be typically considered 'urban development': "commercial', "industrial, "public facilities and services (e.g., airports, civic centers, military bases, gas processing and storage plants, water and sewage treatment plants, schools), "resource extraction (e.g., gravel pits, quarries) "residential (at densities of one or more dwelling units per acre). "Because this phrase may be one of the most controversial aspects of the new law, and to avoid the uneven application of this test, local officials should seriously consider adopting their own definition before they act on any cancellation applications. A minute item or resolution specifying the.standards to be used would help their staffs anticipate elected officials' policies in .a fair and equitable manner." FN 17. OPR has primary responsibility to assure the orderly operation of the state-wide process of environmental policy development and implementation. OPR has no direct operating or regulatory powers over land use, public works or other state, regional or local projects or programs (§ 65035); however, it has statutory responsibility for coordinating the technical assistance provided by state departments and agencies in regional and local planning to obtain consistency with statewide environmental goals and objectives, to develop long-range policies to assist state and local agencies' immediate growth and development problems in urban areas, and to provide planning assistance to local planning agencies. (See generally § 65040.) The degree of specificity and level of detail in the discussion of each element within the general plan will reflect local conditions and circumstances. (§ 65302. 1.) FN 18. Our determination of the role played by local governments in determining what constitutes"urban development" is consistent with the views entertained by OPR in the memorandum cited in footnote 16, ante, and the State Department of Conservation in its enrolled bill report submitted to the Governor on Assembly Bill No. 2074. • .' AO ., FN19. Our construction of the contiguity:requirement is slightly more lax than that definition f offered by OPR in its memorandum Opening the'Williamson ActtWindo__- w.Im dmenting f Assembly;Bill No.,2" 2074-T_upra;.at:page 6 6:W ICBoundary laws often require that p° Mand b ontiguous'-beforeyit can be annexed to a city or special district, without ever defining . that term. (For library districts, see Education Code, section 19401; Regional Park Districts, r, : Public Resources Code, section 6110; and cities, Government Code,.sections.35C,33 and-.;V • .-'�'•Y-'l•. G" "^+r' .S"'. '��-,-+n: v9r�'K M'' ^' '•�', �•.iY; :Zp S�1 I• 36033.5.)JIn general,*dictionaries define; contiguous, to mean-6eactual co?tacttouching,) , and_'adjoining with nothing similar intervening.'. s �"Local officials can construct-a definition of'discontiguous patterns of urban development;' from these statutory and dictionary definitions of'contiguous,' and from a common sense use of their own local general.plans. To result in contiguous patterns of urban development, he property, for ' which cancel laiion,is sought should be: '' y "Contiguous at at least one point, "To existing urban development or to lands for which all final discretionary permits have been - , issued' (e.g., final parcel maps, final subdivision maps), . �. As of the date the finding is made. ' FN 20. Regarding contiguity, common sense again mandates that some intervening features should not be considered as destroying contiguity, such as roadways or rural rights of way, utilities easements, natural divisions (rivers, narrow gullies, mountain peaks), and any land - . - which will never be improved. Indeed, permanent open space should not be considered in determining contiguity, in order to insure its incorporation within the final'pattem of urban development. (See The New Cancellation Rules, supra, 22 Santa Clara L.Rev. ai p. 626, fn. 141.) ` FN 21. Article XIII, section 8 states: "To promote the conservation, preservation, continued ..existence of open space lands, the Legislature may define open space land and s_►all provide that when this land is enforceably restricted, in a manner specified by the Legislature, to recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use or conservation of natural resources, or production of food or - ` fiber, it shall be valued for the property tax purposes only on a basis that is consistent with its - restrictions and uses." (Italics added.). ,. r FN 22. See section 51282, subdivision (b)(1) through (5) at footnote 8, ante. FN 23. "The function of the cancellation fee ... is to deter the landowner.... from seek in cancellation during the early years of the contract and to ensure that owners who execute ' agreements are not speculators looking for a short-term tax shelter. [Citations.] This deterrent function has been consistently emphasized [fn. omitted] .... "No doubt, the Legislature recognized that it would be very difficult for the local agency to �. approve a cancellation, and then not waive the penalty, in the light of potential political ' pressures. The Secretary is not subject to local political consequences and can ensure that the statewide purpose of conserving agricultural land is fulfilled." (Dorcich v. Johnson (1980) 110' Cal.App.3d 487, 496-497 [167 Cal.Rptr. 897].) ` - v the ti•. i .. .. - •' . FN 24. Here, the cancellation fee imposed was $239,395, consisting of a statutory cancellation fee of $130,050 and a county cancellation fee of $109,345 approximately three times the amount of tax.savings ($76,899), including interest compounded at 6 percent per annum, by the landowner during the entire time the land was under contract. Moreover, the statutory cancellation fee alone ($130,050) was approximately 1.69 times greater than the total tax savings with interest. (We note these figures reflect recognition of tax savings and interest compounded annually under one Williamson contract entered into in 1969, several years unde- which the state and the county had received full benefit of their bargain.) Our impression of the enforceable restrictive nature of nonwaiveable cancellation fees during the "window period" is consistent with California Administrative Code, title 18, section 51 (adopted Cal. Admin. Register 70, No. 9, Feb. 28, 1970) entitled "Agreements Qualifying Land for Assessment as Open Space Lands." It provides in pertinent part: "An agreement made pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 prior to November 10, 1969, qualifies for restricted -use assessment pursuant to sections 423 and 426 of the Revenue and Taxation Code if, taken as a whole, it provides restrictions, terms, and conditions which are substantially sim-_lar to or more restrictive than those which were required by such act for a contract at the time tie agreement became effective or which have subsequently been made less restrictive by the Legislature. "(a) Mandatory Provisions .... "(b) Disqualifying Provisions .... "(c) Cancellation .... "(d) Cancellation Fee -Waiver or Deferral .... "(e) Other Provisions .... "(f) Substantial Similarity. An agreement having a provision which is more restrictive than required.by the Land Conservation Act of 1965 for a contract may qualify even though it is deficient in some other respect. The mandatory provisions of subparagraph (a), however, are minimum requirements which if deficient cannot be compensated for from some other source. Similarly, the disqualified provisions of subparagraph (b) are such a substantial departure from the statutory provisions for a contract that their existence cannot be offset by other more restrictive provisions. A deficiency in the procedures set forth in subparagraphs �'c) and (d) or in the conditions in subparagraph (e) may be compensated for by other more restrictive provisions except that, with respect to subparagraphs (c) and (d), an agreement that contain; a cancellation provision cannot dispense with basic requirements of (1) a public hearing on a cancellation request of which the public is given notice and (2) findings by the board or counsel based on the evidence. "An agreement that does not allow a county or city to waive the cancellation fee under any circumstances is more restrictive than the requirements of the Land Conservation Act for a contract. Such an agreement is substantially similar to a contract even though it also allows a reduction of the cancellation fee after notice of nonrenewal has been given by the proportion that the number of whole years remaining until expiration of the agreement bears to en." (Italics added.) "'Consistent administrative construction of a statute over many years, particularly when it originated with those charged with putting the statutory machinery into effect, is entitled to great weight ...."' (Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, 491 [156 Cal.Rptr. 14, 595 P.2d 592], quotingDiGiorgio Fruit Corp. v. Dept. of Employment (1961) 56 Cal.2d 54, 61-62.[13 Cal.Rptr. 663, 362 P.2d 487]; DeYoung v. City of San Diego (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 11, 19 [194 Cal.Rptr. 722].) FN 25. Buried within the latter, it is interesting to note the circular argument: "The cancellation and alternative use could not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development because urban development patterns are prohibited in the vicinity of Honey Springs by the County General Plan." _ FN 26. As already noted, the Board adopted the subfinding without discussion after failing to address the issue of contiguity at the February 17, 1982, hearing on the cancellations, believing the contiguity issue was moot due to its characterization of the project as "rural" rather than "urban" in nature. Increased demand, unreliable supply - sacbee.com Pagel of 3 • e e ' 0 %E,c 19i+S�re cf'1'titS�eramcnca36o This story is taken from Sacbee / Opinion. Increased demand, unreliable supply Taste for California almonds grows with farmers' quest for water By Tom Philp - Pub/ished 12:00 am PDT Sunday, March 18, 2007 Errotabere's ranch is like a giant bouquet. The bloom is so heavy that the fallen petals cover the ground like snow. So far this season, the weather has provided a perfect combination of a winter chill followed by increasing temperatures. But, this has been a dry year. Barely an inch of rain has fallen on Errotabere's ranch a few miles east of Harris Ranch along Interstate 5. The almond trees, he said, will require the equivalent of 48 inches of water. That water obviously doesn't fall from the sky over the Central Valley. It comes from the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta via the federal government's massive system of canals, dams and pumps. Just as Errotabere's almond trees depend on water from the Delta to produce roughly 2 tons of nuts per acre, millions of Californians rely on the Delta as well. So do countless species of fish and birds in this troubled estuary, struggling to meet its many missions. Native fish species like smelt and shad are at or near their lowest populations ever recorded. Wildlife agencies are wondering what to do. Experts have suggested everything from moving the massive Central Valley Project pumps to reducing the amount of water pumped to Central Valley farmers and Southern California residents. The declining health of the Delta makes it a potentially unreliable water supply. The situation hasn't gone unnoticed by farmers like the 51 -year-old Errotabere, who follow the political landscape of the Delta as closely as their property. Yet they have reacted in a way that may seem surprising. They have partially shifted from annual crops like garlic that, in a drought, can be skipped for a year. And they have planted almonds, which will die without the 48 inches of water needed every year to produce a lucrative crop that has increasing worldwide demand. California almonds and the challenges for the state's water supply make a curious case study of supply and demand. The more that the state's human population grows and increases demand on the water supply, San Joaquin Valley farmers like Errotabere are increasing their demands with a permanent crop like almond trees. At first blush, this may seem like market forces growing out of whack, way more water demand than supply. But, as life tends to be, the real story is more complicated -- and perhaps more hopeful. Money tends to solve problems. And with almonds, farmers have found a crop that is doing something rather miraculous. No matter how many more almonds farmers grow, somebody, somewhere in the world, is waiting to buy and eat almonds, and pay handsomely for the pleasure. "The almond growers have done a fantastic job of keeping the demand growing despite all the predictions of experts like me," said Richard Howitt, a professor of agriculture economics http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/139357.html 3/19/2007 Increased demand, unreliable supply - sacbee.com Page 2 of 3 at the University of California, Davis. "They consistently prove me wrong." For many farmers, ironically, the inspiration to grow a tree that always needs water began when they didn't have enough. The rethinking came as farmers had to fallowtens of thousands of acres of San Joaquin Valley farmland in the early 1990s. It opened a new world of unreliable water that at times would be scarce and expensive, said Tom Birmingham, an attorney who specializes in water rights and represents western valley farmers. "In light of changing regulations and chronic water supply shortages, they were going to, have to grow higher -value crops to pay for the water to stay in business," he said. Seasonal crops like cotton -- even though one variety is federally subsidized -- began to diminish as farmers cut acres planted in cotton by half. And the Valley began to blossom with almond trees. "The water supply shortage led to the conversion to crops like almonds," said Birmingham, who leads the Westlands Water District, the purveyor of Errotabere's water supply and the largest agriculture irrigation district in the country, covering about 600,000 acres in California. When Errotabere planted his four varieties of almonds in 1999, farmers throughout the Central Valley had 480,000 acres of almond trees planted. Crops such as gamic, cotton and sugar beets began to fall out of favor as almonds became the rage. Drive alcng I-5 through the Valley to Los Angeles and chances are that as far as the eye can see the trees are almond trees. Last year, the number of producing almond trees in the Valley increased by 21 percent from when Errotabere planted his orchard. The statewide crop broke the billion -pound barrier. At UC Davis, Howitt watched the new supply of almonds flood the market. His i-iitial prediction seemed rational: Almond prices would fall with the extraordinary increase in supply. Almonds would follow the same fate as other crops that California farmers have managed to over- produce. As it turns out, almonds "have been an incredible success story," Howitt said. With relentless marketing, a little luck and all the recent studies that show the potential health benefits of almonds, per -capita consumption in the United States has. nearly doubled since 1999, to about a pound a person a year, much of it in granola bars and cereals. And the export market has exploded. In 2005, almond exports reached $1.8 billion, which dwarfed California wines' $575 million in exports. The more Valley farmers I -ave gone nuts, so has the rest of the world. "To us, it comes as no surprise," said Doug Youngdahl, chief executive officer of Blue Diamond Growers. The Sacramento -based cooperative markets and processes almonds from about half of the state's 6,000 growers. "Almonds taste great, they are high in protein, and they have proven to be good for your health." Looking at the trend for decades, he said, "as almond supply has increased over the years, consumer demand has readily followed." Almonds may be one crop that isn`t so vulnerable to the cruelties of global competition. Only a few countries, such as Spain and Australia, have the climate to grow almonds. But a chilly summer and a warm winter are only two necessary ingredients. The third is water. Competing countries, said Youngdahl, "are limited in water availability." But California'hasn't overcome its water challenges, either. The supply that Errotabere and his almond trees depend on, the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, is under increasing environmental stress. As can be expected, water districts such as Westland: don't want to http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/139357.html 3/19/2007 Increased demand, unreliable supply - sacbee.com Page 3 of 3 sacrifice their water supply in the process of stabilizing the Delta. What's new, however, is a clear willingness by Westlands' farmers to pay more for the same water as part of a favored solution: A new canal that moves water around the Delta as opposed to through it -- the controversial Peripheral Canal. Birmingham said that his farmers in the Westlands Water District may be willing to spend about $40 million more a year for water -- based on $40 more per acre foot for a million acre-feet of water -- to help move the pumps and move the water around the Delta. That's a lot of money. And that's a lot of almonds. One of those never-ending debates about water is whether Valley farmers and Southern California residents are simply taking more water from the Delta than the estuary can sustain. Here is. how a profitable crop like almonds, however, can help this debate: Demand for water to grow Errotabere's almond trees, for example, doesn't total all of his need for water. He is napping his plantings of almonds at 15 percent of the 5,000 acres he and his family farms. That, he figures, is the amount of land that he knows he can find water for, no matter how disastrous a drought. "I want to sleep at night," he said. Translation: He wants a guaranteed way that he and all his profitable almond trees can survive droughts, even if it means fallowing other cropland in dry years. He may not be betting, the entire farm on almonds, but he sure is banking on almonds for the future. If a stable, profitable crop helps farmers pay to solve broader water problems, everyone can possibly win. And if predictions from experts like Howitt at UC Davis prove true, there may be fewer acres in farming in the future, but a steadier, more profitable industry that has evolved with the times. "In the long run, it will lead to a more rational water allocation," he said. It appears that almonds are part of any promising solution, particularly with weather like that of recent days. The sun has been out, and the bees are just about done pollinating another year's crop. About 80 percent of the nation's commercial bee hives are at work in the Central Valley now, just for almonds. And Errotabere seems happy. "We had a great bloom," he said. Now all he needs is water. Go to: Sacbee / Back to story ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use. The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852 Phone: (916) 321-1000 Copyright © The Sacramento Bee http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/139357.html 3/19/2007 yvTrF Butte County DepartrnentofDevelopmenfSemces °o Tim Snellings, Director www.buttecointy.netldds 0 7 County Center Drive o Oroville, CA 95965 DIMty (530) 538-7601 Telephone r (530) 538-7785 Facsimile LAND CONSERVATION ACT COMMITTEE AGENDA..:- April 23, 2007 TIME: 9:00 a.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 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —March 19, 2007 (January 16, 2007 and February 5, 2007 Minutes not yet prepared for Committee approval.) 3. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee members and staff may, request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order. IV.' PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. "Evelyn C. Liptrap". Application for Tentative Immediate Cancellation (George Nicolaus owner) APN 047-260-199. Continued from March 19, 2007 meting. Staff's recommendation is that the LCA Committee make recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that this cancellation be approved based on consistency findings and condition of approval in the ` attached staff report. V. AUDIT WORK PROGRAM UPDATES: .Staff is composing a comprehensive response to the DOC summarizing the outcomes and responses to all audit findings and Butte County's. actions. ■ LAND CONSERVATION ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE m AGENDA ■ April 23, 2007 ■ PAGE 1 ■ VI. INFORMATIONAL UPDATES: 1. Status of.Wayne and Kathy Birkholz Immediate Cancellation 404-02. Development Services staff has forwarded, to the Office of the County Counsel for review, a draft staff report to the Board of Supervisors,, was projected to be agendized for the Board of Supervisors March 13, 2007 meeting, now on hold. 2. Distinction between "Assessor's Parcels", developable parcels, and legally -created parcels (staff has not yet prepared this presentation). VII. COMMITTEE CONCERNS VIII. DISCUSSION e. Date of the next meeting. Board Chambers are already reserved for Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:00 a.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT ■ LAND CONSERVATION ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ■ AGENDA ■ April 23, 2007 ■ PAGE 2 ■ LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES — March 19, 2007 The meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room, #25 County Center Drive, Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Joe Connell, Farm Advisory David Skinner Clarence W. Daley Blake Bailey Lewis Johnson Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Absent: Pete Calarco, Development Services Also Present: Steve Troester, Associate Planner Rob MacKenzie, Deputy County Counsel Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager Tina Bonham, Commission Clerk II. MINUTES - None III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee members and staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order. Chairman Price announced that there were.no changes to the order of the agenda. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. "Evelyn C. Liptrap" (George Nicolaus owner) Application for Immediate Cancellation, APN 047-260-199. Mr. Troester gave a brief summary. There was discussion regarding a possible misinterpretation by the Director of Development Services however, Chair Price and other committee members agreed that there was not a misinterpretation. Chair Price asked about the recordation date. Mr. Troester said the Notice of Non -Renewal preceded the actual recordation date and that the committee had recommended the Notice of Non -Renewal date be used instead of the recordation date. Mr. Troester then went over the five findings. There was discussion on other parcels in the area and the development that is anticipated on those parcels. This discussion included the funding of a signalized intersection that the. Guernsey project does not want to pay for at this time. Mr. Troester commented that the Guernsey project willingness to pay for the signalized intersection should not be something the Committee takes into consideration. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 1 of 4 ■ Chair Price asked for County Counsel's opinion. Mr. Robert MacKenzie read Finding #2 regarding economic feasibility. He said that it is in line with statements that courts have made regarding this Code section. He said that the Committee is not supposed to consider the fact that the new subdivision is much more economically desirable for the land owner than the current agricultural operation. Mr. Troester continued going through the Findings. On Finding 5 he referenced a letter from the Department of Conservation's legal council that provided answers to questions that Mr. MacKenzie asked in December of 2006. Based on the scenarios that Mr. MacKenzie provided the response was that the Guernsey property could not be considered to be availEble. Break 9:50 for ten minutes. Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee will have to find either that there is no proximate non - contracted land that is both available and suitable for the use for which it is proposed or that the development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land. He believes that staff is looking at the second half of the finding. He said that since the bullet at the top of page 12 of the staff report references the first half of the finding it would be better that the Committee not discuss it because it isn't relevant. Mr. Blake Bailey talked about a subdivision east of the Guernsey parcel that .appears to have roads that can be used for connectivity. He asked why those roads are not being itilized. Mr. Troester said he would have to do research before answering. After discussion regarding the connectivity issue Mr. MacKenzie suggested having Public Works available to answer the road and connectivity questions. Chair Price opened the public hearing. Mr. George Nicolaus addressed the Committee. He said that he had talked with Guernsey regarding the signalized intersection and the possibility of sharing that cost with him. Chair Price asked County Counsel's opinion on making a determination. Mr. MacKenzie said he believed the Committee should wait until they can talk with Public: Works. Mr. Bailey said he believes there is enough information to make a determination. Mr. Connell said he wants more information before making a determination. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 2 of 4 ■ . It was moved by Mr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and unanimously carried tocontinue item for further clarification from Public Works and Department of Conservation. V. AUDIT WORK PROGRAM UPDATES: 1.Finding #5: Substandard Parcels: Please refer to the attached letter of March 8, 2007 to the landowner. It appears that APN 022-310-034 was sold out of compliance with the Williamson Act contract's 160 -acre parcel size minimum. Staff is recommending that the LCA Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors initiate "partial contract non -renewal" on APN 022-310-034 (38.58 acres), owned by Gary and Janet Little. Mr. Troester said that a certified letter was sent to the Gary and Janet Little. He has spoken with Gary Little who chose not to be at the meeting. He said that Mr. Little has an additional 80 acres that he would like to merge in with the current parcel as well as another large parcel that he would like to include into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell asked if this would be a non -renewal or is there a way to negotiate. Mr. MacKenzie said there is the ability to simultaneously cancel and renew a contract. Chair Price asked who owned the remaining 120 acres. Mr. Troester said it is the Gunn family and others. It was moved by Mr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Connell, and unanimously carried to recommend County initiated Contract Non -Renewal pending any other action. 2.Update on revised Butte County Williamson Act Inclusion Contract format (no progress since February 5, 2007 meeting). VI. INFORMATIONAL UPDATES: 1. Williamson Act Amendment application received for George R. Chaffin 1968 (Martin Marietta), CANC #06-01, of 175 acres. This amendment is a condition of the cancellation, so that the contract accurately describes the land still subject to the contract. Mr. Troester said they have received application and are processing the application now. It will probably be an action item on the Board of Supervisors agenda. 2. Status of Wayne and Kathy Birkholz Immediate Cancellation #04-02. Development Services staff has forwarded, to the Office of the County Counsel for review, a draft staff report to the Board of Supervisors, was projected to be agendized for the Board of Supervisors March 13, 2007 meeting, now on hold. Mr. Troester said there has been another transfer of the land. Staff is assessing if there is a viable ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 3 of 4 ■ t' cancellation petition. Chair asked when this item will be on the calendar. Mr. MacKenzie said that information is being gathered from Assessor's and Planning so that the Board of Supervisors has a complete picture. 3. Distinction between "Assessor's Parcels", developable parcels, and legally -created parcels (staff has not yet prepared this presentation). Mr. Troester said the item needs to be kept on the agenda and staff will address it as soon as time permits. VII. COMMITTEE CONCERNS Chair Price wanted to know the status on what is left to do regarding the audit Mr. Troester said they should have enough information to prepare a detailed response to the audit. Chair Price would like the Committee to be part of the General Plan 2030 upda-e. Mr. Troester said it would be appropriate for Committee to meet with the Gene --al Plan staff. Mr. Bailey spoke of other counties and how they fared with the state audit. 3e said that Butte County did very well with the audit and believes that the County should have no problems when the next audit occurs. VIII. DISCUSSION • Date of the next meeting. Board Chambers are already reserved for Monday, April 23, 2007 9:00 a.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 A.M. Richard Price, Chairman Land Conservation Act Committee K:\Planning\LCA\A4INIJTES\LCA0418.06.doc ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 4 of 4 ■ i i Butte County Williamson Act Advisory Committee Supplemental Staff Report — April 23, 2007 Applicant: Evelyn Liptrap/George Nicolaus File #: Canc. 04-02 Request: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. APN: 047-260-199 Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels), O (Open Space) General Plan: Agricultural Residential .Parcel Size: 52.72 acres Planner: Steve Troester, Associate Planner Supervisor District: 3 Attachment: County Counsel Letter of April 10, 2007 to DOC. SUMMARY: The +/-52 acres proposed for cancellation is subject to a 1999 Williamson Act (LCA) contract between Butte County and Evelyn C. Liptrap, recorded as Instrument #1999- 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. This map will be conditioned to require cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. Based on the analysis in following agenda report, staff recommends that the Eutte 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(b)) here attached. Staff's analysis is that "public interest" findings (Sec. 51282(c)) cannot be met by this petition and the supporting information provided. The Petitioner's Januajy 30, 2004 submittal which address both "consistency" and "public interest" findings. However, this report and staff's recommendations address only Sec. 51282(b) consistency findings. It ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 ■ Page l of 15■ is staff's recommendation that the petition lacks adequate factual information to support "public interest" findings (Seca 51282(c)) The applicant's Petition for Tentative Immediate Cancellation was received by the Planning Department on January 30, 2004. On June 30, 2004 the Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee (LCA Committee) reviewed this petition. By majority vote the Committee made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that both "consistency" and "public interest" cancellation findings can be made. The Committee directed staff to prepare cancellation findings for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. On December 13, 2005 the Board held public hearing on the petition for cancellation,, and continued the public hearing, directing staff to tF-ke the draft cancellation findings back to the LCA Committee for review and recommendations. At its January 11, 2006 meeting, the LCA Committee assessed the draft findings that had been presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2006. Ai that meeting County Counsel commented that the findings were not sufficient to approve this cancellation, specifically related to Finding #5 issues of lack of proximate non - contracted, .suitable, available land. This criteria is part of "consistency" finding Sec.. 51282(a) 5 (first portion) and "public interest" finding Sec. 51282(c)(2)(first portion)). County Counsel recommended that they would communicate with he DOC for additional clarifications (April 10, 2007, letter). The Committee instructec staff to work with the applicant on elaborating the required findings. The public hearing was continued at the applicant's request until the March, 2006 meeting. In March 2006 the Development Services Department began drafting the County's revised 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 (see below), the applicant elected to have consideration of the cancellation oontinued until such time as the Board might adopt those rules. ANALYSIS Project Description 1. A petition to Immediately Cancel a Williamson Act Contract has been received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn C. Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2. This Williamson Act Contract was entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999 (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3. The contract covers a parcel of 52 acres currently planted with a walnut orchard. 4. The property is located within the North Chico Specific Plan and is zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential 1 -acre minimum lot size) for single-family 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, consistent with the SR -1 zone. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ Aril 23, 2007 ■ Page 2of15■ 6. This proposed Map is currently considered incomplete for purposes of addressing flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed Map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. Project Location with North Chico Specific Plan: The cancellation parcel is located within the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), which was adopted by the county as an amendment and supplement to the Butte County General Plan in 1995. The NCSP is a specific plan for eventual residential and mixed-use development of 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. A memorandum of Understanding with the City of Chico commits to development of this area to urban -development standards. This 1999 (Liptrap) 48 -acre LCA contract ,is the only Williamson Act contract within the bounds of the NCSP, apart from a 4.17 -acre parcel (047-700-002) on the extreme northeastern edge of the specific plan area, which is a part of a 256 -acre 1968 LCA contract. 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. The TSM 04-11 application is currently deemed incomplete, lacking submittal of an initial drainage plan, determined by the Public Works Department to adequately mitigate potential flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed subdivision map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. It is important to note that the LCA Committee should focus on assessing the adequacy of cancellation findings and not the merits of the proposed residential subdivision. The 1999 Williamson Act Contract Regarding Cancellation Findings: . Clause VII of the 1999 LCA contract that restricts the cancellation parcel requires 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: 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). Although the petitioner's initial presentation to the county requested consideration of findings of "public benefit", this agenda report recommends that while the statutory "consistency" findings can be made (and are in and of themselves adequate to comply with State requirements for cancellation) the applicant has not presented adequate supporting information and rationale to support Board approval of the statutory "public interest" findings. DOC Response to County Counsel Request for Clarification: ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 0 Page 3 of 15 ■ The DOC responded March 1, 2006 (Attachment) to County Counsel's letter of 12-21-05. In summary, the DOC commented that neither: 1. 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 the statutory findings required for cancellation. DOC stated that the only findings required for cancellation are those required by the contract and by government code 51282. DOC 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 can not 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. Environmental Analysis: The cancellation of a Williamson Act contract is considered to be a project subject to CEQA review. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) was prepared for this project and will be circulated for a minimum 30 -day public review. This environmental assessment was prepared specifically for the immediate cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, but also references and addresses the potential subdivision project (TSM 04-11) for the non -speculative environmental impacts of the Liptrap/Kitty Hawk TSM 04-11 and the Guernsey TSM 04-07 applications pursuant to CEQA. Should the Board elect to approve this contract cancellation, it would first need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, to satisfy CEQA requirements. As of the writing and distribution of this report the IS -MND was not yet ready for circulation. Cancellation Process 1. In order to consider contract cancellation, the county must give notice of, and hold a public hearing on the landowner's petition for cancellation. 2. Notice has been provided to all landowners with land under contract of which any portion is within one -mile of the exterior boundary of the property subject to the cancellation request. 3. Additionally, notice of this hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition has been mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to this hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). 4.. Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the County must forward a copy of the published notice of the decision to the Director of the Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Cancellations 1. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act contracts are ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 ■ Page 4of15■ 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 Ca1.3d 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. Statutory 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 findings. a) In order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act (GC 51282(b), the Board of Supervisors must also find: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. (5) That there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land. As used in this subdivision "proximate, non -contracted land" means land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve as a practical alternative for the use which is proposed for the restricted land. As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the salient features of ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report = Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 ■ Page 5of15■ 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 cr comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put (GC §51282(b)). The applicants' original January 29, 2004 Petition for Cancellation proposed both public interest and consistency findings. On May 31; 2006 the applicant also submitted a memorandum. in support of immediate cancellation of Williamson Act contract, providing additional analysis. On December 7, 2006 the applicant su-:)mitted draft consistency findings. Staff has reviewed all of these submittals and the requirements of Section 51282 and drafted.the findings found below. Summary of Non -statutory Findings 1. The Department of Conservation commented in their April 26, 2004 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 within the North Chico Specific Plan, which is a planning area identified by the General Plan for development. 3. The North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the County in 1995, and the Liptrap, Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1999. 4. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the implementation of agricultural land and Williamson Act Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. 5. Further, the Department of Conservation points out that the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. 6. 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. 7: It is important to note, however, that the North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future development in this area,. and the Plan supports the residential development proposed by the applicant. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 Apr -123, 2007 ■Page 6of15■ 8. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee discussed the information provided by 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 finding, 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 are 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. a) The original request for cancellation was delivered to Butte County on September 7, 2003, and was subsequently acknowledged by a recorded Notice of Non -renewal in accordance with the Government Code. Finding (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. a) 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. The 49 -acre parcei immediately south of the cancellation parcel is already the subject of a tentative parcel amp application to Butte County (TSM 04-07 "GuErnsey'). b) State Route (SR) -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Gre?nline at this location, which allows for urban type development only cast of SR -99 and agricultural uses to the west. The pattern for development of this area identified by the North Chico Specific Plan and the General Plan's Greenline policy reduce the likelihood that canceilation of this property is likely to result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. c) The letter of comment from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 states that the proposed cancellction appears to be consistent with the purpose of the Williamson _.Act (51282, findings I through 4). d) The proposed Kitty Hawk tentative subdivision map application (cancellation parcel) proposes a 135' -wide open space/storm drainage ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 April 23, 2007 ■ Page 7of15■ detention basin combined with a 65' building exclusion area, which together with the 100' -wide SR -99 right-of-way combin3 to create a 300' -wide buffer between the proposed residential uses and agricultural uses to the west. This buffer helps ensure that cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. e) Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that this cancellation is not likely to result ir. the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. Finding (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. a) The ,cancellation parcel is located within the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) and was zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential one acre lot minimum) in 1995. The site is located 1/3 mile north of the City of Chico's Sphere of Influence. The NCSP is the Butte County's guide for growth and development in this area, within the overall context of the Butte County General Plan. Cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on this site will allow the property to be Vsed for the residential purpose designated in the NCSP. b) The applicant has filed an application with the Department of . Development Services for a subdivision map (Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map). Although this Map application is currently deemed "incomplete " and is still under review, .the proposed 48 one -acre parcels 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. c) Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that this cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. Finding (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguou3 patterns of urban development. a) Cancellation of this property would be consistent with the definition of "contiguity" as discussed by the California Court of Appeal's opinion in Honey Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Super-.4sors (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1122, in the context of a proposed ICA contract cancellation, in that: ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ Aprl 23, 2007 ■ Page 8of15■ • Actual contiguity to existing urban development, either at the time of cancellation or soon thereafter, must be the standard, because any appreciable decay between construction of the alternative use and achievement of contiguity results in the very evil the contiguity requirement was intended to abolish, i.e., premature and disorderly patterns of suburban development. We believe the contiguity requirement may be satisfied by showing the owners of intervening parcels have the curre_zt ability and intent to develop their land within a reasonable time. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1145. b) Based on the California Court of Appeal's opinion in Loney Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1122, is able to approve this cancellation of this property in that. • The board or council is not required to find that the alternative use will be immediately contiguous to like development. In rendering its finding, the board or council acts in its own discretion to evaluate he proposed alternative use according to existing aid projected conditions within its local jurisdiction. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1138. c) The cancellation property meets the Court's standard for "urban" development in that: • Whether the particular property ... is to be considered "rural" or "city", depends largely upon its surroundings and the character of the property in the neighborhood. If the buildings and improvements in the neighborhood are few and scattered; they partake of the chcracter of the country, rather than of the city or town, and are occupied by persons engaged in rural pursuits-- the hcality should be considered rural. On the other hand, if tide houses and improvements partake of the character of the city or town, and are mainly occupied by persons engaged in city pursuits, the locality should be considered as city and not rural. A locality which is laid out in small lots, of the usual size for city or town lots and partly built Lpon with city improvements, such as paved streets and gas or water pipes, should be considered in the class of city property. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1140-41. d) The proposed development on the cancellation property is consistent with the Court's interpretation of the relevant factors used to determine, whether a development or area is rural or urban in character include density, surrounding development,' p-oximity to or potential of becoming an incorporated area, existing public facilities, ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 ■ Page 9 of 15 ■ water availability in the region, steepness of natural slope, minimum parcel sizes, availability of public transit, ability to cluster housing to preserve open space, height of buildings, on-site sewzge capacity, landscaping, lighting, space between structures, proximity of employment centers, preservation of open space easements, size-ef aped to be served --by—eei"rii3 er-eial faersztie3'-, theatt+-aetiveness eemmer-eialfi.aedities. to regienal travelers-, and the e ives-igns. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1141-42. The closest bus stop to the Liptrap parcel is approximately 3/4 mi. away. e) The proposed alternative use (development of one -acre minimum parcel size residential lots), proposes residential development to the maximum density allowed under the County's Gene. -al Plan and zoning ordinance, as well as the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), adopted by the County of Butte in 1995. The northern boundary of the incorporated area of City of Chico is approximately 7250 feet south of the Liptrap parcel. The northern boundary of the City of Chico Sphere of influence is approximately 1750 feet south of the Liptrap parcel. The western boundary of the Chico .Municipal Airport Redevelopment Area is approximately 8150 feet east of the Liptrap parcel. g) The development of this parcel is consistent with a con0guous pattern 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 residential development. The cancellation parcel is located immediately to the west of the fully -developed Autumn Park Subdivision Phases 3, and is adjacent to the propc•sed Guernsey tentative subdivision map application immediately to the south. h) The Liptrap parcel is within the "North Chico Planning Area ", also referred to as the "Area of Cooperation " subject to a joint planning Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by the County of Butte and the City of Chico in November 2003, which explicitly recognizes that "a substantial amount of new residential, industrial, commercial, office and school development can reasonably be expected to occur within the North Chico Specific Pean Area, as a result of the implementation of the Plan and the rezoning. " i) The County concurs with the letter of comment from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 in that it agrees with DOC that, • "The express purpose .and intent at (the gime the North Chico Specific Plan was adopted) was that this property would cease to be considered as viable agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 ■ Page 10 of 15 ■ Department notes that the County adopted the NCSP in A 1995. and the County and the Landowner entered into a Land Conservation Agreement in December, 1999. Since y the (Kittyhawk) 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. " P The proposed Guernsey Subdivision (TSM 04-07), located immediately south of the cancellation parcel, is a flex lot proposal on a +/--49-acre parcel for development of 50 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 (SR -99). The Guernsey TSM 04-07 application has been deemed complete". A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' (IS/MND) has been completed for this project. However, the project has not been advanced to public hearing because the applicant disagrees with some proposed mitigation measures and has elected not to sign the IS/MND, preventing that document from being noticed and circulated for public review and subsequent public hearing. k) SR -99 to the west demarcates the western limit of 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 existing and planned urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific. Plan and Greenline policy. l) Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that this cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. Finding (5) That there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and . suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more conti nous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non - contracted land. (GC §51282(b)). (Staff is recommending that there is adequate supporting factual information for the second portion of finding of GC §51282(b)(5) to be made: a) Much of the property in the vicinity of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed for urban development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The cancellation parcel is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 0 Page 11 of 15 ■ 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 Aria Greenline specifies that urban uses are 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 policy. b) The letter of comment from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 states that, • "... it does appear that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proyimate non - contracted land. " c) The area within which the cancellation parcel is located consists of a 310 -acre residential in -fill `pocket" of currently undeveooped land as follows: APN Owner Acres Status 047-430-003 Hauselt 94 No ' adjacent roads/access. 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 T 5M 04-07. 047-440-036 Fox 19 Minor in -fill, separated from lands to the south by Keefer Slough. Constrained access. 047-440-037 Schuster 26 Minor in -fill, separated from lands to the south by Keefer Slough. TOTAL 310 The seven parcels listed above (within the North Chico Specific Plan) comprise a 310 -acre undeveloped pocket which share a common boundary with properties already developed. Development of any of these seven parcels would appear to represent sone degree of "contiguous pattern of urban development". However, only the Nicolaus (Liptrap) APN 047-260-199 (cancellation percel) and the Guernsey (047-260-198) properties are located adjacent to a County arterial roadway right-of-way. d) In 1999, the County accepted a sixty foot easement for he purpose of extending Kittyhawk Drive on the south side of the cancellation parcel. Developmetn of that roadway is consistent with the Circulation ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ M Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 ■ Page 12 of 15 0 Element of the NCSP which designates such an arterial road in this general location as a key component in are -wide circulation. The long range build -out plan for this arterial roadway is detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis for Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey Subdivisions (February 8, 2005). Construction of this arterial is also detailed in the North Chico Specific Plan Circulation Element. e) Development of this arterial. roadway will help ensure that contiguous patterns of urban development in the North Chico Specific Plan Area are adequately served by roadways and a circulation pattern that provide optimum access, provision of emergency services, and efficient traffic circulation. fJ The proponent of the Guernsey subdivision and owner of the (noncontracted) parcel immediately to the south of the Li_7trap parcel, Mr. Guernsey, has refused to fully fund the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. However, Mr. Nicolaus, the proponent of the Liptrap cancellation, intends to participate in funding the co.astruction of Kittyhawk Drive. g) As. the Guernsey property has been the subject of a residential development entitlement application under separate ownership since October 31, 2003 (prior to the submittal of the ,cancellation application), this land is not available for development. h) The Autumn Park subdivision (immediately east of the cancellation parcel) has two east -west oriented streets which `dead-end' into the cancellation parcel. These are identified as Anjou Court and Magness Court. These two streets are shown on their final map as continuing in a westerly direction and connecting directly to future developments on the parcel. The configuration of these two street indicates the county's intention that these streets eventually connect to and extend to the west to create circulation connectivity and contiguous pattF-rn of urban development. Immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk LCA will allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban development than other proximate non -contracted parcels in the area which do not have similar opportunities for connectivity of circulation. i) Although there are two roadways dead -ending at the east. edge of the Guernsey property (Rancho Road and Stable Lane), the Public Works Department reports that these are privately owned roadways. Improvement of these two roads to County standards and extension of these roadways through the Guernsey Subdivision would require permission of all 51 property owners along the two roads. M Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ Apri 23, 2007 ■ Page 13 of 15 ■ j) The cancellation petitioner reported to the county on December 7, 2006 that he is in escrow on the 68 acre "Levy" property located immediately to the north of the subject property. In March 2005 the petitioner undertook a Pre -Development Review consultation with the County to begin assessing the feasibility of future suburban -residential development. However, to date the county has not received any development entitlement applications for this property. k) The Levy property cannot be developed to its zoned suburban - residential potential until a second point of access can be provided. The proposed cancellation and subsequent development of the Kittyhawk subdivision would provide the Levy property with additional points of access to satisfy Butte County subdivision development standards. While there is the potential for access to the Levy property at Bosc Drive, Butte County Subdivision Code Section 20-133 requires a second point of ingress/egress to a residential subdivision where cul, - de -sac streets serve more than 20 lots (Section 20- 133). These access points are most likely to take place through the Autumn Park subdivision and the Kittyhawk property. This limitation exists because there .is insufficient width for a 60' right-of-way to cross the property to the east of the Levy property, to connect with Garner Lane. Securing a Highway 99 access for the Levy property would require approval by CALTRANS and Butte County. l) The presence of Bosc Drive as it connects to the Levy property clearly indicates that immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk LCA contract and the proposed subdivision development would allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban development (onto . the Levy property) than development of proximate non -contracted land because the restrictions of the Williamson Act on the Kittyhawk parcel prevent the construction of additional roads required for ingress and egress to the Levy parcel. m) Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that development of the contracted land 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 Act contract that provides a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(f)). 2. Prior to any action by the Board of Supervisors approving tentative cancellation of any contract, the county assessor must determine the current fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contractual restriction (GC §51283(a)). - ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ April 23, 2007 ■ Page 14 of 15 ■ ' 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) ar.d 51297(c)). The Cancellation fee for this property would therefore equal $343,06).0.0. 5. This amount was -determined by the Assessor's Office under Appeal 404-020. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Staff recommends that the Land Conservation Act Advisory Corn_-nittee make recommendations that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Approve the Tentatively Immediate Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (APN 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 as detailed in this staff report, pursuant to Government Code Section 51282. 2. Condition the Tentative Immediate Cancellation to require tha= a tentative subdivision map be approved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 Apr -_l 23, 2007 ■ Page 15 -of 15■ �\ N S \ wE EEFER SCALE V=200' \\ - HAUSELT KEEFE17 R V r.q, i, [Al Ir- - J CL sv L _ H WIC I �AUTU N PA RKI I V' Q \� I SUBDIVISION \ UBD Slo I P14 SE I I I 1 '1 I LL-----1----1---�--- L II CONCEPTUAL LOT LAYOUT KITTYHAWK PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE SVI (PUBLIC STREET SU MAP (PUBLIC STREET SUBDINSION) \\ TOTAL AREA 52.10 ACRES APN: 05-260-197 h 047-260-199 GEORGE +NICOLAUS 66 / M ROAD CHICO. NICO. CA 959 95926 ME ENGINEERING GROUP \✓ ROBERT J. FEENEY. RCE /22972 i1250 EAST AVENUE SURE 10 CNIOO. CA 50 9' (5 - PN: (5 '0) 898-09 fA%: (5JD) B99-0B4� a OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL ° \..�.:,{, COUNTY OF BUI'TE ° 4�� ° 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 PHONE (530) 538-7621 CO(/.rj �� FAX (530) 538-6891 ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN BRUC15 S:,ALPERTF ' CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL COUNT,Y:COUNSEL .' ROBERT W. MacKENZIE ELIZABETH McGIE DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL -5 y FELIX WANNENMACHER a ROGER WILSON r BRAD STEPHENS t April 10, 2007 Mr. Dennis O'Bryant'"'. Department'of Conservation " DivisionofLand Resource Protection 801 K Street, MS 18 O1 Sacramento, CA"`95814 , • ',. ' Re DearMil . O.'Bryant RE Response -to Department.of Conservation's March 1, 2006 Letter Regarding Consi.de-ation of the Proposed Cancellation'of the Liptraii p LCA Contract Tharik:you for: your staff's letter of March 1, 2006. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte recently adopted;a cancellation "policy providing that contracts may be cancelled pursuant to the "consistency" findings set forth. in Government Code section. 51282. Further, more -facts concerning both the above proposal and the characteristics, of the'area within which it lies are presently available. "As a result,of theabove, our present inquiry is focused on the second half of the findin:� set forth in section ,51282(b)(5)..that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban :developiient than development of proximate noncontracted land. We have reviewed t=ie California Court of Appeal'..s opinion in Honey Springy. Homeotivhers Assii. v. Board of Supervisors (1984)157 Cal.App.3d 1122. •As,you"know, m Honey: Springs, the court discussed both "contiguity" and "urban development" in the context -of a proposed LCA contract cancellation and held that a proposed development was "contiguous" to existing and/or soon to be developed "urban" areas and that the development was not a catalyst for the type of "leapfrog" growth that Williamson Act was designed to curb. The court also held that the proposed project was in.fact an"urb..an development," in spite. of the fact that the project, as described it the court's opinion, does not: appear to conform. to what the average person would generally consider to be urban development. Mr. Dennis O'8riyant April' 10; 2007 q:.. Pa'ge''2 We arie,seiekiiig,.qlarification of several issues. In that regard, we have several questions with which'We would. gfeatly'appreciate. your department's assistance. Of course; -these, questions uestions are asked in the context of a board of supervisors' (BOS) consid.erAiipn_ofthe second half of the finding set. forth in section 51282(b)(5): that development of ihe"6,ohtracied larid.would:provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than dev.dlobffienfofproi(im nontontracted land. n gs set forth the following Thp,co." in.: onew ' 9 definition for "contiguous:". Aqtual';contigujty, to, existing urban. development, either at the time of cancellation orS664,-'it" thereafter,. must be. the. standard, because any appreciable delay between c6ristfuPiibn-jof-the, alternAti've.-.use' and achievement of contiguity results in the very,evil . the coritig'u'ity. requirement was, intended to abolish, i.e., premature and I � I __� ." 411 .. disorderly patterns.' of: suburban development. We believe the contiguity y I showing the owners of intervening parcels have 'requirement re qx inky b6�satisifid& b the current ability and A 1* p.the -a reasonable time. Id. at ,y an intent eve o ir land within 157 Cal1,145. The court stated `fvrtherthaf:. The: board or' council isnot required to find that the alternative use will be in m 6di4tely'doiftigaous to like development. In rendering its finding, the board or counciiacts. in itg,own--discretioh to evaluate the proposed alternative use according. to''ekis'ting, and projected conditions within its local jurisdiction. Id. at g� 157 Ca'l.App.3.d - 1138. I.. Do the ab6ve:tw6, passages from H6ney Springs accurately summarize the appropriate ddfiniti.oi6 fbi "contiguous. The,,H6 ey - Sp . rings . Pour t. I get forth the following standard for "urban development:" Whether the -pdrticuhirprop '* erty,... -is 'to be considered "rural" or "city", depends largely. upon. its ,surroundings and the character of the property in the nefghb�6ihood. -If the'building's and improvements in the neighborhood are few and scattered; e. of the'. charact efof the country, rather than of the city F theyp&tak, or town -,- and are occupied by persons engaged in rural pursuits-- the locality should be e considered" rural.. On the other hand, if the houses and improvements partake.of the character of the city or.town, and are mainly occupied by persons engag . edin, city pursuits, the locality should be considered as city and not rural. A locality ty which is. laid,6ut in. small lots, of the usual size for city or town lots and partly built upon with city improvements' such as paved streets and gas or water Mr. Dennis O'Bryant April 10,.2007 Page: 3 The Court stated that relevant factors used to determine whether a development or area is rural or of natural slope; minimumparcel sizes, availability of public. transit, ability to cluster housing to preserve open space,,heght_of buildings, on-site sewage capacity, landscaping, lighting, space between structures, proximity of employment centers, preservation of open space easements, size;of area..to be:served by.commercial.facilities,'the attractiveness of commercial facilities to regional travelers; and the size of signs. Id. -at .1.57 Cal.App.3d 1141-42. The Court suggested that: Although the respective weighf given'to each. of these factors enumerated in these nonexclusive fists` will vary. among themselves and from county to county, we believe 'using this definitional approach to identify "urban development, "will allow an accuratecharacterization`.: of the development, consistent with the objectives`. of preserving open. space,. insuring orderly development of our urbanized areas;; and; recognizing ;the reasonable expectations of all concerned parties Id at 157 Ca1.App,3a 1142: 2.1 Does the language from Horley Springs set forth above accurately summarize the appropriate standard: for .'assessing whether '_a proposed project constitutes an "urban development? 3: Mr J '. kyk' Nast's.' above referenced letter of March 1, 2006 was very informative concerning; the; definition -of "available;;" which is set forth only in the first half of Government Code section 51282(b)(5) When assessing whether a project on contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land,> pursuant to; the second half 'of_ section 51282(b)(5)„ however, can a BOS also limit its inquiry to'proximate noncontracted land.wh ch is both "available" and "suitable," as it would do in an inquiry conducted pursuantto the first half of section 51282(b)(5)? 4. Are any of the following facts not significant to an assessment conducted pursuant to the second: half of section ,51282(b)(5)? A: The.proposed alternative use (development of one -acre minimum parcel size residential lots);,prop oses residential development to the maximum density allowed under the County's General Plan and zoning ordinance, as well as the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), adopted by the County of Butte in 1995. B: The,. northern boundary of the incorporated area of City of Chico is approximately 7250 feet south of the Liptrap parcel. C. The ''northern boundary ;of the. City of Chico Sphere of influence is approximately 1750. feet south of the Liptrap parcel. D. The western boundary of the Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Area is approximately 8150 feet east' of the Liptrap parcel Mr. D.erinisO'Bryant Apnl..10; 2007 Page,4 E... The; Liptrap parcel is within the -"North Chico Planning Area"",also referred to asahe-"Area_of Cooperation";subject to a joint plarining_Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executedby the County of Butte and .the City of Chico in November 2003, which explicitly recognizes that.."a ,substantial, amount of new residential, industrial, commercial, office and school development can "reasonably. be expected to occur within the North Chi -.o Specific Plan Area, as a result -of the. implerrientai on, of the Plan and the rezoning." F , Thq.piosesi bus stop to the Liptrap parcel is approximately 3/4 mi. away. G: Caltrans requires the construction of an east -west arterial street (proposed to become Kittyhai Drive);.in order to connect both .the proposed Kittyhawk Pak and Guernsey subdivisions. -I.6 SR 99. H. The:proponent of the Guernsey subdivision and owner of the (noncontracted). . parcel immediately to the.; south of the,Liptrap parcel; Mr. Guernsey, has refused .to fund the construction of Kitty awl Drive: I.: However,; IMM Nicolaus, the proponent of the Liptrap cancellation, has offered to:,fund the construction of Kittyha'wk:Drive:. 5. Finally cancellation is:,:pr optimum.:^use (hi gh of `the finding 'se would :-you agree that .the 'issue of whether or not the land proposed for esently zoned''(Suburban Residential 1=acre minimum parcel size) to its", er density may become possible .if and. when a sewer system in the area . 1s`not a factor that should be evaluated by aBOS considering the second half . forth in section 51282(b)(5):.that.development of the contrasted land would rtiguous ;pattens of urbandevelopment than development of proximate noincontractedJand' I have attached in and an aerial.photo:which show the Liptrap parcel, the area that it lies within and the characteristics of that area. Please assist us in clarifying the F-bove referenced issues at yourearliest convenience. We greatly appreciate your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, BRUCE S. ALPERT Butte Co ouns 1 By. Robe W. MacKenz' , Chief Deputy County Counsel Enclosures cc: Sieve.Oliva J. Kyle Nast Tim Snellings Richard Price George Nicolaus 4 •� - r* `-1r 1At�et '` ��'"� � �.. ��- � �,r�.S ��.. /ter r` S. --�� Chico•Redevelopme.nt Agency Project Area Boundaries `i. ,, �T �, ' �`�., A Sys/ j F ` 5a7 i,: �t 71 2 ` �1/ •r ,✓c M; Central Clueo 7�z7t + f� ' �. . x�Vur + t Ivy Chico Municipal Aiiport , . ,. t Greater Chico Urban urea Southeast Chico Aniende ' - �•S I �.t ., �fi 3 �. L . Y ,, `•:: t W .'"`� ^ .r�l ,�. '�'`� ��z'�,4 yak ' �{w '�' ,�� _ .. , Y J, t .? f ... ��,srkr� X"�Fs� � �'k��l�, .Y -�•.� N ` w—... L' - . f.. 4 i. .:t2Y t;ya , , �i"r� +• ,�,.% �`L :.:" Na ,� i �` ti.L ,.S ! ` _.� l' ��)t < � ., I,* •�' ._ yip �,. � .� � � � Tr lh xt✓ : y��i ' �/'� yri•., J _+ t .. i.l �,- _{,e ��•.- Y ti..'� ��. 1 r rT,' 1 eit i.Y1•C �"t- • r�S• i+` mak. % i. �. •� - r* `-1r 1At�et '` ��'"� � �.. ��- � �,r�.S ��.. /ter r` S. --�� `i. ,, �T �, ' �`�., • � f,� Sys/ j F ` 5a7 i,: �t 71 2 ` �1/ •r ,✓c M; s��'+- 7�z7t + f� ' �. . x�Vur + t Ivy l+»' 4 '•4f .+l .N . A4 tet. •r ' 7-7 �f* MEN ■74k' Mow 11 r "r�%� - -•. � it .��•� .. !r�.�l� .��i• l• % r: ` a f rte•. i �!1� /, -•�' ..' "�-'I' ..� ��' �y� _�};�. 4 I ,�. �^ � t .; 4 a � 1 ! w u r -t'• ti - ` S r ry - —1� rr, r .}a•— �\y'.: r .♦ i. rr a r � j 1 t� S; `.. � ,6., _,. � _ ._ n � _ i _ •=•'�_ - —'� - _ � r � � L I.� Jam. � 4 .I J ` ..: '..' � • F � � .; . ^ r�, ,.•C.r�1�'r �r " Fox ` `" Schuster North Chico Specific 11 Plan Area (pink) Hauselt p Y.eeter Slough # CAN Hw 99 J 11111.1.111 ? W'161 LEm EF 0 Chico Sphere of • Influence (blue)r T3 _ LEGEND: Developed,, r.. _ A) M 0 Project Parcel. M , -44 , N & 3T 10! WO, b. 6., n ! 7 (,q'L: 0& El :!Ain 00 7�- North Chico Specific Plan Area (pink) OFFf r4 1,14 } .� � .� ® � � ` r y� Via! � MY � � •I ..1 "�f r } �� r i r• y^ VSA 7t�Jf= ENV ',C - ---- - in[ 17, con JR, Vmx 14: V1, a4 119 �T On 00 t uKl LEGEND: -4- Developed 4m a c Cs LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES —March 19, 2007 The meeting wa'sycalled to order at 9:07 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room., #25 County Center Drive, Oroville. - I. ROLL CALL Present: Joe Connell, Farm Advisory David Skinner Clarence W. Daley Blake Bailey Lewis Johnson ' Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Absent: Pete Calarco, Development Services Also Present: Steve Troester, Associate Planner . Rob MacKenzie, Deputy Country Counsel Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager. Tina Bonham, Commission Clerk II. MINUTES- None III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee members and staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order. Chairman Price announced that there were no changes to the order of the agenda. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. "Evelyn C. Liptrap" (George Nicolaus owner) Applicatior_ for Immediate. Cancellation, APN 047-260-199. Mr. Troester gave a brief summary. There was discussion regarding a possible misinterpretation by the Director of Development Services however, Chair Price and other committee members agreed that there was not a misinterpretation. Chair Price asked about the recordation date. Mr. Troester said the ,Notice of Non -Renewal preceded the actual recordation date and that the committee had recommended the Notice of Non -Renewal date be used instead of the recordation date. Mr. Troester then went over the five findings. There was discussion on other parcels in the area and the development that is anticipated on those parcels. This discussion included the funding of a signalized intersection that the Guernsey project does not want to pay for at this time. Mr. Troester commented that the Guernsey project willingness to pay for the signalized intersection should not be something the Committee takes into consideration. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 1 of 4 ■ 4rce Chair Price asked for County Counsel's opinion. Mr. Robert MacKenzie read Finding #2 regarding economic feasibility. He said that it is'in line with statements that courts have made regarding this Code section. He said that -the Committee is not supposed to consider the fact that the new subdivision is much more economically desirable for the land owner than the current agricultural operation. Mr. Troester continued going through the Findings. On Finding 5 he referenced a letter from the Department of .Conservation's legal council that provided answers to questions that Mr. MacKenzie asked in December of 2006. Based on the scenarios that Mr. Mackenzie provided the response was that the Guernsey property could not be considered to be available. Break .9:50 for ten minutes. Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee will have to find either that there is no proximate non - contracted land that is both available and, suitable for the use for which it is proposed or that the development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land. He believes that staff is, looking at the second half of the finding. He said that since the bullet at the top of page 12 of the staff report references the first half of the finding it would be better that the. Committee not discuss it because it isn't relevant. Mr. Blake Bailey talked about a subdivision east of the Guernsey parcel that appears to .have roads that can be used for connectivity. He asked why those roads are not being utilized. Mr. Troester said he would have to do research before answering. After discussion regarding the connectivity issue Mr. MacKenzie suggested having Public Works available to answer'the road and connectivity questions. Chair Price opened the public hearing. Mr: George Nicolaus addressed the Committee. He said that he had talked with Guernsey regarding the signalized intersection and the possibility of sharing that cost with him. Chair Price asked County Counsel's opinion on making a determination. Mr. MacKenzie said he believed the Committee should wait until they can talk with Public Works. Mr. Bailey said' he believes there is enough information to make a determination. Mr. Connell said he wants more information before making a determination. m Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 2 of 4 s P It was moved by Mr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and unanimously carried to continue item for further clarification from Public Works and Department of Conservation. V. AUDIT WORK PROGRAM UPDATES: 1.Finding #5: Substandard Parcels: Please refer- to the attached letter of March 8, 2007 to the landowner. It appears that APN 022-310-034 was sold out of compliance with the Williamson Act contract's 160 -acre parcel size minimum. Staff is recommending that the.LCA Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors initiate "partial contract non -renewal" on APN 022-310-034 (38.58 acres), owned by Gary and Janet Little. Mr. Troester said that a* certified letter was sent to the Gary and Janet Little. He has spoken with Gary Little who chose not to be at the meeting. He said that Mr. Little has an additional 80 acres, that he would like to merge in with the current parcel as well as another large parcel that he would like to include into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell asked if this would be a non -renewal or is there a way to negotiate. Mr. MacKenzie said there is the ability to simultaneously cancel and renew a contract. Chair Price asked who owned the remaining 120 acres Mr. Troester said it is the Gunn family and others. It was moved by Mr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Connell, and unanimously carried to recommend County initiated Contract Non -Renewal pending any other action. 2.Update on revised Butte County Williamson Act Inclusion Contract format (no progress since February 5, 2007 meeting). VI. INFORMATIONAL UPDATES: 1. Williamson Act. Amendment application received for George R. Chaffm 1968 (Martin Marietta), CANC #06-01, of 175 acres. This amendment is a condition of the cancellation, so that the contract accurately describes the land still subject to the contract. Mr. Troester said they have received application and are processing the application now. It will probably be an action item on the Board of Supervisors agenda. 2. Status of Wayne and Kathy Birkholz Immediate Cancellation #04-02. Development - Services staff has forwarded, to the Office of the County Counsel for review, a draft staff report to the Board of Supervisors, was projected to be agendized for the Board of Supervisors. March 13, 2007 meeting, now on hold. Mr. Troester said. -there has been another transfer of the land. Staff is assessing if there is a viable ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 3 of 4 q 7 cancellation petitiori. Chair asked when this item will be on the calendar. Mr. MacKenzie said that information is being gathered from Assessor's and Planning so that the Board of Supervisors has a complete picture. 3. 'Distinction between "Assessor's Parcels", developable parcels, and legally -created parcels (staff has not yet prepared this presentation). Mr. Troester said the item needs to be kept on the agenda and staff will address A as soon as time permits. VII. COMMITTEE CONCERNS Chair Price wanted to know the status on what is left to do regarding the audit Mr. Troester said they should have enough information to prepare a detailed response to the audit. Chair Price would like the Committee to be part of the General Plan 2030 update_ Mr. Troester said it would be appropriate for Committee to meet with the General Plan staff. Mr. Bailey spoke of other counties and how they fared with the state audit. He said that Butte County did very well with the audit and believes that the County should have no problems when the next audit occurs. VIII. DISCUSSION • Date of the next meeting. Board Chambers are already reserved for Monday, April 23, 2007 9:00 a.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 A.M. Richard Price, Chairman Land Conservation Act Committee K:\Planning\LCA\1VIINUTES\LCA0418.06.doc - s Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 4 of.4. m o/110 Y,o OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 PHONE (530) 538-7621 FAX (530) 538-6891 ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLArN BRUCE S. ALPERT CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY COUNSEL, .• ROBERT W. MacKENZIE ELIZABETH McGIE „a DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL FELIX WANNENMACHER t ROGER WILSON a.. BRAD STEPHENS April 10, 2007 NIr Dennis O'Bryant . Department of Conservation Divis1on'of Land?Resouice Protecriorr .. ' '�, 801 K Steet; IvIS'18 O1 Sacramento, CA. 95814 Re: Dear Mr.0".8, t:., ARE: Response to Department of Conservation's March 1, 2006 Letter Regarding Consideration of the Proposed Cancellation of the Liptrap LCA Contract Thank you for your staff s letter of March 1, 2006. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte recently adopted a�gancellation policy providing that contracts may be cancelled pursuant to the "consistency" findings set -forth in Governrnent.Code sectioli 51282. Further, more facts concerning both the above proposal and the characteristics of the area within which it lies are presently available. As a resultof the above, our. present inquiry is focused on the second half of the finding set forth in section 51.282(b)(5): that developrnent.of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban developmentahan development of proximate noncontracted land. We have reviewed the California Court of Appeal's opiniop in.Honey'Spri�igs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 157 Ca1.App.3d 1122. As you;know; in Honey Springs; the court, discussed both"contiguity" and "urban development" in the context of a proposed'LCA.coiitractcancellation and held that a proposed development was "GDntiguous" to existing an( qt, soon, to, be developed "urban" areas and that the development was not a catalyst for the type of "leapfrog growth• that the Williamson Act was designed to curb. The court also held t=-iat the proposed project was iri;fact an "urban development," in spite of the fact that the project, as described ir_ the court's opinion, does not appear"to conform to what the average person would generally consider to be urban development. W. Dennis O'Bryant April.10 2007 Page 2 We are seeking clarification of several issues. In that regard, we have several questions with which: we would greatly appreciate your department's assistance. Of course,.these questions are asked in the context of a board of supervisors' (BOJ) consideration of the second half of the finding set forth .in section 51282(b)(5): thF-t development of the contracted land'would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. Th coumift Honey Springs, set: forth, the following definition for "contiguous:" Actual,'contiguity to existing urban development; either at the time of cancellation . or soon thereaf dr,' must be the standard, because any appreciable delay between construction of the altemative.'use and .achievement of contiguity results in the very evil the contiguity requirement was intended to abolish, i.e., premature and disorderly patterns of suburban development., . We believe the contiguity requirement may be satisfied by showing the owners of intervening parcels have the current ability and intent to develop their: land within a reasonable time. Id. at 157 Cal:App:3d 1145. The courtstated, further that:: The board.. or council is not required to find that the alternative use will be immediately:contiguous.to.like development. In rendering its finding, the board or council acts id: its own discretion ' to evaluate the proposed alternative use according fo. existing and projected conditions within its local jurisdicticn. Id. at 157 Cal:App:3d 1138. L: Do'the above two passages from Honey Springs accurately summarize the appropriate definition for "contiguous?" The. Honey Springs court set forth the following standard for "urban development:" Whether the .particular property .:. is to be considered "rural" or "city". depends largely upon : rts.:surroundings and the character of the property in the neighborhood:; If the buildings and. improvements in the neighborhood are few. and scattered; they partake of.the character of the country, rather than cf the city or town, and ,are occupied. by persons engaged in rural pursuits-- the locality should. be considered rural. On the other hand, if the houses and imprDvements partake of.the character of the city or town, and are mainly occupied by persons engaged in city pursuits, the locality should be considered as city and nct rural. A locality. which' is laid out in small lots, of the usual size for city or town lots and partly built upon with city improvements,- such as paved streets and gas c water Mr. Dennis. O'Biyant, Aphit-10, 2007 Page 3 The Court stated that relevant factors used to, determine whether a development or area is rural or of.natural slope,' minimum um parcel sizes'',. availability. of public transit, ability to cluster housing to preserve o'er! space, height'of buildings,on-site sewage capacity, landscaping, lighting, space p between' structures.proximity of employment centers, preseirvation of open space easements, size of.. area,. to be served rved'by, , commercial fatili.tiesi the attractiveness of commercial facilities to ie'g*l'p'nal'iravdlerg..and'thesize ,ofsi' s-.Id.�At-157'Cal.App.3dll4l-42. gn The Court-suggested�A4i: Although the respective weight given to- each of these factors enumerated in these nonexclusive lists will vary,'amohg the m''selve's and from county to cov-.nty, we 4 eve,-thisdefinitional. approdc n eliu. " ''sing� 1h to identify. "urban development, "will allow.' an.,. accurate:. characterization of the Aevelopment, consistent with the objectiyq', open. -space.: insuring, orderly development of our urbanized, areasi�...anq �feqogruzing:, the. reasonable .expectations of all ccncemed Oarties.-4d; atJ5TCALAOp.3d,I 1.42.. -I Does the A_anguagq from Jq6ney Springs set forth above accurately. summarize. the appropriateara.,;'-fo - r: a ssess : ing whether a proposed project constitty-.es an' "urban , stand, . development?" I Mi..J Kyle NA§t's Above r'efe r*encd*d letter of March 1, 2006 was very informative concerning .tho,'Adfinitioh:bf "a'viailable, " which' is set forth only in the first half of Government Code section .151.1282(b)(5)..: -When assessing whether a project on contracted land' would provide more contigubu§:patterns of urban. development than development of proximat,- noncontracted land-, pursuant to�.,'the-..second; half. of section 51282(b)(5), however, can a BOS also Innit its inquiry .t*o pr6k irnateiioncbritracted. land which is both, "available" and "suitable, as it would do in aninqui pursuantJo, the first half of section 51282(b)(5)? 4 .reari'' : * any of the following facts not significant, to an assessment condu:Aed pursuant to the second of sdctiori.51282(b)(5)? A.-.Tti'e."joi6p'oged.,alternative use (development of one -acre mininium parcel size residentialproposes: residential development -to the maximum density allowed under the .s, in County" General Plan d zoning ordinance, as well as the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), adopted by the.Cbiinty of Butte in 1995. B. The.` nd.rthem boundary of - the incorporated area of City of Chico is approximately 7256 f6et I south of the Liptrap parcel. C. The. n6r6ern': boundary of the City of Chico Sphere of influence is approxiftiately 1750 feet south of the Liptrap parcel. D. The western boundary of the Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Area is approximately 8150 feet east of the Liptrap parcel Mr. Dennis O'Bryant April` 10, 2007 Page 4 E:..'.the. Lipirap parcel is within the "North Chico Planning Area", also referred to as the: "Area of Cooperation" .'subject to a joint planning Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed: by the° County ;of ;Butte and the City -of Chico in November 2003, which explicitly recognizes that, "a�'substantial amount of new residential,, industrial, commercial, office and schooa developinent can reasonably be expected to occur within the North Chic.) Specific Plan Area, as a. result -6f e implementation of the Plan and the rezoning." F., The closest bus stop to.the Liptrap parcel is approximately 3/4 rzi. away. G. Caltrans requires the construction of an east -west arterial street (proposed to become Kittyhawk Drive):Afi order to connect both the .proposed Kittyhawk Part` and Guernsey subdivisions to SR 99: H The pr'oporent of the Guernsey subdivision and owner of the inoncontracted) parcel immediately to the south of the. Liptrap parcel, Mr. Guernsey, has .refused to, fund the construction ofICittyhawk Drive., h However;tilblr `Nicolaus, the proponent of the Liptrap cancellation, has offered to fiind` he construction, of Kittyhawk Drive: 5., Finally, would you agree that` the issue of whether or not the lanj proposed for cancellation is presently, zoned` (Suburban" Residential. 1 -acre minimum parcel size) to its optimum; use (higher density; iiay`:become possible. if and- when a sewer system in the area . becomes, feasible) is nota factor that should.be;evaluated by a BOS considering the second half of'the finding set forth m sec rion,51282(b)(5):. that development of the contracted land would' proyide..more contiguous patterns: of urban' development than development of `proximate noncontracted land?' I -have attached-. maps, and an;aerial photo which show the Liptrap parcel, the area that it lies within and the characteristics of that area. Please assist us in clarifying the .above referenced issues at your earliest convenience. We greatly appreciate your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, 91 Chief Deputy County Counsel Enclosures cc- Steve Oliva J. Kyle Nast - Tim Snellings. Richard Price George Nicolaus dF { CP''y 1 4 S 1 t , r 0 1t.t-I',:'•' 1v sKYWA� Jf 'i > �= �•' sc CLica'Redevelo ment A eu- Project Area Boundaries ' '; St`t AV r,• c` � Central Cluco wry � { s � �: Chico Municipal Airport * h, ` • y,,, t�h�CC Greater Chicot;i Area i �{ T 4`• } , ati ®� S611th6st Chico Amended ' ;6 u,1 tL, o ni y, • Pl dF { CP''y 1 4 S 1 t , r 0 1t.t-I',:'•' 1v sKYWA� I ' c` � �--•- � wry � { s � �: Pl „ .. _ ' ' ., a .. .. °.. 1.- - - • • ,. " t I 7 ^, i.i r,. is � � � . a �� •-u� ►*+� ; <• �. f4 it -lith ��; +� �(• �� ■ter � AS ®� t�Weown i� Will 'IPA! �.`... 1�®®ice �`+f! �b r�K "•`' �� . 1l� a ... . ..... t, �� ,r '��i '=•' � Y 1 `tµ � 1�',r c• �:' � 111 1 Ll ■ 1 �r�►/. �:� y _, 635 ri IL F Jill N 7 p_p p ?I— V � y i iZ134�11 g'� `LJ�[�J ��1 L�t1 �1 - • no v�-+FJ �II 5*47 ^ ®S'it a®2�'�v a o sa. m T m ViI r d- Z. f r.1-1. T : ',.IV — . 1 0 A �IPPOIM a - IM do "a& UPI ass !' _� �'� �.,s*�9 �� ✓SolNorth Chico Specific '.'�C, •'-Har _ '+f�'� � Y} � ■�.`��-pfFeveloped Draft-EnvrioninenW impactReport North Chico Specific Pian , . ;' • Enhanced disclosure measures to alert prospective residents as to the proximity of the airport and related issues. • "Overflight Zone" road signage installed at key access points into the Plan area. • Naming of key streets with aviation -related street names. I pact: Implementation_of_the Specific—Plan will result in con ery s oit pproxmately_,_4;3.6��acres-of�agr-iculah__,landsturBecause the � majority of the soils are not considered prime agricultural soils,' this is considered a less=than-sgnficant.`impact. There are approximately 368 acres between State Route 99 and Garner Lane that are in agricultural production (orchards) and zoned for A-10 (Agriculture, 10 acre minimum parcel size). An additional 68 acres easterly of Garner Lane, now in agricultural use, is currently zone SR -1 (Suburban -Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) and are proposed to remain in that designated land use. The County's existing greenline policy establishes State Route 99 as the boundary between urban/ suburban to the east and agricultural uses to the west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the Plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use. If any agricultural uses are retained, land use conflicts between agricultural and residential uses could occur. Agricultural operations often result in noise, dust and odors which can be annoying to adjacent residents. Another problem is the potential "drift" from pesticide applications. As development occurs near agricultural areas, farmers also are confronted with issues of theft, vandalism, pest control and other effects resulting from urbanization. Existing agricultural uses in the Plan area are largely contained in the area immediately east of State Route 99, and west of Garner Lane. Keefer Slough provides some buffer between agricultural lands and residential uses to the north. Mitigation None required. EVALUATION OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH AREA PLANS Butte County General Plan The Plan area is located entirely within the unincorporated area of Butte County. The County is in the process of revising its General -Plan, which may result in refinement to existing land use designations and policies. A General Plan Background Report and an Issues and Options Report were submitted to the Board of Supervisors in March, 1993. The latter generally identified the north Chico area as an "expanded development opportunity" (Pp. 1-6) At this time, potential land use and policy changes that may result from the General Plan Update process are unknown. Therefore, this document presents and evaluates existing designations and policies. Land use 15-6 j g4lq Draft—iironmental Impact Repod North Chico Speci%u-Plan • Enhanced disclosure measures to alert prospective residents as to the proximity of the . airport and related issues. • "Overflight Zone" road signage installed at key access points into the Plan area. Naming of key streets with aviation -related street names. Implementation of the Specific _Plan will result in conversio of approximately=436 acres, -of agricultural .lands. , . Because the maj-ority— of the—soilsare'�n`oteons�dered�prime agricultural soils, this is considered a less t_ han�signtfi_'cant impact. There are approximately 368 acres between State Route 99 and Garner Lane that are in agricultural. production (orchards) and zoned for A-10 (Agriculture, 10 acre minimum parcel size). An additional 68 acres easterly of Garner Lane, now in agricultural use, is currently zone SR -1 (Suburban -Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) and are proposed to remain in that designated land use. The County's existing greenline policy establishes State Route 99 as the boundary between urban/ suburban to the east and agricultural uses to the west. Therefore, ,the agricultural portions of the Plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use. If any agricultural uses are retained, land use conflicts between agricultural and residential uses could occur. Agricultural operations often result in noise, dust and odors which can be annoying to adjacent residents. Another problem is the potential "drift" from pesticide applications. As development occurs near agricultural areas, farmers also are confronted with issues of theft; vandalism, pest control and other effects resulting from urbanization. Existing agricultural uses in the Plan area are largely contained in the area immediately east of State Route 99, and west of Garner Lane. Keefer Slough provides some buffer between agricultural lands and residential uses to the north. Mitigation None required. EVALUATION OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH AREA PLANS Butte County General Plan The Plan area is located entirely within the unincorporated area of Butte County. The County is in the process of revising its General Plan, which may result in refinement to existing land use designations and policies. A General Plan Background Report and an Issues and Options Report were submitted to the Board of Supervisors in March, 1993. The latter generally identified the north Chico area as an "expanded development opportunity" (Pp. 1-6) At this time, potential land use and policy changes that may result from the General Plan Update process are unknown. Therefore, this document presents and evaluates existing designations and policies. Land Use 15-6 r+ I1�10_ Draft-Environiian— /mpa- c�R Worth Chico Specific Plan.--:� • Enhanced disclosure measures to alert prospective residents as to the proximity of the . airport and related issues. • "Overflight Zone" road signage installed at key access points into the Plan area. • Naming of key streets with aviation -related street names. Impact: Implementation of the Specific Plan will result iH co ersi'�' 'o of"` approximately436 s of agricultural lands. Because the malority`of the soils are- not.,_considered prime agricultural soils, this is considered aless-than-significantimpact. There are approximately 368 acres between State Route 99 and Garner Lane that are in agricultural production (orchards) and zoned for A-10 (Agriculture, 10 ac: -.e minimum parcel size). An additional 68 acres easterly of Garner Lane, now in agricultural use, is currently zone SR -1 (Suburban -Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) and are proposed to remain in that designated land use. The County's existing greenline policy establishes State Route 99 as the boundary between urban/ suburban to the east and agricultural uses to Che west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the Plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use. If any agricultural uses are retained, land use conflicts between agricultural and residential uses could occur. Agricultural operations often result in noise, dust and odors which can be annoying to adjacent residents. Another problem is the potential "drift" from pesticide applications. As development occurs near agricultural areas, farmers also are confronted with issues of theft, vandalism, pest control and other effects resulting from ufJanization. Existing agricultural uses in the Plan area are largely contained in the area immediately east of State Route 99, and west of Garner Lane. Keefer Slough provides some buffer between agricultural lands and residential uses to the north. Mitigation None required. EVALUATION OF PROTECT CONSISTENCY WITH AREA PLANS Butte County General Plan The Plan area is located entirely within the unincorporated area of Butte. County. The County is in the process of revising its General Plan, which may result in refinement to existing land use designations and policies. A General Plan Background Report and ,an Issues and Options Report were submitted to the Board of Supervisors in March, 1993. The latter generally identified the north Chico area as an "expanded development opportunity" (Pp. 1-6) At this time, potential land use and policy changes that may result from the General Plan Update process are unknown. Therefore, this document presents and evaluates existing designations and policies. Land use 15-6 _.. I If -------------- Draft Environmental Impact Reportl --North Chico Specific Plan Enhanced disclosure measures to alert prospective residents as to the proximity of the airport and related issues. • "Overflight Zone" road signage installed at key access points into the Plan area. • Naming of key streets with aviation -related street names. Impact: Implementation of the _Specific Plan will result in conversion 0' f approximately 436 acres,' ,of agricultural lands. `B`ecause the majority of the soil`s are noG onsidered prime agricultural soils, this is considered a,1ess= than -significant impact. There are approximately 368 acres between State Route 99 and Garner Lane that are in agricultural production (orchards) and zoned for A-10 (Agriculture, 10 acre minimum parcel size). An additional 68 acres easterly of Garner Lane, now in agricultural use, is currently zone SR -1 (Suburban -Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) and are proposed to remain in that designated land use. The County's existing greenline policy establishes State Route 99 as the boundary between urban/ suburban to the east and agricultural uses to the west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the Plan area are not located within an area iden:ified for permanent agricultural use. If any agricultural uses are retained, land use conflicts between agricultural and residential uses could occur. Agricultural operations often result 'in noise, dust and odors which can be annoying to adjacent residents. Another problem is the potential "drift" from .pesticide applications. As development occurs near agricultural areas, farmers also are confronted with issues of theft, vandalism, pest control and other effects resulting from urbanization. Existing agricultural uses in the Plan area are largely contained in the area immediately east of State Route 99, and west of Garner Lane. Keefer Slough provides some buffer between agricultural lands and residential uses to the north. Mitigation None required. EVALUATION OF PROTECT CONSISTENCY WITH AREA PLANS Butte County General Plan The Plan area is located entirely within the unincorporated area of Butte County. The County is in the process of revising its General Plan, which may result in refinement to existing land use designations and policies. A General Plan Background Report and an Issues and Options Report were submitted to the Board of Supervisors in March, 1993. The latter generally identified the north Chico area as an "expanded development opportulaity" (Pp. 1-6) At this time, potential land use and policy changes that may result from the General Plan Update process are unknown. Therefore, this document presents and evaluates existing designations and policies. Land use 15-6 `i Pacific Gas and Electric ComP any 460 Rio Lindo Avenue Chico, CA 95927 .(530).894-4733 FAX (530) 894-4414 Jeffry D. Stearns Sr. New Business Representative Engineering and Planning Capital Investment Dept. April 9, 2007 t Ms. Johnna'Quin The Engineering Group f 1250 East Avenue, Suite 10 Chico, CA 95926�'J`�li. I Re: George Nicolaus/APN# 047-440-012 Dear Johnna: Extension of natural gas and electric distribution facilities necessary to f irrnsh permanent service within the subject development will be made in accordance with the appropriate tariffs on file and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. The nearest available natural gas and electric facilities to this development are located as described below: Gas: Located at the .intersection of Fannie Drive. & Esplanade and at 99E crossing at West end of Sycamore Drive. Electric: Located adjacent to property on the East side of Garner Lane and on the West side of 99E. No financial arrangements by the developer are necessary at this time. Wh--n PG&E receives an application for service for this development, we will provide service as stated above. Sincerely, 4 CALIFORNIA WATk. SERVICE COMPANY • i�fid �' 2222 WHITMAN AVE. • CHICO, CA. 95928-4416 • (530895-8486 September 29, 2004 Robert Feeney, P. E. The Engineering Group 1250 East Ave. Suite 10 Chico, CA 95926 RE: Future Development in Northwest Chico Dear Robert, This letter Iis being written in response to your inquires about the possible involvement of California Water Service Company being the water purveyor in the north aum of Chico west of the Chico Municipal Airport. Two proposed subdivisions, Kittyhaw=� Park and Guernsey were mentioned specifically. At this point in time California Water Service Company existing water facilities in north Chico extend as far as Valley Ct. on the Esplanade, the south side of Eaton Road at Silverbell Road and Hackamore Lane, and at the Chico Municipal Airport. After having discussed the possibility of California Water Service Compano serving this area with our engineering department in San Jose we came up with two scenarios that would most likely lend themselves to our participation in this area and a thi-d that would not. The first and most desirable for our company would be for us to have water- mains extended from our existing distribution system into this area. We believe that in two to three years that there is a high probability that our water facilities will be extended into the area that is currently the Sunset Golf Course on the Esplanade to serve a proposed commercial development at that site. This would put water facilities in close proximity to the intersection of State HWY 99 and Garner Lane. From that point we figure that it is roughly 3500 feet to reach the location of the two afore -mentioned subdivisions. We believe that extending water main this distance would be more cost effective than the cost of drilling wells to serve a stand alone system. If a well is needed in this arta to support the extension of water pipe to this area the cost of the well would not be the responsibility of a developer. The second scenario would be for California Water Service Company to participate in the design, engineering and construction of a stand alone water system built tc California DISTRICT OFFICES: ANTELOPE VALLEY BAKERSFIELD BEAR GULCH CHICO DIXON EAST LOS ANGELES KERN RIVER VALLEY KINC CITY LIVERMORE LOS ALTOS MARYSVILLE • MID -PENINSULA OROVILLE •,RANCHO DOMINGUEZ • REDWOOD VALLEY • SALINAS • SELMA •SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - STOCKTON - VISALIA - WESTLAKE - WILLOWS ` APORN C cifications. This would include at feast two Water Service Company standards and spe well sites and the distribution system to serve the proposed subdivisions. The cost of building this system would be the responsibility of the developers. The third scenario would be for the developers to install a water system without California Water Service Company initial participation and then approach CE.liforma Water Service Company to see if we would be interested in purchasing or contracting to operate these systems. This is the least desirable scenario from our point of view and has the highest probability of California Water Service Company not wanting to be involved with a sub -standard water system. Hopefully this answers.your questions and hopefully California Water Service Company has an opportunity to serve these developments. Sincerely,', Pete Bonacich Distribution "Superintendent PC: Mark Lightcap, District Manager Mike Pembroke, General Superintendent i �• Page 1 of 1 C Johnna Quin From: Bonacich, Peter N. [PBonacich@calwater.com] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:13 AM To: Johnna Quin Subject: RE: Kittyhawk and Levy Properties- Will Serve Letter Johnna, This letter still holds true. The proposed north Wal-Mart is the development we thought world extend our facilities north to HWY 99 & Gardner. Whether that ever happens or not remains to be seen. Pete From: Johnna Quin [mailto:jquin@theengineeringgroup.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:48 PM To: Bonacich, Peter N. Subject: Kittyhawk and Levy Properties- Will Serve Letter Pete: As per our phone conversation, please find enclosed the letter that we received previously concerning the above referenced subdivision. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Johnna Quin iquin.@theengineeri,nggrou.p us THE ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 1250 EAST AVE., SUITE 10 CHICO, .CA 95926 PH: (530) 899-0409 FX: (530) 899-0943 4/12/2007