Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-260-199 (13)Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee Staff REPORT —March 19, 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 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 acres Planner: Steve Troester, Associate Planner Supervisor District Attachments: A. Vicinity, GP and Zone Maps B. Petition for Cancellation (01-30-06) C. Applicant's Submitted (3-12-07) D. DOC Comment Letter (4-26-04) E. LCA Meeting Minutes (6-30-04) F. Board Meeting Minutes (12-13-05) G. LCA Meeting Minutes (01-11-06) H. DOC Counsel Letter of 3-1-06 I. County Counsel's letter (12-21-05) J. Kittyhawk TSM 04--11 K. MOU, Coop. Plan., Chico Area of Concern (10-21-03) L. Area/Ownership Maps 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. 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 b-1 met by this petition and the supporting information provided. Although the applicant's original Petition for Immediate Cancellation (Attachment B) of January 30, 2004 and subsequent May 30, 2006 submittal of supporting information addressed both sets of findings, the March 12, 2007 binder of supporting materials from the applicant (Attachment C) focuses on "consistency" findings. This report and staff's recommendations address only 0 Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page l of 14■ Sec. 51282(b) "consistency" findings. It is staff's recommendation that the petition lacks adequate factual information to support "public interest" findings (Sec. 51282(c)). The Department of Conservation commented in their April 26, 2004 letter (Attachment D) that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided that the Board of Supervisors may have sufficient supporting evidence to make the required findings for cancellation. On June 30, 2004 the Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee (LCA Committee) reviewed this petition for cancellation. By majority vote the Committee approved a motion of intent to approve the cancellation and directed staff to bring back findings in support of the motion (see minutes, Attachment E). The Committee's decision was misinterpreted by the then Director of Development Services as a direction to staff to prepare cancellation findings for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. On December 13, 2005 (see minutes, Attachment F) the Board opened a public hearing on the petition for cancellation, and continued the public hearing, directing staff to take the draft cancellation findings which had been prepared back to the LCA Committee for review and recommendations, after County Counsel commented that the findings were not sufficient to approve this cancellation, specifically because of the lack of evidence supporting the finding regarding proximate non -contracted, suitable, available land. At its January 11, 2006 meeting, the LCA Committee assessed the draft findings that had been presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2005 (minutes, Attachment G). At that meeting County Counsel again commented that the findings were not sufficient to approve this cancellation, specifically because of the lack of evidence supporting the finding regarding proximate non -contracted, suitable, available land. This criteria is part of "consistency" finding Sec. 51282(a) 5 (first portion) and "public interest" finding Sec. 51282(c)(2)(first portion)). County Counsel recommended that staff communicate with the Department of Conservation (DOC) for additional clarifications. The Committee instructed staff to work with the applicant on elaborating 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 revised Butte County Administrative Procedures and Uniform Rules for Implementing the Williamson Act. Aware that the Department would be recommending inclusion of the approach stated in Rule 6.D.3 (as described below), the applicant elected to have consideration of the cancellation continued until such time as the Board might adopt those rules. Please note that County Counsel had not had opportunity to review and comment on consistency Finding #5 (Section 51282 (b)) as presented in this report. County Counsel may have additional comments in that regard during the Committee's hearing. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 2of14■ ANALYSIS DOC Response to Request for Clarification: DOC responded March 1, 2006 (Attachment H) to County Counsel's letter of 12-21-05 (Attachment I). The 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 coun_y failed to restrict the use of the land by zoning it for agricultural use. DOC also commented that decisions regarding "public interest" cancellation findings cannot be exclusively based on "local" public interests. DOC's comments letter also provided additional perspective on the definitions of the terms "proximate", "suitable", and "available" as they pertain to cancellation findings. Site and Project Description 1. A petition to Immediately Cancel a Williamson Act Contract has been received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn C. Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2. This Williamson Act Contract was entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, _1999 (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3 The contract covers a parcel of +/-52 acres currently planted with- a walnut orchard. 4. The property is located within the North Chico Specific Plan and is zoned for residential development. 5. The applicant has also applied for a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 04-11, Kittyhawk Park) to create 48 residential parcels of approximately 1-F-cre each in size, consistent with the SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zone (Attachment J). 6. This proposed Map is currently considered incomplete for purposes of mitigating flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed Map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancel -ed. 1999 LCA Contract and Local Regulations 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 Achninistrative Procedures and Uniform Rules for Implementing the Williamson Act ado-pted by the Board on January 23, 2007 provide the following: ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Will Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 3of14■ Rule 6.D.3: Any application for immediate cancellation shall require that the Board of Supervisors make either consistency findings per Section 51282. (a) (1) or public interest findings per Section 51282. (a) (2). In March 2006 the Development Services Department began drafting these revised Butte County Administrative Procedures and Uniform Rules for Implementing the Williamson Act. Aware that the Department would be recommending inclusion of the approach stated in Rule 6.D.3 above, the applicant elected to have consideration of the cancellation continued until such time as the Board might adopt those rules. Although the petitioner's initial petition presentation to the county also requested consideration of findings of "public benefit", this report recommends that while the statutory "consistency" findings can be made (and are in and of themselves adequate to comply with State requirements for cancellation) the applicant has not presented adequate supporting information and rationale to support Board approval of the statutory "public interest" findings. Alternate Proposed Land Use after Cancellation: The alternate use proposed for this land is subdivision ("Liptrap-Kittyhawk" TSM 04-11) into 48 one -acre residential parcels (Attachment J). The TSM 04-11 application is currently deemed incomplete, lacking submittal of an initial drainage plan, determined by the Public Works Department to adequately mitigate potential flooding and drainage impacts associated with this site. The proposed subdivision map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. It is important to note that the LCA Committee is charged with focusing on assessing the adequacy of cancellation findings, and not land use issues such as the merits of the proposed residential subdivision. 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 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. An October 21, 2003 Memorandum of Understanding, Cooperative Planning in the Chico Area of Concern (Attachment K) with the City of Chico encourages development of this area to urban -development standards. This 1999 (Liptrap) +/-52-acre LCA contras: is the only Williamson Act contract within the bounds of the NCSP, apart from a 4.1 -A' -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. 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) is being prepared for this project and will be circulated for a minimum 30 -day public review. The environmental assessment is being prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of both the immediate cancellation of the Williamson Act contract and the development of the related Kitty- Hawk (Liptrap) subdivision project (TSM 04-11). That ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 200.7 ■ Page 4of14■ environmental will also disclose the reasonably projected cumulative impacts of the pending Guernsey TSM 04-07 (immediately south of the cancellation parcel). Should the Board elect to approve this contract cancellation, it would first need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, to satisfy CEQA requirements. However, the IS -MND is not required for the LCA Committee to make a recommendation on cancellation findings to the Board. While the two parcels immediately north of the cancellasion parcel ("Hauselt" and "Levy") underwent exploratory pre -development feasibility review consultations with the county in 2003 and 2005 respectively, no development -,ntitlement applications have been submitted regarding these two parcels. 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 must provided to all landowners with land under contract of: which any . portion is within one -mile of the exterior boundary of the property subject to the cancellation request. 3. Additionally, notice of this hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition must be mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to this hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). 4. Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the County must_ forward a copy of the published notice of the decision to the Director of the Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Cancellations 1. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant tc. Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act contracts are not intended to be cancelled and in fact, cancellation is reserved for unusual, "emergency" situations. Therefore, the nine-year nonrenewal process has been identified as the legally preferred method for terminating a Williamson Act contract. 2. The Supreme Court has stated that cancellation is not appropriate where the objectives served by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal_ (See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward'(1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 852-853). 3. The State of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that cancellation is impermissible "except upon extremely stringent conditions", (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, (1979). The Attorney General has also opined that r_onrenewal 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. M Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 5of14■ 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 _)atterns 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 praposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more conti ug_ous 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 the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such non -restricted land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels (GC §51282(b)) . 2. The uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason for cancellation of the contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be considered only if there is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put (GC §51282(b)). The applicants' original January 29, 2004 Petition for Cancellation (Attachment B) 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 submitted draft consistency findings. On March 12, 2007 the applicant submitted the .binder of supporting materials (Attachment C) which focuses on "consistency" findings. Staff has reviewed all of these submittals and the requirements of Section 51282 and drafted the consistency findings found below. E Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 6of14■ y Summary of Non -statutory Findings 1. The Department of Conservation commented .in their April 26, 2004 letter (Attachment D) that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided that the Board of Supervisors may have sufficient supporting evidence to make the required findings for cancellation. 2. The Department of Conservation points out that this area is currently bound by the North Chico Specific Plan, which is a planning area identified by the General Plan for development. 3. The North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the County in 1995, and the Liptrap Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1999. 4. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the implementation of agricultural land and Williamson Act Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. 5. Further, the Department of Conservation points out that the Williamson Act was . created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. 6. The landowner has now filed a Tentative Subdivision Map with the Coun-y to divide .this property into 48, one -acre parcels, a use that is consistent with the North Chico Specific Plan. 7. The North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future d-lvelopment in this area, and the Plan supports the residential development proposed by the applicant. 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 applica.ion. 9. The Committee provided instruction to staff to formulate findings supporting cancellation based, upon information contained within the record. Findings that the Cancellation is Consistent with the Williamson Act (51282.b): The statutory findings pursuant to government code section 51282 (b) as recommended by staff supporting the Cancellation is detailed below. Section 51282 (b) Find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act as follows: Finding (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. ■Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 Marcz 19, 2007 ■ Page 7of14■ - _• " The original request for cancellation was delivered to Butte Counton y 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. • Lands adjacent to this parcel (see maps, Attachment L) are located within the North Chico Specific Plan, which designates lands surrounding to the north, south, and east for residential development. The Autumn Park one -acre lots residential subdivision (immediately east of the cancellation parcel) is already fully built -out. Tke 49 -acre parcel immediately south of the cancellation parcel has been the subject of a tentative parcel map application to Butte County (TSM 04- .07 "Guernsey') since 2003 (see Attachment J). While the two parcels immediately north of the cancellation parcel ("Hauselt" and "Levy') underwent exploratory pre -development feasibility review consultations with the county in 2003 and 2005 respectively, no development entitlement applications have been submitted regarding these two parcels. • SR -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenline at thi.: location, which. allows for urban type development east of ER -99 and agricultural uses to the west. The pattern for development of this area identified by the North .Chico Specific Plan, the Gene -al Plan's Greenline policy reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this property would result in the removal of adjacent and from agricultural use. The limitations on development imposed by the Greenline help ensure cancellation is not likely to re-,ult in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. • The letter of comment from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 (Attachment D) states that the proposed cancellation appears to be consistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (51282, findings 1 through 4). + The proposed Kitty Hawk tentative subdivision map (TSM 04-11) application (on the cancellation parcel) proposes a 135'' -wide open space/storm drainage detention basin combined with a 65' building exclusion area, which together with the 100' -wide Highwcy. 99 right- of -way combine to create a 300' -wide buffer between th7 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. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)■ March, 19, 2007. ■Page 8of14■ • 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. Finding (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is cons --stent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. • The cancellation parcel is located within the North Chid Specific Plan (NCSP) and since 1995 has been zoned SR -1 'Suburban Residential, one acre lot minimum). The site is located 1/3 wile north of the City of Chico's Sphere of Influence. The NCSP is a guide for growth and development within the overall context of the Butte County General Plan. Cancellation of the Williamson Act contract an this site will allow the property to be used for the residentiaa7 purpose designated in the NCSP. • The applicant has filed an application with the Depertment of Development Services for a subdivision map (Kittyhawk Park TSM #04-11). Although this Map application is currently deemed "incomplete" and is still under review, the proposed 4� 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. • 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 Butte County general plan. Finding (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. • The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for residential u --es and is contiguous to existing and planned development. The cancellation parcel is located immediately to the west of the Autumn Park Subdivision Phases 3, which is fully built -out. • The letter of comment from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 (Attachment D) states that, "The express purpose and intent at (the time the North Chico Specific Plan was adopted) was that this property wou_✓d cease to be considered as viable agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that rhe County adopted the NCSP in 1995 and the County and the Landowner ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March =.9, 2007 ■ Page 9of14■ 1, - — �. `�,f..� ._ ,_ •{ v - ' entered into a Land Conservation Agreement in December, 1999.'. r ' ; '', ' - •.' Since the (Kittyhawk) property was clearly within c 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 laid. " :. '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 ofz approximately' 1/2 acre each, and 22 acres of Open Spcce on the ~, t northwestern portion adjacent to Autumn Park Drive and I -highway 99 ' (SR -99). The Guernsey TSM 04-07 application has been deemed .. . ', : r :• :`complete:Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative . Leclaration '(IS/MND) has been completed, but the project has not beer. 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. circulatea for public _ •` review and subsequent public hearing.. ` ' •" : SR -99 to the west demarcates the western limit of the Plar boundary • '' 'as well.as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area --Greenline.. - The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are avpropriate �. east of SR -99 in. the project area, and that agricultura' uses , are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be in ke--ping with - ` urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific; Plan and }• Greenline Policy. , • . Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is - determined that this cancellation will not result in dis--ontiguous. Patterns of urban development. Finding (5) That there is no proximate non -contracted land which isM both - available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the- contracted` - , ' land be put, or, that development of the contracted land woild provide .. more Conti u�patterns of urban development than development of y• proximate non -contracted land. (GC §51282(b)). (Staff is reccmmending '-that there is adequate supporting factual information for the second portion r .r r ` , of finding of GC §51282(b)(5) to be made: •'' Much .of the property in the vicinity of this project is eitherSI ' contemplated for future development or is proposed by development' pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The cancellation parcel is y ; _' • :7.. zoned for residential use and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision)' and south; •(proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates the • Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area : e • ,.ted � .. � -., ` ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ 1 e Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 March 19, 2007 0Page 10 of 14■ -'. 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 proposed alternative use for the cancellation parcel would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline poticy. • The letter of comment from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 (Attachment D) states that, "... it does appear that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban dEvelopment than development of proximate non -contracted land: " • The area within which the cancellation parcel is located consists of an approximately 265 -acre residential infill `pocket" (;ee maps, Attachment L) of currently undeveloped land separated from the rest of the North Chico Specific Plan Area by the Keefer Slough. The Keefer Slough represents a significant physical barrier which prevents immediately contiguous patterns of urban development. The 265 -acre area is composed as follows: APN Owner Acres Status 047-430-003 Hauselt 94 * No adjacent roars/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 TSM 04-07. TOTAL 265 Acres * NCSP does not provide for access otf-of SR -99. The five parcels listed above (within the North Chico Specific Plan) comprise a 265 -acre undeveloped pocket which share a common boundary with properties already developed. Development of any of these five parcels would appear to represent some degree of "contiguous pattern of urban development". However, only the Nicolaus/Kitty Hawk TSMAPN 047-260-199 (cancellation parcel) and the Guernsey (047-260-198) properties are located adjecent to an arterial roadway as designated by the North Chico Specific Plan Circulation Element. Development of this arterial roadway is considered key to ensuring that contiguous patterns of urban development in the North Chico Specific Plan Area are adequately served by roadways and a circulation pattern that provides optimum access, provision of emergency services, and efficient traffic circulation. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■Page 11 of 14■ • The Guernsey property (immediately south of the cancellation parcel) has been the subject of a residential development entitlement application (TSM 04-07) under separate ownership since Gctober 31, 2003 (prior to the submittal of the cancellation application). This land is therefore not considered to be "available" for the alternative use proposed by the cancellation. The criteria detailed in the March 1, 2006 letter (Attachment H) from the DOC's Acting Chief Counsel (in response to the Butte County Counsel's letter of 12-21-05, attachment 1) appears to confirm this interpretation. • 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 streets appears to indicate the county's intention that these streets will eventually connect to and extend to the west in an effort to create a circulation tonne-ctivity and a "morecontiguous pattern of urban development". The presence of Anjou Court and Magness Court indicate that 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 opportunities for connectivity of circulation, which encourage more contiguous patterns of urban development. •. The location and configuration of the Guernsey (TSM 04-0 7) property (immediately south of the cancellation parcel) and the configuration of the existing residential development (immediately east of th•? Guernsey TSM does not provide opportunities for circulation connec,ivity and a "more contiguous pattern of urban development". The on.y points of circulation access for the Guernsey TSM are off of Kittyhawk Drive. • 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 consultati3n 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. While this land may be considered to be proximate, non -contracted, and available, it is not suitable for more contiguous urban development as described in the findings below. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)0 March 19, 2007 ■Page 12 of 14■ • The Levy property cannot be 'developed to its zoned suburban - residential potential until access can be provided by way of the cancellation parcel. While there is the potential for acce,'s at Bosc Drive, Butte County Subdivision Code Section 20-133 requires additional points of ingress and egress to a residential subdivision where cul-de-sac streets serve more than 20 lots (Section 20- 133). These access points can only take place through the Autumn Park subdivision and the Kittyhawk property. This limitation exists because there, is an insufficient 60' cross section to the east to co.znect with Garner lane as required by Butte County Subdivision Code 20-134. Connecting to Highway 99 to the west is not an option as the east -west arterial for this area is already planned for the extension of Kittyhawk Drive. Specifically, a sixtyfoot easement was established i.:l 1999 for the purpose of extending Kittyhawk Drive on the south side of the cancellation parcel. The long range build -out plan for this arterial roadway is detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis for Kitty.�awk Park and Guernsey Subdivisions (February 8, 2005, RKH Engineering). Construction of this arterial is also detailed in the Ncrth Chico Specific Plan Circulation Element. • The presence of Bosc Drive as it connects to the Levy property clearly indicates that immediate cancellation of the Kittyhawk LCA. will allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban development (onto the Levy property) 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 onto the Levy parcel. • The immediate development potential of the 96 -acre Hause?t property (to the north of the Levy and Kitty Hawk parcels) is constra;ned by the lack of access roads and adequate circulation patterns as described above for the Levy property. This property would therefore not allow for a more contiguous pattern of urban development. Based on the preceding findings and information in the record it is determined that development of the parcel proposed for cancellation 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)). ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 March 19, 2007 0Page 13 of 14■ 2.° Prior to any action by the Board of Supervisors approving tentative cancellation of any contract, the .county assessor must determine the current fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contractual restriction (GC §51283(a)). 3. According the Butte County Assessor the cancellation valuation for thi 3 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 s valuation of the property for Williamson Act. (GC §§51283(b) and 51297(c)). The Cancellation fee for this property would therefore equal $343,060.00. 5. This amount was determined by the Assessor's Office under Appeal #04-020. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Recommend that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: 1. Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199, Instrument No. 0052839, recorded Dec,�mber 22, 1999), subject to the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee, and - recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, with the findings pursuant to Government Code Section 51282 as detailed in this staff report 2. Condition the Tentative Immediate Cancellation to require that a. tentative subdivision map be approved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Williamson Act Committee Staff Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ March 19, 2007 ■Page 14 of 14■ PETITION TO CANCEL, LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (Submit Original and 4 Copies) To the Bo.vd of Supervisors of the County of Buttc. etition(s) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte to Cancel The undersigned hereby p the Land Conservation Agreement executed L between the County of Butte and ��� J1J (J��' (� on as it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve No. of the P� tif�C County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said 0`jr7- Dia- rbc -r,o(D agrcctnent described as follows: S t i 114 6 °�{ �, oL C (L F, 2. -111.,11 Cvice'llation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act {government Code 51200 ct seq.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. at ! l G D Executed this 3`� California. Petitioner(s) APPEND%X E _a00 Date Filed: Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERA -L INFORMATION 1. Name and ad ress of dcT cloper�o�r pproc �sP°C � 33 t4l 9 `� �FPiZK .3000' %F= 0 W'L-S00 %Noe 2- Address of project:. f� 5T 2 e`t� Assessor's Block and Lot Number- U`t j OL 0-Li`►-c^.ors ;. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this `� - Pep1-t N �Eu261r "rcot�;ruS ,Ca R kNC I C0 4. Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivtsi ) W f 1 L 11Y15y N �k�"T 2—ASF-n► ��% �xcti�tivv �RLGgAffi ££P) ��tJ -•- `rc J 'Digi -LSI ��V 5. List and describe any other related permits and otherpublic approvals required for this project, . inclu ng those required by city, regional, state and f g ( �.N i dtTi \f 5 v 3 i vt i es ry 1 f4 6'. Existing zoning district: � V 7. Proposed use of site: /U T-1 !3o✓t1�Sir�s PROJECT DE CRIp'i'10N S. Site size. 9 square footage of building(s). 10. Numbcr of Doors of construction. - 1 1. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach site development plan. �Tf�4 H % D , 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. ASSOCiMOd projects. 15_ ,Anticipated incremental development. 1G_ ff residential, include the number of units, schedule- of unit sizes, and type of household size expected. 1� iZ-S t N i j rt 1. �—C i S 17. Lf commercial, Indicate the type:, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 13. (find indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment from thpersh,estimated occupancy, leading facilities, and community be nefi,s to be den project. th 20. if the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state is and indicate clearly wlty the application is required. the projec Are the Following items applicable to t or effects? its Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional �},eets a5 necessary) - YES NO 21. .Change in existing features of any beaches, lakes, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground comtours. 22. Significant change in scenic• views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23, Significantly change pattern, scale or character of general area of praject. V 24. 25 26 .27. Y 29. 29. 30. etc:). 1 31 Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. Chante in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. Significant change in lake, stream or ground Water quality :)r quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patters. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicintiy. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such a_5 toxic substances, flarnmables or explosives. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, Substantially increase fossil fuel,consumption (electrict;y, oil, Zatural gas, etc.) 32_ Relationship to part of a larger project or ,cries of projects. f-'NVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural,oth�sc o reS 1 or scenic saspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use 34. Describe the surrounding propenes, including information on plants. and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. indicate the type of ;and ��endential stores, etc.), and scale of intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.). fu '-,bed above d in the ed its CERTIFICATION: t hereby certify that the statements l evaluation 1to the best of my abiltityha�nd that the present the data and information required for this r resented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. facts, statements, and information p Date (Signature) For \\bcdevlklocument\appendixE.doc . January 29, 2004 t Attachment to "Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement" addressing Item 2 under Government Code Section 51282 It is the intention of the Petitioner to show compliance with all governmentcodes. and identify the corresponding public interests served by (a) cancellation cf the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject � Government.Code Section 51282 requires two general areas to be addressed: (A) 'Public Interest' will be covered first, followed by (B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest Public interest will be served by cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services, (2 ) Contiguous Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continues within the area designated as the "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995 (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a). consistent with the existing zoning (SR -1), b). providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Plan area by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehicles better and faster access to neighborhoods onKittyhawk Drive, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane and several additional smaller streets in the area east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire station located across k and Highway 99 intersection. from the proposed Kittyhaw Emergency personnel would gain access a much more o erdwe growing residential areas east of Highway Y than the exi brig drive south to the Garner Lane intersection or north to the Keefer Road intersection. so This road, as it is already shown on the Plan oaaiz� d from Keiffer allows for additional, non -emergency routes cement Road, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, aretionarllowing fofunds v r the able to of general traffic circulation. As disc Y Butte County are very luted, the completion of and inherent community benefits of KittyhawkDrive may not be realized anytime soon. on'Act on the Cancellation of the Land Consery k to tr proceed, wluchin subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Par p turn :will :provide for private funding for the constructi( of Kittyhawk Drive. 2. Conti ous Growth Pattern The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and for a). Th subsequent application for the WAEEea oltrctanwillpllo desire . contiguous growth within the Plan ax patterns as within Butte County to provide for contiguous growth evi denced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resulting orderly ighborhoods allows for the cost growth of residential nefrom utilities effective addition of various support services, ranging a to emergency services. b). The subject property is contiguous on the east borborde wia a existing subdivision and contiguous on the south ro osed 50 unit subdivision which was recently su don tguous p p staff. An older almond or Butte County planning with and to the north of the subject property wi ar�d located ared of l trees - within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR within the Plan area, will likely be the subject of development pressure in the near future. Additionally, an existing subdivision lies to the north of the recently removed almond orchard. g A icultural Element Issues in 1995. a). Butte County adopted the Agricultural Fr e an ricultural While the Element's express purpose is to pr g - 2 land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "Allow for the conversion: of agricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence where land his been determined to be irretrievably lost to urbanization These would likely be areas where urban development has surrounded or substantially encroached upon agricultural land and has limited its continued productive , use." (Emphasis Added) The subject property was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in 1995 with SR -1 zoning. By placing this property within. the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization'. The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cense to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert. to residential housing. That the subject property is rapidly being "surrounded" and "substantially encroached upon" is clearly the case at hand. Following extensive planning and research on the part of Butte County with the aid of citizen input, this property was designated for residential development nearly 10 years ago. b). The issue of "limited continued productive use" as noted above is the result of several'factors which are also pointed out in the Agricultural Element. Under Goal 2, Policies, Programs, Item 2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot "BUFFER BE ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL r%E2KAC*KM IKI (IPMrP TO PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES FROM INCOMPATIBLE USE CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already been waived on the east border of the subject property End appears ' that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to the south of the subject property. Granted, the, Element allows for the 300 foot standard to be "adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Those "unusual circumstances", sped.fically, the legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation of the subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting multiple health and safety hazards at worst to neighboring residents. The following points are part of the Environmental Information Form that accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review at this point as legitimate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an urban setting:. Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be -a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest.due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. In summary, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue of Contiguity for efficient growth and development, and (3) conforms to the spirit and intent found within the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is the express purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. As anadditional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exchange requires the California Department of Conservation to review this petition, to be in substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department can agree is acceptable and suitable for the exchange. 4 In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found to be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to effect a WAEEP plan. If, however, the Petitioner can find no acceptable WAEEP property for an exchange within a reasonable time, it is the desire of the Petitioner to proceed with the cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and to pay the cancellation penalty fees as determined by the Land Conservation Agreement recorded on December 22, 1999. Part P Five Findings Consistent with the Purposes of the Code Subsequent to the issues regarding Public Interest as described, Code S 2ction 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the following findings: 1. Notice of non -renewal has been submitted in a timely manner 2. Cancellation / exchange will not result in adjacent lands -being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands .adjacent to the subject property are located within the North Chico Specific Plans designated area for development and are not currently in agricultural use or are already utilized as suburban residential. Any area to the west of the subject property (across Hig=lway 99 to the west) which might be considered 'adjacent' is outsic.e of the North Chico Specific Plans scope and may not be considered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the subject property would therefore not be a substantive cause for any adjacent property to be removed from agricultural use. 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject property being used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Chi.=o Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a precise guideline for growth and development over and above the General Plan, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement brings :the subject property into E conformity with the Specific Plan and its long-range goals. 5 4. Cancellation /exchange Will not result in discontiguous development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous With existing residential development as well as land currently in 4 the development review process with Butte County 5. There is no "proximate non -contracted land" which is both available and suitable", and even if land was found which could Y be considered "available and suitable", it would not provide for a "more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land:" The subject property iE currently surrounded on two of three possible sides by urban development. The fourth side is across Highway 99 and falls outside of the Specific Plan area and is therefore unsuitable for' urban development. The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons fnr cancellation of, the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. . Petitioner Date LCAEachanggeDraft103 r:• , r - Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Information Item 22. As seen from SR -99, the property has a minimal wire fence along the highway and the southerly boundary. When completed, residential 6' high decorative sound walls along SR -99 and Kittyhawk Drive and/or fences will be constructed surrounding the project. The orchard will still be seen from the highway as well as may rooftops of the homes, once constructed. Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come. into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each. year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. Items 30 & 31. Any substantial change in demand for municipal services or increased 'fossil fuel consumption would be in accordance with and in compliance to the intended uses of the area as defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is part of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result of the approved Plan. A !Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. Item 33. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries o -L the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan), as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a 30 year old 93 +/- acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly on Garner Lane and -westerly_ on SR -99. Two earlier phases of division (1999 and 2000) on the easterly end created Autumn Park Subdivision, the divisions of which created 40 one acre home sites and a remainder of 52.72 acres. The remainder parcel is the project site. The site slopes uniformly from approximately 186' on the northeasterly boundary to approximately 181' on the southwesterly boundary. The soils are stable and are categorized as viva loam. There are no rare or endangered plants or animals on the property and no known cultural, historical or scenic features. There is one existing agricultural accessory structure (approximately 24' x 60') on Lot 39 which will remain.. The structure is -shown on the attached tentative map. (Please see attached photographs) Item 34. The properties to the west are primarily agricultural in nature. The property to the south, owned by Guernsey, has been submitted to Butte County for subdivision into 50 lots. Southeasterly and directly east of the project site are single family residential home sites ranging in various sizes and ages. The property to the north and northeast has been cleared of the remaining remnants of an old almond orchard. It has been vacant and continues to be vacant of any use other than two home sites. Within these immediate areas there are no known rare or endangered plant or animals, nrr are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. Each proposed lot and home, when built, will meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department) (Please see attached photographs) KtyHwkLCA CXL_102 DIVISION `OF LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION a s a 801 K STREET SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA , 95814 PHONE 916/324-0850 FAX 916/327-3430 INTERNET consrv.ca.goV a - ■ ■ GRAY DAVIS' GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, STATE O F CALIFORNIA April26, 2004 Mr.'Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Butte County Dept. of Developmental Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: ' Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement; APN 047-250-199, Landowner: ► velyn Liptrap APR © 6, MEZrEM0PI .-Jr.INT SERVICES Dear Mr. Breedon: Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation " (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the above referenced matter. The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres, currently planted with productive walnut trees, for the development of 53 residential building lots. The subject parcel was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in 1995 with Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum zoning. The landowner entered into the land conservation agreement with Butte County on December 22, 1999. The subject site is located east of Highway 99, north of Wilson Landing Road in Butte County. Cancellation Findings The applicable Williamson Act contract (Section VII, page: 3) provides that tentative approval for cancellation may be granted only if the Board makes both of the following findings: 1) cancellation is consistent with purposes of the Williamson Act, and 2) cancellation is in the public int rest. The contract requirements that both findings must be made are more stringent than required in Government Code §51282. Section 512-82 requires that • either the consistency or public interest findings must be made by the Board. Government Code §51240 provides that contract provisions may provide for restrictions, terms and conditions, including payments and fees, more restrictive than or in addition to those requirEd by the Act. The Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee will make a recommendation on the proposed cancellation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 2 of 4 In addition to the requirement that both findings be made by the Board, the contract (Section VII, page 3) also provides for a cancellation "fee in an amount equal to 25% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code §51283, and one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124." We request a copy of the Butte County Assessor's cancellation valuation for the proposed cancellation and a copy of the discussion of the Board's findings pursuant to Government Code §51282. The Department has reviewed the petition for cancellation and information provided and provides the following comments. Cancellation is Consistent with the Purposes of the Williamson Act For the cancellation to be consistent with purposes of the Williamson Act, the Butte. County Board of Supervisors (Board) must make findings with respect to all of the following: 1) a notice of nonrenewal has been served, 2) removal of adjacent land from agricultural use is unlikely, 3) the alternative use is consistent with the County's General Plan, 4) discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result, and 5) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. A notice of nonrenewal was served by Evelyn C. Liptrap to Butte County on or about December 29, 2003. The expiration date for the contract will be December 31, 2012. The Attorney General has opined that nonrenewal is the preferred contract termination method: "if a landowner desires to change the use of his land under contract to uses other than agricultural production and compatible uses, the proper procedure is to give notices of nonrenewal pursuant to Government Code §51245." (54 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 90, 92-(1971).) The nonrenewal process continues to be the preferable method of contract termination for the Department. The subject parcel is contiguous to existing one acre rural ranchette development to the east on approximately 50 acres of land formerly owned by Ms. LiPtrap. The Guernsey subdivision is proposed on 50 acres adjacent to the south. A request for a tentative map has been submitted for the Guernsey subdivision. The property north of the Liptrap contracted land was recently cleared of all almond trees in an older orchard. It is speculated that this property is subject to development pressure from proposed and completed development in the Specific Plan area. Since agricultural lands lie west across Highway 99, outside the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan, it appears the requested contract cancellation is unlikely to result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. The proposed alternative use, fifty-three residential building lots, is consistent with the County's General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject parcel is zoned Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 3 of 4 for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to the east and south. The Department agrees that development of the subject parcel will not result in a . discontiguous pattern of urban development. Evidence to substantiate a finding that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land does not appear adequate. In reviewing the County's Williamson Act map and the North Chico Specific Plan there appears to be noncontracted land within the Plan available and zoned for residential use: These noncontracted lands are contiguous to existing urban development and lie to the north of the subject site and southeast of Mudd Creek. However, since the; Liptrap property is adjacent to similarly developed property to the east and southeast, and the Guernsey property to the south is scheduled for development in the near future, it does appear that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. . Cancellation is in the Public Interest For the cancellation to be in the public interest, the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board) must make findings with respect to all of the following: -(1) other public, concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. Our comments have already addressed the second finding required under public interest finding above. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and Government Code §51252. To pass constitutional muster, a restriction must be enforceable in the face of imminent urban development, and may not be terminable merely because such development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. (Lewis v. City of Hayward (1986), 177 Cal. App. 3d 103, 113) A clear showing on the record of the public interest benefits is necessary. The cancellation petition addresses the public interest finding in three areas; public safety and emergency services, contiguous growth pattern and agricultural element issues. It states that allowing contract cancellation serves the public interest because the developer offers Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Road thereby providing a more direct route for emergency vehicles. Any decision to cancel a land conservation contract based upon a finding that the continued restricted use is contrary to the public interest must also investigate the Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 4 of 4 r criteria used for originally restricting a landowner's use of the land and allowing for a 'preferential tax assessment on behalf of the public interest. In enacting the Williamson Act, the Legislature deliberately required a landowner's long-term commitment to agriculture or other open -space use in exchange for preferential taxation. The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and 'intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 and the County and the landowner entered into a Land -Conservation Agreement in December 1999. Since the Liptrap property was clearly within a planning area identified for development, the initiation of the land conservation agreement in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restriction to agricultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well.as to preserve agricultural land. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed cancellation. After reviewing the documentation and information provided, it appears that the Board may, have sufficient supporting evidence for making the required findings. Please provide our office with a copy of the Notice of the Public Hearing on this matter ten (10) working days before the hearing and a copy of the published notice of the Board's decision within 30 days of the tentative cancellation pursuant to section 51284. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associate Environmental Planner at (916) 324-0869. Sincerely, Dennis J. O Bryant Acting Assistant Director LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES — JUNE 30, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the 3A County Center Conference, Room, #3 County Center Drive, and Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Yvonne Christopher, Development Services, Chairman Joe Connell, Farm Advisor David Skinner Clarence Daley Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Blake Bailey, Assessor's Office • Lewis Johnson Also Present: Rob MacKenzie, Deputy County Counsel Fred Holland, Assessor's Office Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Yvonne Christopher introduced herself and explained why she is now the Chairman of this Committee and asked the public members to state their expertise and how long they have been on the Committee. Lewis Johnson said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee for some time now Joe Connell said he was taking Bill Olsen's place from the Farm Advisory Agency. Clarence Daley said he is a cattleman and has been on the Committee for 15 years. Dave Skinner said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee approximately 6 years. II. Applications for immediate cancellation: Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 Mr. Breedon gave a brief summary of this project. He explained the Williamson Act Easement. Exchange Program (WAEEP). He briefly read the findings necessary to cancel a Zontract. He said he would like input from the Committee before developing findings which could be handled by the Committee giving instruction on each finding for staff to develop the findings and bring them back to the Committee, or take the finding to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lewis asked if the area in question fell under the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). W. Holland said just the property on the east side of Highway 99. n tLand Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 1 ■ Mr. Lewis said it is. hard for farmers to deal with the intrusion of residential dwellings and their animals. Chairman Christopher said there is a 30046ot agricultural buffer on the residential property. Mr. Lewis questioned the impact to the Highway. Mr. Breedon said that would be looked at in subsequent development actions. Mr. Skinner asked about Kitty Hawk Drive. being completed to Highway 99. Chairman Christopher. stated the road is planned, but not built. Mr. Breedon said it is a proposed alignment and is supported by the NCSP. . The discussion was opened to the public. George Nicholaus said the property is bounded on the east by residential. He said thy property to the south is proposed for 50 residential units. He said to the north of the project site is approximately 68 acres of what use to be an almond orchard and is now bare land. Mr. Price asked how long before farming stops on the Liptrap property. Mr. Nicholaus said the plan is to farm up to the time of development. He said he talked to Mr. Levey about his orchard that is not being taken care of. Mr. Skinner asked where the 300 -foot buffer was applied. Chairman Christopher said the buffers are applied on the new. development side. Mr. Lewis asked what was located on the west side. He noted that -there is a dust situation. Mr. Price said there are almonds.. He said the highway is wide and helps with the buffer. Mr. Nicholaus said the north boundary is SR -1 zoning. Mr. Lewis asked what is entailed with the trading of contract lands. Mr. Breedon explained that it is a very lengthy process. He said there is no application for trading lands at this time. Mr. Hays asked if the $625,000+ figure was a penalty -fee. He said it was his assessment that the $625,000 was the vatuation.of the 43 acres. Mr. Bailey said that the $625,000 is a 25% fee based on the current fair market value if unrestrictive., He said the memo submitted should read "fee" and not "value." ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Pagr, 2 ■ r Mr. Holland explained how to figure the penalty fees which are based on the fair market value of land. Mr. Hays asked about an appeal period. Mr. Bailey discussed appealing the Assessor's evaluation. Mr. Holland added that he would have to check to see if this evaluation could be appealed. Mr. Hays said he"wanted to be on record that he wants to appeal the fee amount and hi,- did not know how to do that. Mr. Breedon went through.the justification for making the findings submitted by the applicant. He read Part A — Public Interest, and Part B — Five Findings consistent with the purpose of the code. Mr. Connell asked on the points made by the applicant, who responds to the yes or no questions. Mr. Breedon explained that the yes and no questions are from the environmental fundings. He said he has to perform an environmental review of this project. Mr. Holland said it was important to note that all of the findings have to be made to approve this cancellation. He said all findings have to be made consistent with the Code. He said the Public Interest findings have within them a mutual finding which is that there is no other proximate non - contracted land available or suitable for development, or the cancellation would provide for more contiguous patterns of growth. He said within the framework of this contract, all of these findings must be made, not the least of which is the timely filing of a Notice of Non -Renewal, which did not occur in this case. Mr. Breedon asked that the findings be taken separately in order. He said the first"finding is that this cancellation is in the public interest. Mr. Bailey said the pubic concern is arguable. He said prime agricultural land is being taken out -of production. He said 4 '/2 years ago in 1999, this Commission placed the property in the Williamson Act four years after the adoption of the NCSP. He said it is hard to say it was in the public's best interest 4 '/2 years ago to put this property into the Williamson Act and now say it is in the public's best interest to take the land out. He felt the proper way to cancel this contract was through the., Notice of Non -Renewal process. Mr. Breedon pointed out that the NCSP allows for agricultural uses. Mr. Holland argued that an almond orchard was proposed in 1999 to be under contract for a minimum of 10. years. He said the Committee has to balance out what was done 4 '/2 years ago against what they do now. Mr. Hays said that Ms. Liptrap was told by Mr. Reimers, Assessor that the land was going to be re-. assessed at $50,000 an acre. He said Ms. Liptrap informed Mr..Reimers that she would not be able ^: ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 3 m' to afford the taxes and was told she could put the property into the Williamson Act. He assured the Committee that the only reason Ms. Liptrap put the property under contract was beause she was advised to do so by the Assessor's Office. Mr. Bailey said according to the minutes of 1999, the Williamson Act conditions were explained to Ms. Liptrap and she agreed to them by signing the Agreement. He felt she should be bound by the contract she signed. Mr. Nicholaus discussed the letter from the Department of Conservation as to the advisability of this land going into a contract. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation commented in their letter stating "The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determ_ned that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North ChicoSpecific Plan in 1995 and the County and the landowner entered into a Land Conservation Agreement in December 1999. Since the Liptrap property was clearly within a planning area identified for development, the initiation of the Land Conservation Agreement in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when land designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restrictions to agricultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Breedon said the Department of . Conservation believes the NCSP is a residential plan and that the area is designated for future residential use. Chairman Christopher noted also that the exchange proposal of land is not before the Committee today, only the cancellation process. Mr. Nicholaus said the Department of Conservation questions the viability of this property going into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell said it states in the letter that one of the findings is that there is no other property available to be developed in a similar manner. He said in looking at the map, this does not seem to be the case. He said the property is not surrounded by urban development; it is surrounded on the west by Highway 99, on the north by an open area, and is bounded on the south by an open area. Mr. Holland said one question is would development of this parcel provide for a more contiguous pattern of development versus anything around it. He felt the answer was no. Mr. Hays said there is currently a map proposed to the south for 50 parcels. He said to the east there are two subdivisions. He said there are two subdivisions to the east and the south is already built out. Chairman Christopher asked if there was a feeling from the Committee on whether this property should stay in the Williamson Act. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 4 ■ Mr. Price said he understands that this property will be developed eventually Chairman Christopher said the question is whether it is appropriate to cancel this.conAract or should it go through the 10 -year non -renewal process. Mr. Skinner said at this time the land is not contiguous and there are open areas both north and south of this property. He said until the southern development is approved the applicant is in limbo here. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel to discuss what is considered contiguous. Mr. MacKenzie said there is no definition for contiguous. He said regarding the Second half of Finding 5; it does not seem that there is an argument that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, because there is a parcel onthe north and a parcel on the south. He said they are looking at the question of whether the deve-opment of the contracted land would provide a more contiguous pattern -of urban development. Mr..Hays said when the County first approved the Specific Plan area, LAFCo and the County attempted to set up areas for urbanization. He said he had a problem with why this property was allowed into the Act when there was a Specific Plan in place. Chairman Christopher said Mr. Hays makes a good point on development inside a plan. She reminded the Committee that why this property came into the Act is not the focus Df this hearing. She said they need to determine if it is in the best interest to release the property from its contract quickly or long term and if the Committee can meet the findings to release it quickly. There was a brief discussion regarding Finding #5 on contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Skinner said the Committee needs to decide if #5 is agreeable or not. Chairman Christopher said the key word in #5 for her is in the second part: "The contiguous patterns of urban development." She asked if the Committee felt this needs to be a focus parcel to parcel or did the plan itself create continuity because it recognized urban development. Mr. Breedon added that the County entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to insure the area was developed in cooperation with the City of Chico so that urban -type development standards were applied in this area. He said the vision for this area is urban. Mr. Lewis asked how much more LCA property is within the NCSP. Mr. Breedon said he thought that this property was the only one. He noted that the NCSP allows existing orchards to continue without interference by development. It was moved by Mr. Skinner that the Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee -:o determine that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use and that the development of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard would provide a more contiguous pattern of development, seconded by Mr. Daley. .0 Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 5 ■ The discussion continued: Mr. Skinner said he feels the applicant has satisfied the requirements and addressed the issues. Mr. Bailey said he would disagree, that the NCSP has been in effect for 10 years and in those 10 years very little of the land designated SR -1 has been developed off of Highway 99. He added that there are two properties surrounding this property that are considered proximate and are available and can be developed prior to this parcel being developed. Mr. Skinner said there were arguments that the whole area is proposed for development Mr. Bailey said with significant SR land available, this property should not be taken out for emergency purposes; it should come out with a Notice of Non -Renewal that takes 10 years. Mr. MacKenzie said he did not think that the Committee could make the first half of the findings for #5. He said, however, on the second part of the finding, "development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pattern of urban development" it sounds like this parcel is being compared to the parcels on either side and the Committee is making a finding that it would make a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other two parcels. He said the question is what would make this parcel more contiguous than another and the applicant has offered that this development would put Kittyhawk all the way through. Mr. Breedon said the State has commented on this project and they agree with the second half of the finding. Chairman Christopher concurred that this meets the second part of Finding #5. Mr. Skinner amended his motion to state that this meets the second half of Finding#5, seconded By. Mr. Daley. Mr. Hays said that when you are talking about urbanization, the NCSP itself urbanized the whole area. Mr. Nicholaus asked if the 300 -foot buffer would make the development non-contiguous. Brief discussion. Motion on the floor and a second, vote as to Finding #5, that the development of the Liptrap orchard would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Connell discussed surrounding development. Mr: Breedon asked if they wanted to add to the motion that there is the NCSP, and that there is a MOA with the City of Chico. m Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ PEge 6 ■ Mr: MacKenzie, said there needs to be facts in the motion that define why it is that -his particular parcel would provide for a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other parcels on the north and south. Chairman Christopher asked Mr: Skinner, if this finding passes, would he be comfortable with staff detailing out the reasons for a yes vote on the findings. Mr. Skinner said he would be comfortable with staff delineating out the reasons for approval. AYES: Mr. Skinner, Mr. Daley, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Price NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Discussion on #1 - "That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been - served.« Mr. Bailey said that the Contract is dated 12/22/99; the Notice of Non -Renew, --C was recorded 5/28/04. He said per Government Code 51245 the Notice of Non -Renewal must come at least 90 days prior to the adversity date of the contract, which meant it would have been required to be submitted September of 2003. Mr. Holland said that technically they do not have a timely filed Notice of Non -Renewal. He said the property was not in non -renewal for the 2004 assessment roll. Mr. Breedon said it is for the 2005 assessment roll. Mr. Holland said it means that the contract does not terminate in 2012; it terminate 3 in 2013, so the form is wrong. He said technically the Committee can not make this finding... Chairman Christopher asked if the information and dates need to be changed and Mr. Holland said yes. She asked if the forms were corrected, could the finding be met. Brief discussion. Mr. Breedon said the finding is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel if the Committee could be hearing an issue for non -renewal in next year's tax rolls today at this meeting. Mr. Mackenzie said the question is when the Board can make the requisite findings that something has been voted on before January 2005. Chairman Christopher asked what the law says about this notice being in a timely manner. Mr. Breedon said the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non-Renewa has been served pursuant to Government Code 51245. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 7 ■ V � Mr. Mackenzie read Government Code Section 51245. Brief discussion: Chairman Christopher asked if the.local ordinance stated recorded or served. She asked if the Code, law, or, Resolution tells her when to do this. 'Mr. MacKenzie said the statute says serve, does not say recorded. Mr. -Johnson asked if the Committee can deal with this for 2005. Chairman Christopher said. she will talk to Counsel whether this decision. has to wait until after January.2005 or does it not matter and the Board.can look at things in advance. Finding #2 ".That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural, use." Chairman Christopher said they recognize that the NCSP goes up to Highway 99 and does not cross west of Highway 99. She said to the north they are General Plan designated and zoned for development, and to, the south designated for urban development. The east is already developed in urban development: She said the question is, "... would moving this property into development likely impact further removal of adjacent agricultural land." She said the only adjacent lands in agricultural use are the lands to the west across Highway 99. Mr. Johnson said that we need to go through the information submitted by the applicant for taking this property out of the Williamson Act, with public interest of spraying and dust; notice, etc. He discussed the effect on the property across the street, - a. ChairmanChristopher said a discussion should have occurred at the point the parcel was rezoned and re -designated in the NCSP area, and hence with the Agricultural Element they recognize that there, will be urban interface issues with agricultural land use and, therefore, make it necessary. to create a. buffer of 300 feet. She said the County already made a decision that. this land will eventually' develop. It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Connell, and carried to find that whereas there is a 300 -foot setback, there is agricultural land to the west which would be protected by this 300 -foot' setback, recognize that this cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher t , Mr. Breedon reported back to the Committee that the letter requesting non -renewal of the Contract . was dated September 7, 2003. He said the request.was sent to the Board of Supervisors which the, Board acknowledges and•then the Notice is recorded. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ PEge 8 ■ Chairman Christopher asked how a non -renewal was handled in the past. Mr. Breedon said that basically a member of the public provides a Notice of Non -Renewal 90 days prior to the contract's anniversary date. He said the department then prepares the Notice of Non Renewal which will be recorded. He said no later than 20 days after the department receives the Notice of Non -Renewal, the Clerk of the Board shall record with the County Recorder a copy of the Notice of Non -Renewal. Mr. Holland said the 20 days did not occur in this case. He said the letter did not get to the Assessor's Office and since it did not get to the Assessor, they do not know whether to establish non- renewal calculations. - Chairman Christopher asked if there was some law, State law, Government Code, etc., that tells us in black and white a procedure different than what the department has been following. Mr. MacKenzie said that in the evidence code there is a section called "Service by Mail" which means that you are deemed served 5 days after someone mails you a letter. Finding #I — vote. Chairman Christopher recapped that a letter was received 9/7/0=•, that was more than 90 days less than the contract date in December. It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to find that the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #3- vote It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to find that cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or CoLmty General Plan. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Jo lnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #4 — vote It was moved by Mr. Price, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried to find that cancellation will not result indiscontinuous patterns of urban development. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 9 ■ ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Findings under Public Interest. Finding #1 —Vote It was moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors find that other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of fie Williamson Act. AYES: Mr. Price,. Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. John3on NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #2 - Vote It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors find that there is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patters of urban development (GC §51282(c)) as above under #5 finding. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher It was also moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried that the Committee recognize September 7, 2003, as the application date. Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee discussed the fair market value by the Asse �sor's Office. He said he did not want the applicant's representatives to leave this room today think=ng that there is an appeal to that decision. He said there may not be an appeal process because this is a contractual situation. Mr. Lewis asked what the fees were based on, the 2012 or the 2013 dates as the final date. Mr. Holland explained that the difference in one year would not affect the evaluation. BREAK - 11:25 to :11:35 a.m. m Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 10 ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 2005 0525-009 Continued Public Hearing - Petition for Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Agreement (Evelyn Liptrap - consideration of a petition to immediately cancel a Williamson Act agreement on a 52.72 acre parcel, located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane, and east of, and adjacent to, State Route 99, in the north Chico area and .identified as APN 047-260-199. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been prepared for this project and the Planning Division is recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration - action requested - PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE.SECTION 51282, AND SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2005, APPROVE THE TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF THE WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT FOR EVELYN LIPTRAP, APN 047-260-199, INSTRUMENT NO. 0052839, RECORDED' DECEMBER. 22, 1999, SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE APPLICABLE CANCELLATION FEE; AND DIRECT THE RECORDING OF A CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION. -(FROM 11-8-05 [5.021) (**1205) 0525-010 MOTION: VOTE: RECESS: RECONVENE: MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED: 11:39 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 11:45 A.M. THIS ITEM TO RETURN TO THE LAND CONSERVATION ACT COMMITTEE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD ON THIS MA'T'TER. Continued Public Hearing - Ken and Mary Brown - Tentative Parcel Map Appeal - consideration.of an appeal of conditions of approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 2.3 acre parcel into two, parcels of 1.03 and 1.3 acres. Sanitary sewer service to the, property is available through a recorded "Sewer Service and Annexation Agreement" with the City of Chico. Water service would be provided by the California Water Service Company. Access for the additional parcel is proposed by Via Morro Court. The project is located on the north side of Via Morro Court, and identified as APN 011-020-083 (TPM 04N-29) - action requested - DENY THE APPEAL OF CONDITIONS 12, 13, 16 AND 17 FOR THE BROWN TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM 04N-29) APN 011-020-083.(FROM 11-8-05 [5.031) (**1745) PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED: 11:54 A.M. THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THE APPEAL OF CONDITION 17. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 12:13 P.M. I MOVE'TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. MS 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) 12:15 P.M. 12:17,P.M. PAGE 21 DECEMBER 13, 2005 LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES — January 11, 2006 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room, #25 County Center Drive, Oroville. I. ROLL CAL Present: Blake Bailey, Assessor's Office Pete Calarco, Development Services Joe Connell, Farm Advisory Richard Price, Agricultural Comm-_ssioner David Skinner Absent: Lewis Johnson and Clarence W. Daley Also Present: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Steve Troester, Associate Planner Stu Edell, Public Works Ken Reimers, Assessor Rob MacKenzie, Deputy County Counsel II. MINUTES - None III. APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION —Continued from October 18, 2005 A. Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 Mr. Troester gave a brief summary. He said the application was sent bank to the LCA Committee from the Board of Supervisors to expand on the findings to in support of this cancellation. He said staff has provided additional findings. He discussed the extension of Kitty Hawk Drive to link with Highway 99. Mr. MacKenzie said it is the opinion of County Counsel that the findings are not sufficient to approve this cancellation. He said the findings need a broader review. He said the possibility of Kitty Hawk Drive being extended should be further explored. He read Finding #5 — "Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is not available in the vicinity or the development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan." He was not sure the first part of the finding has been met. He said staff needs to look at the entire North Chico Specific Plan ,NCSP) area. He said we need to make sure that there is no non -contract land available or that this will be a more contiguous pattern of urban development. He gave a brief summary of his letter to the Department of Conservation (DOC) requesting additional interpretations. He said he would like to see a response from DOC before the LCA Committee makes a decision on tris application. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ January 12, 2006 ■ Page 1 of 3 ■ Mr. Troester said the above finding is an either/or finding and he believes they have met the second half of that finding. He said staff will continue the review of the findings sa that they can be better supported. Mr. MacKenzie said it is important to note that this land was only put into the Williamson Actin 1999. He said this was noted in.the letter from DOC and it infers that if we feel _t was put into the act by mistake its ok to take it out of the contract. He said that is not the position the courts have taken, the courts have indicated that it is not in the County favor to have only recently put the property into the act, and it is not ok to put the property in for a few y --ars, charge a cancellation penalty fee, and then take it out of the act. The hearing was opened to the public. Evelyn Liptrap said she asked that the property go into the Williamson Act because of her health and the fact.that the taxes were going to be tripled. Mr. Bailey explained that this is prime agricultural land. He said the NCSP was adopted in 1995 and the applicant was aware in 1999 of the development potential. He said thy applicant still wished to put the land in the Act. He said the LCA application in 1999 met all other criteria for inclusion. Mr. Troester said if the County find that cancellation is in the best interest of the public due to the extension of Kitty Hawk Drive, then it would be beneficial to condition the cancellation to insure that the extension of the road occurs. Mr. Bailey said the parcel to the south is being developed. He asked if the guernsey owner could extend Kitty Hawk Drive. Mr. Troester said the right-of-way is shared between the Guernsey properto and Nicholaus property. Mr. Edell clarified and said the 60 -foot right-of-way was dedicated to the County in August 1999, with the Autumn Subdivision. He said the road extension could be done by the Guernsey parcel map, but it makes more sense to share the cost of the extension between the Kitty Hawk Park and Guernsey subdivision. Mr. George Nicholaus noted that the Guernsey project has a Draft M�igated Negative Declaration because of the Liptrap LCA contract in proximity. One of the mitigation measures would require a 300 -foot setback from the Liptrap property. Mr. Bailey said the 300 -foot setback would be required from agricultural property, not just property in the LCA.. Mr. MacKenzie said they definitely need further investigation. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ January 12, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 3 ti COUNSEL [0Juu3/uu5 03/02/06 09:32 FAX 530 538 6891 BUTTE COUNTY P 02 unix V, cvvv wcv UC.• 41 r'.1 W "r UUT4=KVH(1UN LtURL PRX NU. 1316 _ 445 9916 STATE F CALIFORNIA, Rf.50URCES AGFN tat -MI n SCNWARZFN _CSR, GOVFRNOR r�> DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION LEGAL OFFICE BOIKSTREET - MS24.03 - SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 955) d Phone 916/323-6733 - FAX 916 / 445.9916 - TW 916 / 324-2555 - Intomef consorvolbn.co.0ov March 1, 2006 Mr. Robert W. Mackenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel Butte County, Office of County Counsel 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965-3380 Re: Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement; APN 047-260-199, Landowner Evelyn Liptrap Dear Mr. Mackenzie; In your December 21, 2005 letter to Dennis J. O'Bryant you requested clarification on the Department of Conservation's interpretation of relevant IaW on the subject of findings necessary to sustain a Williamson Act cancellation. Specifically, you requested answers to the following issues posed in your questions. Landowner's State of Mind As you correctly observed, Government Code section 51282 does not address the landowner's state of mind when entering a Williamson Act contract. Both Government Code section 51282 and Friends of East Willits Valley v. County of Mendocino 101 Cal. App. 4th 191, 209 (2002) make clear that at a minimum, the only findings necessary for cancellation are those explicitly stated In section151282 and those required by CEQA. However, the Williamson Act permits local jurisdictions to i-icorporate into their contracts restrictions in addition to those required by statute. Bovemment Code § 51240. For example, in the present case, the contract requires a finding of both consistency withl the purposes of the Williamson Act and the cancellation be in the public- interest. Even so, this contract does not contemplate the Landowner's state of mind. Thus, state of mind is not relevant to these cancellation findings. Countv's Knowledge that Area was Planned for Residential Use when Contract was Executed . Similar to the Landowner's state of mind, the County's knowledge that an area was planned for residential use when the contract was executed is not directly relevant to the findings necessary to cancel this contract. Again, both Government Code section 51282(f) and Friends of East Willits Valley make it clear the only findings necessary.for cancellation are those explicitly stated in section 612B2, those required by CEQA and, if applicable, any additional findings required by the terms of the contract. The County's knowledge of planned residential use Is not a required findin] under section 51282, CEQA or the terms of the contract. r*2 Vtpartntent of Conset>natitrtc's th&.1104 is to. protect Wfomiarrs wrd rrteir errwmnnnent by: 2>ratee&T eves a9d proyertY fr= eartfujk k- and ranWrdes, ?,w=u safe mbdn� artafod and flas dii 17g; Cottserwirrg CaGfomWj formrmtd, and Saving energy and resources tfirmfg! recyr.%ng. 03/02/06 09:32 FAX 530 538 6891 BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL WJUU4/UU5 HHK-ut-Cum Writ ue;41 V11 U IV I:=jtKVH'I'lUN LLUAL NRX NO. Y16 '145 9916 P. 03 Mr. Robert W. Mackenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel Butte County, Office of County Counsel Page 2 of 3 However, even if a County had knowledge that the General Plan called for the residential use of an area before the contract was executed it is not*clear that the inconsistency alone could be used to show that the county acted in a manner that undercuts the Williamson Act's purpose. Even though Government Code section 51242(b) only allows the county to contract with respect to any land that "is located within an area designated by a city or a county as an agricultural preserve," it is the language of Section 8 of Article XIII of the California Constitution that control in this instance, requiring land to be "enforceably restricted" in order to gain the preferential tax treatment. The Williamson Act itself anticipates that zoning may trail behind the designation of an agricultural preserve. "An agricultural preserve may contain land other than agricultural land, but the use of any land within the preserve and not under contract shall within tow years of the effective date of anv cnapier. - uovemment Uoae section b1230. Accordingly, the statute would not prevent the county from designating an area as a preserve where some or all of the preserve area is previously zoned for less restrictive uses. We cannot see how the Williamson Act could be interpreted to contemplate voiding a contract because a county failed to carry out the responsibility to subsequently designate a restrictive zoning ordinance on the preserve. Local and Statewide Public Interest We agree with your assessment of the relevant aspects of the Supreme Court's decision in Sierra Club v City of Hayward, 28 Cal. 3d. 840, (1981). In order to find that "other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act" (Government Code § 51282(c)(1)) the California Supreme Court directed that the Board must consider the inter"est of the public as a whole in the value of the land for open space and agricultural use. Though the interests of the local and regional communities involved are also important, "no decision regarding the public interest can be based exclusively on their parochialism:' Sierra Club, 28 Cal. 3d at 856. Moreover, without substantial findings by the board to the contrary, the paramount 'interest' Involved is the preservation of land in agricultural production. In providing for cancellation, the Legislature has recognized the relevance of other interests, such as housing, needed services, environmental protection through developed uses, economic growth and employment. However, it must be shown that open space objectives, explicitly and unequivocally protected by the act, are substantially outweighed by other public concerns before the cancellation can be deemed °in the public interest." JA. at 857. Ultimately, it is the role of the County Board to apply this standard and determine whether or not there is enough evidence to support a finding that cancellation is in the public interest. Each petition needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The same facts that allow the Board to make the necessary findings for one situation may not be sufficient in another. Unfortunately, there is not a simple litmus test for the County Board to follow. Avallabilfty In order to support a finding that the cancellation is in the public interest the Board may find under Government Code section 51282(c) "that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both 03/02/06.'09:32 FAX 530 538 6891 BUTTECOUNTY COUNSEL 0uu5ivu5 ur cuuu wc.v uC.4l rn' '.ir VuP{SLKVHI IUN LtLift M M. 816 44b 9916 P. 04 Mr. Robert W. Mackenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel 1314tte County, Office of County Counsel Page 3 of 3 , available and suitable for the use to which It is proposed the contracted land be put." The Department of Conservation understands"availability" as used in Government Code section. 51.282(c)(2) to be the same as set forth in Friends of East Willits Valley at 208, that is, "at a minimum, the property is available for sale." Presumably, this means under a similar arms-leng h transaction. However, the Board must still weigh the facts of each petition for cancellation on a case-by-case basis when deciding if other suitable, proximate land Is "available." In your first hypothetical.you.question whether non -contracted land "proposed for residential development by an individual other than the individual proposing to residentially develop the contracted land" is considered available. Strictly following Friends of East Willits Valley, itmay appear that it Is not. Nevertheless, if there are other facts to suggest the individual proposing building a residential development on contracted land had an option to buy the non -contracted land at an earlier point or even was the owner of the non -contracted land before the current owner began development a different result may be found by the Board. Likewise, under certain fact patterns hon -contracted land may be available, yet not necessarily for sale: With out prejudging the issue, your second hypothetical appears to bear out thk3 notion. There IS no need for the land to be for sale when the developer wishing to develop the currently contracted . land already owns the proximate and suitable land. Ultimately, a presumption of availability exists in this case subject only to the property's proximity and suitability. As a result the land in your second hypothetical is unquestionably already available for development by its owner. If you have any further questions concerning the Liptrap petition for cancellation or the Department of Conservation's policies please feel free to contact Kyle Nast or Steve Oliva at (9 16) 323-6733. Very Truly yours,. STEPHEN E, OLIVA Acting Chief Counsel By , J. Nast St Counsel Cc Dennis J, O'Bryant,'Acting Assistant Director " S \l �EBFER r \\ HAUSELT 177-777— .777-1 IX \ I 1 I I I I \`\ I H WK \ I UBD VlSIO 1 I I I �\el \1 • N 4E S SCALE 1"=200' a w _ ct I I (AUTUMN PARK( SUPHf+VSE ION L -J -J CONCEPTUAL LOT LAYOUT FOR i KITTYHAWK PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE - SUBDIVISION MAP I 11 (pypm. l..T 91RNN9QIj1 - TOTAL AREA 52.10 ACRES 'APN: 067-260-19977 @ 017-260-199 GEORGE NICOLAUS 66 MARYBILL RANCH ROAD 7 CIOCO. CA 95928 THE ENGINEERING CROUP ROBERT A FEENEY• RCE 912972 J 1250EAST AVENUE SUITE 10 CHICO. CA 95928 1 PH: (530) 899-0108 EAX (570) 899-0913 uAAd 4 im) Rott 1 v 1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO AND THE COUNTY OF BUTTE REGARDING COOPERATIVE PLANNING IN THE CHICO AREA OF CONCERN WHEREAS, the City of Chico ("City") and the County of Butte ("County", sometimes referred to collectively herein as the "Parties,"each leave final land use authority with --.n portions of the North Chico Planning Area, as that Area. is defined herein; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement ("Agreement') is to permit and encourage a cooperative planning approach by both jurisdictions and a sharing of personnel, costs and ideas regarding land use within the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, while both jurisdictions intend to retain their independent governmental authority to amend applicable general plan provisions and land use regulations, both jurisdictions desire to cooperate in an attempt to develop a coordinated approach for the processing and review of applications for land use entitlements in the North Chico Planning Area which will be acceptable to both jurisdictions and will protect and enhance the health, safety and welfare of citizens residing in the said Area and of the public generally; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to protect agricultural land and to ensure that -its conversion to urban uses, when appropriate, shall be done in a well-planned manner, based on sound planning principles, and to work cooperatively to provide for urban growth within the Chico Area of Concern for a 30-50 year planning horizon, and WHEREAS, the North Chico Planning Area is partially within the unincorporated area of the County, and partially within the City's Planning Area, as depicted in Figure 3-1 of the City's general plan; part of the North Chico Planning Area has been designated as a special study area by the Butte County Local. Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo); and the entire Area will be the subject of a Sphere of Influence Study by LAFCo; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Planning Area is approximately 5000 acres in size, and the development of such a large area will generate complex social, economic, environmental and other concerns and a need for sensitive stewardship of the governmental and private resources available to address such concerns; and WHEREAS, it is desirable for the convenience of interested citizens, organizations and various interested groups to establish a central clearinghouse for the compilation ani dissemination of information relative to land use in the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 1987, County and City entered into a Municipal Affairs Agreement to resolve issues pertaining to the annexation of properties in the Ch --.co Urban Area, defined as the Chico Sphere of Influence as then or thereafter adopted by the But, County Local Agency Formation Commission; and 4- WHEREAS, the Municipal Affairs Agreement recites the desire of the Partes to set forth mutual understandings which would permit a cooperative approach to the future :annexation of properties in the unincorporated portion of the Chico Urban Area to the incorporated territory of the City; and WHEREAS, section 1.03 of the Municipal Affairs Agreement recites th, intent of the Parties that in the future City would assume responsibility to provide the following .services to the unincorporated portion of the Chico Urban Area, subject to negotiation of a detailed agreement between the Parties relating to the level of such services, the reimbursement of coats incurred by City in providing such services, the obligation of the owners of property benefitted by such services to annex such property to the incorporated territory of City, and any other matter of concern to either County or City: Animal Control; Parks; Planning and Building Inspection; Law Enforcement; Sanitary Sewers; Storm Drainage; Street Lighting; Street Maintenance; Street Trees; and Public Transportation; and WHEREAS, section 1.03 of the Municipal Affairs Agreement further reci-=es the intent of the Parties to meet and confer to explore the feasibility of an agreement between the Parties in the following matters relating to the fire suppression services provided by County and City within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the Chico Urban Area: Automati•: Aid; Location of Fire Stations; and any other matters relating to fire suppression services determined to be of mutual interest to both County and City; and WHEREAS, the Parties have not fully implemented the intent of section 1.03 6f the Municipal Affairs Agreement, but have moved effectively towards certain of the goals therein by subsequent agreements, including but not limited to execution of (1) the Chico Urb m Area Fire and Rescue Agreement, dated June 29, 1999, implementing the desire of the Parties to provide the finest and most cost-effective level of fire and rescue services in their respective jurisdictions and to augment such services by responding to emergency calls within the Chico Urban Fire and Rescue Service Area, based on the closest County or City fire station rather than by the jurisdiction where the emergency exists, and (2) that certain Agreement between the County of Butte and the City of Chico for the Extension of Sewer Services and Installation of Certain Public Improvements in the Chico Urban Area, dated December 5, 2000, which recites the desire of the Parties to cooperate in solving the groundwater nitrate contamination problem in the Chico Urban Area addressed by order no. 90-126 of the Regional Water Quality Board, and to cooperate regarding the funding and construction of specified road improvement projects in the Chico Urban Area, including some within the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, use of septic systems was determined by the Regional Water Quality Control -Board to be the primary cause of groundwater nitrate contamination in the Chico; Urban Area; and WHEREAS, the use of septic systems in the North Chico Planning Area -has occurred and is occurring and, if allowed at densities greater than one residential unit per acre, may cause similar problems in that Area; and -2- WHEREAS, the Parties desire to prevent such groundwater problems and protect the health, safety and welfare of persons residing in the North Chico Planning Area and in the Chico Urban Area by cooperatively planning to provide appropriate infrastructure to allow the conr._ection of new development in the North Chico Planning Area to City's sewer system; and WHEREAS, the historic pattern of flooding within the North Chico Planning Area and new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements require planning for appropriate flood control measures, and allowing additional development in the Area nay jeopardize funding for such measures; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan ("the Plan") was adopted by the Board of . Supervisors of the County of Butte on March 28, 1995; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan Area is defined in Butte Counto Code Section : 3-152'P as the unincorporated area of the County described approximately as tha- area north of Eaton Road, east of Highway 99, south of Keefer Road and west of the Chico Munici-3al Airport and more particularly depicted in Figure 3-1 of the North Chico Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, a substantial amount of new residential, industrial, commercial, office and, school development can reasonably be expected to occur within the North Chico Specific Plan Area as a.result of the implementation of the Plan and the rezoning adopted as a part thereof; and WHEREAS, such development will create a need for the acquisition and development of additional public facilities within the Plan Area, because the existing public facilities are insufficient in number, size, and location to meet the needs generated by such new development; and WHEREAS, such needed public facilities will include new street, trail; drainage, fire protection and park facilities, as contemplated by the Plan and the Environmental Impact Report for -,1 the Plan. However; adequate funding for such infrastructure facilities is not available, and the infrastructure needs and funding therefore need to be further addressed before additional development imposes undue burdens upon the existing infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan Area is partially within City's Sphere of'. Influence; and WHEREAS, City is developing a specific plan known asthe Northwest Chico Specific Plan'. and a related general plan amendment, both of which contemplate changes in land. use in the North ` Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan and the City general plan both contemplate development in the North Chico Planning Area, but are not in full agreement regarding the type and .: density of development therein and the type and level of infrastructure necessary or desirable to provide necessary public services within said Area; and -3- WHEREAS; the independent, uncoordinated development of properties within the unincorporated portion of the North Chico Planning Area, which properties may at a future time be annexed by City, could cause conflicts between the respective general and spec: fic plans and zoning of the Parties, and conflicts between the infrastructure provided by the Parties; including but not limited to roads, sewerage, storm drainage and flood control, and water supply; and WHEREAS, County is currently conducting a general plan technical update end will, upon the completion of such update, conduct a full general plan review, including a review of the North Chico Specific. Plan to determine its consistency or lack thereof with the Airport Land . Use Commission's Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan as amended in 1999 and 2000; and WHEREAS, City has reviewed its general plan to determine the consistency of it with the Airport Land Use Commission's Chico Municipal Airport Land Use Plan as amended in 1999 and 2000; and WHEREAS, the approval of substantial development in the North Chico Planning Area prior to the completion by the County and the City of such update and reviews and the coordination of the Parties' goals for development of the Area would be premature and inappropriate; and . WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is desirable to foster and encourage orderly development in the North Chico Planning Area, to coordinate the actions of City and County so that 1 necessary infrastructure and public services will be provided without wastefal conflict or duplication, and to consider the amendment of their respective general plans, zoning o-dinances, and development regulations and standards to facilitate such coordination; and WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65351 and 65352 contemplate that the public interest beyond individual city or county boundaries shall be considered and that general plan amendments by a legislative body shall be referred to any city or county within or abutting the area covered by the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65101, subsection (b), provides that two or more legislative bodies may create a joint area planning agency, planning commission, or advisory agency for all or prescribed portions of their cities or counties which shall exercise those powers and perform those duties under Title 7 of the Government Code, entitled "Planning ane Zoning," that the legislative bodies delegate to it, and further authorizes their planning agencies, or any components ofthem, to meet cooperatively to coordinate their work, conduct studies, develop plans, hold hearings, or cooperatively exercise any power or perform any duty common to them; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for an agreement to be reached regarding the sharing of the, costs of such coordinated efforts; and WHEREAS, the cooperative planning approach reflected in this Agreement has been developed to meet the above concerns and to best serve the citizens within The North Chico Planning Area; and -4- WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Parties, through this Agreement, to work together, diligently, to achieve concurrence on general and specific plans, zoning, and related actions to be taken concerning the future development of the North Chico Planning Area. NOW, THEREFORE, City and County agree, in view of the above recitals, as follows: L Cooperative Planning Approach. A. Goal - City and County agree to a cooperative planning approach for the North. Chico Planning Area, with the goal of amending their respective policies and land use development regulations as appropriate to make them as consistent with each other as is reasonably feasible. Oversight of this effort is vested in an ad hoc committee to be known as the City/County Cooperative Planning Committee, composed of two county supervisors appointed by the Butte County Board of Supervisors and three city council members appointed by the Chico City Council. B. Establishment of a Cooperative Decision-making Process - The County shall provide to the City information on requests for Initial Development Review and copies of all applications or proposals for general plan amendments, rezonings, and development permits within the North Chico Planning Area. The City shall provide staff to attend such Initial Development Review meetings and shall provide written input for all such applications and proposals. Comments from the City shall be incorporated into the reports and analysis of these applications'and proposals. C. Coordination of Staffing for Development Projects - The City and County shall create. a specific process for the compilation and dissemination of information relative to coordination of land use in the North Chico Planning Area and designated staff shall prepare a report to be submitted to City/County Cooperative Planning Committee within 45 days as follows: (1) Overview. The report shall provide: a) an overview of the existing general and specific plans of the City and County in the North Chico Planning Area; b) a brief discussion regarding the consistency or lack of consistency between such plans, and between them and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission regarding the Chico Municipal Airport; c) the zoning and subdivision regulations ane- improvement standards of City and County applicable 'in said Area; and d) the development impact fees which apply within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the North Chico Planning Area. (2) Recommendations. The report shall include recommendations regarding any initial and immediate amendments in the respective general and specific plans, regulations and fees of the City and the County deemed necessary or desirable in order to make them as consistent „ with each other as is reasonably feasible. (3) Infrastructure. The report shall include a discussion of the infrastructure needed for the anticipated development within the North Chico Planning Area which would be allowed pursuant to the development approach recommended. This report shall . include recommendations regarding a) infrastructure required to provide necessary or desirable -5- public services, including roads, sewerage, storm drainage and flood control, and water supply, b) appropriate uniform development standards and impact fees within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the North Chico Planning Area., and c) other sources of funding, such as Mello Roos districts, assessment districts, and County Service Areas, for the capital outlay and other short and long term facilities costs, including related operation and maintenance costs. D. Duties of City/County Cooperative Planning Committee. The City/Count] Cooperative Planning Committee shall review and consider the staff report and shall'make a recommendation to City Council and Board of Supervisors. E. Action to Implement Recommendations. The City and the County will conduct workshops and hold meetings to fully inform the public of the analysis and recommendations to enact a cooperative planning approach. If the City Council and Board of Supervisors fail to reach consensus regarding the implementation of recommendations of the report, the City Council's position shall be given greater weight as to implementation affecting that part of the North Chico Planning Area which is south of Mud Creek and the Board of Supervisor's position shall be given greater weight as to implementation north of Mud Creek. F. Resources to be Provided. The City and County shall each provide necessary staff or consultant resources to achieve a cooperative planning program for the North Chico Planning Area.. G. Related Documents. Environmental review shall be conducted before adoption of any resolutions or ordinances.. subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The procedures for CEQA compliance and the designation of the lead agencypursuant to CEQA shall be the subject of a future agreement to be negotiated and implemented by and between the Chico City Manager and the County Chief Administrative Officer. 2. Cost Sharing. City and County shall share equally the costs incurred to implement the cooperative planning program approved by the Parties, pursuant to an agreement to be negotiated and implemented by and between the Chico City Manager and the County Chief Administrative Officer. The Master Property Tax Agreement adopted by both the City and County on November 4, 1987, shall not be affected by this Agreement. 3. Timeline for Implementation. It is the intent ofthe Parties to establish the coop:rative planning process contemplated by this Agreement by January 1, 2004, in order to implement and foster a cooperative approach to the immediate development projects and pressures for development in the North Chico Planning Area. The City and County will work in good faith to extend the cooperative decision-making process to the Chico Area of Concern by December 31, 2004. 4. Definition of North Chico Planning Area. For purposes of this Agreement, the North Chico Planning Area is defined as follows: that certain area which includes County's North Chico Specific Plan, the City's Northwest Chico Development Area, the areas between these two a-eas and the west side of the Chico Municipal Airport, extending south to Lassen Avenue, west to the City's current Sphere of Influence line, and east to Cohasset Road, as shown on the diagram attached at Exhibit -6- "A" to this Agreement. 5. Definition of Chico Area of Concern. For purposes of assuring coordination of planning for the future growth needs of the City, the cooperative planning process shall be expanded to include the Chico Area of Concern, generally defined' as: Meridian Road on the west, starting at Big Chico Creek, northerly along Meridian Road to State Highway Route 99, then northwesterly along State Route Highway 99 to the County boundary line with Tehama County, then easterly to the southeast comer of the southeast quarter of section 36 of Township 24 North, Range 2 East, then southerly along the range line to Durham-Pentz Road, then westerly along Durham-Pentz Road and Oro -Chico Highway to Midway, then northerly along Midway approximately one mile, then southwesterly to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, then north along that right-of-way to Comanche Creek, then westerly along Comanche Creek to Lone Pine Road, then north along Lone Pine Road to Chico River Road, then southwesterly along Chico River Road to the southerly extension of the western boundary line of the Ranchaero Airport property, then northerly along that line to Big Chico Creek, then along Big Chico Creek to Meridian Road, all as shown more particularly on the diagram attached at Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. 6. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the County's Chief Administrative Officer on behalf of the County and the City Manager on behalf of the City. 7. Enforcement. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Neither Party shall file an action against the other Party to compel performance or other relief unless such Party first makes a 30 -day written demand* for cure of a default of the Agreement on the other Party and such demand has not been satisfied. The prevailing Party in such action shall recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 8. Duty to Defend and Indemnify. The County agrees that, upon demand by the City, it will defend and indemnify the City, and the officers, employees and agents of the City, from any claim, liability, loss, damage, cost, expenses (including attorneys' fees), awards, fines or judgments (Claims) arising out of the acts or omissions of the County, or its officers, employees and agents, as to work done or caused to be done by the County pursuant to this Agreement. The City agrees that, upon demand by the County, it will defend and indemnify the County, and the officers, employees and agents of the County, from any claim, liability, loss, damage, cost, expenses (including attorneys' fees), awards, fines or judgments (Claims) arising out of the acts or omissions of the City, or its officers, employees and agents, as to work done or caused to- be done by the City pursuant to this Agreement. However, neither Party owes the other a duty of indemnification under this section as to any act or omission of the other Party that is the sole legal cause of the Claims and that constitutes an act or omission of sole negligence or willful misconduct on the part of that Party or any officer, employee or agent of that Party. - 9. Effective Date and Term. This Agreement is effective upon its execution. However, the County and the City understand and agree that the ability of the City and County to perform all their respective obligations hereunder is dependent upon the availability to each Party of adequate financial resources to implement this Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for the time necessary for the Parties to complete the work contemplated herein or until such time in the future -7- as it is jointly deemed appropriate by the Parties that this Agreement shall no longer have effect or shall be amended. This Agreement is limited to the above -listed work and no other work shall be. undertaken pursuant to this Agreement unless authorized by both jurisdictions. 10. No Service Guarantees or Entitlements. The provision of land use planning services by the City or the County to any property within the unincorporated portions of the North Chico Planning Area shall not obligate the City or County in any way to 'provide any other service of any kind whatsoever, and neither the'City nor the County assumes any responsibility to make available or provide any other service. Nothing in this Agreement creates an entitlement to or guarantees the availability of any particular City or County service or public improvement or any particular level of City or County service to any persons or property within the North Chico Planning Area. 11. No Admissions, Assumptions of Liabilities, or Third -Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made solely by and between the County and the City as public agencies committed to public health, welfare, and safety. Therefore: A. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be an admission by the County or the City that either, or both of them, has caused or permitted, or is causing or permitting, or threatening to cause or permit, any improper development in the North Chico Planning Area. B. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be an assumption by one Party of any duty or liability, should any exist, of the other Party to alleviate, remediate or otherwise abate the effects of any land use development in the North Chico Planni ag Area. C. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create any third -party beneficiary rights with respect to any person, agency or entity, whether directly or indirectly affected by this Agreement. 12. Notice. Reasonable notice shall be given to the other Party when either the City or County Planning Commission, the City Council, or the County Board of Supervisors places a land use item on their respective agendas pertaining to the North Chico Planning Area. 13. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document approved by the legislative bodies of both Parties. COUNTY OF BUTTE CITY OF CHICO* By , By R.J. Beeler, Chair Trish Dunlap Butte County Board of Supervisors Assistant City Manager -8- 8 RLW IiR1E Tehorna County i 'T24N 1 --------- - T' _3N 7. ` Teh crnat/Rutte County Line L C? �� a Gr . $yrAnorr e NORt � ST HWY 32 o. ''fir V g�K d� o: = soerrn,anru .. — ../. i.. RIw r N„•r'1-R G lam'' al i a 0.6 t2 �� p I t 0 R I •RIE R1W ` Horth Chico Planning Arw. Including: Courdys North Chico Specific Plan Area, CSA S7 g City's Northwest Chico DevelopmentArea (Specific Plan) IllIfFfa-maining Land in North Chico Planning Area Arra of Concem Mico Area of Concern Butte County Land Not Included — 6tisting City of Chico Sphere of Influence Boundary g l