Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
047-260-199 (5)
+ BUTTE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL] I AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: Nicolaus/Liptrap Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract DEPARTMENT: DDS DATE: 10/10/05 MEETING DATE,REQUESTED: 11/8/05 CONTACT: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner ' PHONE: 538-7629 REGULAR X CONSENT DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant` to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. --See Attached Agenda Report -- ACTION REQUESTED: Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (Assessor's Parcel Number: 047=260-199, Instrument No. 0052839, recorded December 22; 1999), subject to the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee, and recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, with the findings pursuant to Government Code Section 51282 as shown in the attached. S44P �P4.X 1 AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND TWELVE (12) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes No X CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No X Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on Administrative Office Staff Contact back. Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda I • P ANALYSIS Project Description 1. A petition to Immediately Cancel a Williamson Act Contract has beer_ received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn C.-Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2.' This Williamson Act Contract was entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999 (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3. The contract covers a parcel of 48.23 acres currently planted with. a walnut orchard. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ' _ - ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation.(Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005' 0 Page 1 :of 11 0 _ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORT— November 8, 2005 - Applicant: George Nicolaus Supervisor District: 3 File #: Canc. 04-02 Attachments: . : A. General Plan and Zoning Map Request: Tlie applicant requests the immediate B. Application fot Cancellation _ - cancellation of , a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — C. Liptrap Williamson act Contract 51287, on a 52.72 acreparcel. D. Land Conservation Act Advisory APN: 0471260-199 Committee Minutes of June 30, 2004 Location: The .property is `. located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately E. April 26, 2004 Letter From the: 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane and east of and Department of Conservation adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. F. 'Initial Study Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre G. Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map parcels), O (Open Space) General Plan: Agricultural Residential ' Parcel Size: 52.72 acres Planner: Dan Breedon; Principal Planner : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors act to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Immediately Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap; with the findings required by the Government Code. ANALYSIS Project Description 1. A petition to Immediately Cancel a Williamson Act Contract has beer_ received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn C.-Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2.' This Williamson Act Contract was entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999 (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3. The contract covers a parcel of 48.23 acres currently planted with. a walnut orchard. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ' _ - ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation.(Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005' 0 Page 1 :of 11 0 _ .4. The property is located within the North Chico Specific Plan and is zoned for residential development. 5. The applicant has also applied for a Tentative Subdivision Map JSM 04-11, Kittyhawk Park) to create 48 residential parcels of approximately 1 -acre each in size, consistent with the SR -.1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel Size) zone: 6. This proposed Map is currently considered incomplete for purposes of mitigating flood and drainage impacts associated with this site. Additionally, the proposed Map cannot be approved unless the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled. Cancellation Process 1. In order to consider contract cancellation, the county must give notice of, and hold a public hearing on the landowner's petition for cancellation. 2. Notice has been provided to all landowners with .land under contract of which any portion is within one -mile of the exterior boundary of the property subject to the cancellation request. 1. , . 3. Additionally, notice of this hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition has been mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to this hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). 4. Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the County must forward a copy of the published notice of the decision to the Director of the Department of Conservation. ' Williamson Act Cancellations 1. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act con.racts are not intended to be cancelled and in fact, cancellation is reserved for unusual, "emergency" situations. Therefore, the nine-year nonrenewal pros. ss has been identified as the legally preferred method for terminating a Williamson Act contract. 2. The Supreme Court has stated that cancellation is not appropriate where the objectives served by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal, (See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Ca1.3d 840, 852-853). 3. The State of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that cancellation is impermissible "except .upon extremely stringent conditions", (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, (1979). The Attorney General has also opined that nonrenewal is the preferred contract termination. method: "If.a landowner desires to change the use of his land under contract to uses other than agricultural production and compatible uses, the proper procedure is to give notices of nonrenewal pursuant to section 51245." (54 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 90, 92 (1971).) ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 0 Page 2 of 11 ■ 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 j sections: Williamson Act Cancellation Findings 1. .The Board. of Supervisors may grant -tentative approval for Cancellation of a Williamson Act contract only if it makes either public interest or consistency finds. In some cases, the . contract or local government may require both public interest .and ' consistency findings to be made in order to cancel the contract. This is the case for the, Liptrap Cancellation. The findings that must be made to cancel this contract are as follows: • In order 'to find that the cancellation is in the public interest (C -C 51282 (a). the Board of Supervisors must find: p(1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the .objectives of the Williamson Act; and, (2) That there is no proximate,'noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban devel:)pmerit (GC .§51282(c)).. ' • In order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, the Board of Supervisors must also find: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been ' served. (2)' That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of Gdjacent 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 pattens of urban development. (5) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). 2. The uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason' for cancellation of the contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be considered only if there is no other reasonable cr. comparable ' agricultural use to which the land maybe put (GC §51282(b)). ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 3 of 11 0 3. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the applicant'-, request for cancellation .on June 30, 2004. The Committee reviewed the � abov,. referenced ' findings and acted to recommend approval of the Cancellation to the Board of Supervisors•with the.required findings. Summary of Findings '.1. The Department of - Conservation comments in their attached letter that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided that the Board of Supervisors, may have. sufficient supporting evidence to make the required findings for . cancellation. ~ 2. The Department of Conservation points out that this area is currently bound by the North Chico Specific Plan, which is a planning area identified by the General Plan for development: 3. The North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the County in 1995, and the Liptrap . Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1999. 4. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the implementation of agricultural land and Williamson Act Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. 5. Further, the . Department of Conservation points out that the William:,Don .Act ,was created to control and guide urban development aswell as to preserve agricultural F land. . 6. Staff agrees with the Department of. Conservation on this' issue. Since this property was designated for residential development and not agricultural uses by the.North Chico Specific Plan, the initiation, of a Williamson Act Contract in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the,Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land, and was contrary to the intent of the North Chico Specific Plan to develop this area with suburban residential uses. 7. The iandowner has now filed a Tentative Subdivision Map with the Coimty to divide this property into 48, 1 -acre parcels, a use that is consistent with the North Chico Specific Plan. 8. Tt is important, to note, however, that the North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future development in this area, and the Plan supports the residential development proposed by the applicant. . 9. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee discussed this information at their meeting as well as reviewed the information presented in the application (see attached June 30, 2004 minutes). 10. The Committee provided instruction to staff to formulate findinp supporting cancellation based upon information contained within the record. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 0- Page 4 of 11 0 , 11. The findings set forth by staff supporting the Cancellation are summa,, ized below. (please refer to ' the complete findings located under the Action for Consideration Section for more detailed information): a. That other public 'concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. • Conformance of the project with the North Chico Specific Plan, :he County's vision for development in this area. • The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North C.zico Specific Plan is found to be in thegeneral public's interest. • Development. of this area will result in the connection of SR-99 with Kittyhawk Drive; a major county arterial intended to serve the Plan area and that will have a larger public benefit. . b. That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both a-vailable and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contractee. land would provide more contiguous patterns of urbandevelopment (GC §51282(c)). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. • Much of the property in the vicinity of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. c. That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has ,)een served. • A notice of non-renewal was provided by the applicant in accordance with the Government Code. d. That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. • The pattern for development of this area set by the North Chico Soecific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline policy, and the Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback requirement greatly reduce the- likelihood that cancellation of this property would result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. • In this area with residential development in accordance with the North Chico Specific Plan will promote a more regular urban pattern of development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. e: That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ M. Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page'5 of 11 ■ • The applicant has filed an application with the Department of Development Services for a subdivision .map (Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map) that conforms to the North Chico Specific Plan's zoning and the General Plan. f. That cancellation will not result in.discontiguous patterns of urban de✓elopment h The property is zoned for residential uses, and is contiguous to -existing and planned : development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision,and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North*Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. Cancellation Fee 1. The cancellation fee is payment made to cancel a Williamson Act Contract that provides , a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the p-operty (GC §512830) 2. Prior to any action by the Board of Supervisors approving tentative cancellation of any contract, the county assessor must determine the current fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contractual restriction (GC §51283(a)). 3. According the Butte County Assessor the cancellation valuation .for this property is $1,372,250.00 - 4. The landowner shall pay the cancellation fee that is equal to 25 percent.(12.5 percent State and 12.5 percent County cancellation rate) of the cancellation valuation of the property for Williamson Act. (GC §§51283(b) and 51297(c)). The Cancellation fee" for this property would therefore equal $343,060.00. 5. This amount was determined by the Assessor's Office under Appeal #04-020. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION The Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee and Development Services recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: I. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with. the following findings: a. An Initial Study was completed in compliance' with the California Environmental Quality Acta Said study identified significant environmental effects and included mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant levels; a Mitigated Negative _ Declaration is proposed. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services il . ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 6 of 11 ■ i b. ' The Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with comments received during the review process.: C. On the basis of the whole record before the Board of Supervisors, including the Initial Study and any comments received,: there is no substantial evidence that the Immediate Cancellation for Gecrge. Nicolaus, Planning Division File No. Canc 04-02, would have a significant effect on the environment. The custodian of the record is the Department of Development Services. The location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965. d. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. II. Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptra-3 (Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199, Instrument No. 0052839, recorded December 22; . 1999), subject to the condition of payment of the applicable cancellation fee, and recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, with the following findings pursuant to Government Code Section 51282: a. Find that the cancellation is in the public interest as follows. (1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. • The subject Williamson Act Contract was entered into on December 22, 1999 upon review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. This approval wasbased upon the viable agricultural use established on the property and the ability to continue agricultural operations within the North Chico Specific Plan; which allows all existing orchards to continue operations . without interference or inter ruption by. development. However, since this property was designated for residential development and not agricultural uses by the North Chico Specific Plan, the initiation of a Williamson Act Contract in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land, and was contrary to the intent of the North Chico Specific Plan to develop this area with suburban residential uses. • The North Chico Specific Plan was approved on March 28' 1995 by the Butte County Board of Supervisors as a broad reaching .site planning tool to allow for large scale planning of mixed-use development. The cancellation will allow for residential development consistent with the North -Chico Specific Plan's goals and SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1. - acre minimum parcel size) zoning. Although this property is developed with a producing' walnut orchard, and agricultural uses are., allowed under one of the Plan's policies, the Plan more specifically indicates ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page 7 of 11 ■ that this area is intended for residential development .-qt a 1 -acre minimum parcel size, as proposed for this site under the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted. The Williamson Act. was enacted to guide urban development as well _-is preserve agricultural land.. The' County's approval of the North Giico Specific. Plan provides explicit direction on where residential de-)elopment is desirable. The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North Chico Specific Plan and as proposed under this Cancellation is found to be in the general public's interest. The petitioner also set forth additional justification• for finding this cancellation in the public's interest as follows: • The residential development as proposed by the Kitt.yhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and other subdivisions in the vicinity will result in the completion of the Kittyhawk Drive arterial connection to SR -99. This connection and arterial road is designated 5y the North i Chico Specific Plan for area -wide circulation and wil' benefit the residents of the Plan area. The connection will also benefit emergency vehicles and response times as the connection will provide the Plan area with direct access to SR -99. The enhanced circu'ation to the Plan area as a result of subsequent- development that would be allowed under this Cancellation is also found to be in the general public's interest. • Nuisances that are related to agricultural activity such as harvesting, chemical spraying and application, dust, ash, smoke and noise, would be minimized. if the property is developed with s-ngle family residences. The Cancellation would allow for the implementation of the residential development envisioned for this site by.the North Chico Specific Plan. The. continued use of the property for agricultural activity is allowed by the North Chico Specific Plan, but this site is more specifically designated for residential development. The continued use of the propertyfor commercial agriculture will result in nuisances and compatibility problems to neighboring residential properties to the north and south as these properties develop, and to the east where the existing Autumn Park Subdivision lies.. Infilling this area with residential development in accordance with the'North Chico Specific Plan will promote a more regular urban pattern of ' development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. (2) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is hoth available . and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c)). ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ -' ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page 8ofI1 0 •. Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is' not available in the.vicinity. Lands lying west of SR -99 are restricted to a 20 or 40 -acre minimum parcel ' size under the applicable: agricultural zoning. Much of the property in the vicinity of this. proiect is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by. ,development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject p operty is the only property located within the North Chico Specific Play subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as. set forth under the North Chico Specific Plana The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous, to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (propo, ed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates the Plan bouidary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenlin?. The Chico , Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west o- SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. b. Find that the cancellation is Consistent with the purposes of th-- Williamson Act as follows: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. • ' A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant Fn accordance with the Government Code. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. • Lands adjacent to this parcel are located within' the North Chico Specific Plan, which designates lands surrounding to the north, south, and east for residential development. Lands located to the west are separated from this parcel by SR -99, and are located outside the boundary of the North Chico Specific Plan. SR -99 provides a physical barrier between the two uses. The Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan (Program 2.2) requires the maintenance of an agricultural setback on the subject property that will limit residential development from taking place within 300 feet of th? agricultural lands west of SR -99. The setback would be applied to the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision. Map. SR -99 also demarcctes the Chico Area Greenline at this location, which allows fo: urban type development east of SR -99 and agricultural uses to tie west. The pattern for development of this area identified by the North - Chico ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 Novenber 8, 2005 ■ Page 9of11 0 Specific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline . policy, and the ..Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback requirement greatly reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this property would result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural u,;e. (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which . is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. • The applicant has filed an application with the Department of Development Services for a subdivision map (Kit;yhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map). Although this Map is still under review, the proposed 48, 1 -acre parcel sizes are consistent with rhe provisions. of the North Chico Specific Plan's SR -1 (Suburban Resiaential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zoning and the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous" patterns of urban development. • The development of this parcel would provide for mo -e contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the- North Chico Specific. Plan. The property , is zoned for residentia: uses and is. contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to to the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline. specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project 2rea, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The p-oposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. (5) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for'the proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). • Proximate available land which is suitable for the proposed use is not available in the vicinity. Lands lying west of SR -99 are restricted to -a 20 or 40 -acre minimum parcel size under the applicable agricultural zoning. Much of the property in the vicinity of this p: oject is either contemplated for future development or is proposed ,by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject property is the only property located within the North Chico Specific Phan subject to a Williamson Act Contract... The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban deveeopment as set forth under the .North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board.of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 0 Page 10 of 11 ■ i residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development �`. to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (propo,ed Guernsey 'Subdivision). SR -99 to, the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Butte. County General Plan's .Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are 'appropriate :in the "project . area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west o,' SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. Z:\LCA\Iiptrap\Board Report.doc I ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 11 of 11 0 LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this `14thday of Dezember Ls9g-, by and between' F hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and the County of Butte, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "County". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain real property hereinafter 3escribed located within County; and WHEREAS, said property is devoted to agricultural uses; and WHEREAS, said property is located within AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. heretofore established by the County; and WHEREAS, both Owner and County desire to limit the use cf said property to agricultural, and compatible uses in order to preserve a maximum amount of agricultural land, to conserve the State's economic resources, to maintain the agricultural economy and. assure a.food supply for future residents, to discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, recognizing that'such land has public value as open space and constitutes an important physical, social, aesthetic, and economic asset to the County, to preserve the natural characteristics, beauty, or to. provide essential habitat for wildlife; and 1.9 WHEREAS, the placement of.said property in an agricultural preserve and the execution and approval of this Agreement is a determination. that the highest and best use of said property during the term of this Agreement or any renewal thereof is for agricultural uses; NOW; THEREFORE; both Owner and County in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained and the substantial public benefits .to be derived therefrom, do hereby agree as follows: 1: This Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as amended (Chapter 7 of Part. 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government. Code of California commencing with Section 51200), including Article 3 of said Act entitled "Contracts". 11: During the term of this Agreement, or any renewal thereof, the said property shall not be used for any "purpose other than agriciultural'uses for producing agricultural commodities, for commercial purposes, and uses compatible with such purposes, which uses are set forth in Exhibit. "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. III: The Board of Supervisors may from time to time and during the term of the Agreement or any extensions thereof, by resolution, add to those compatible uses authorized in the resolution establishing the preserve within which the land is located; provided however, said Board shall not eliminate, without the written consent of Owner, a compatible use during the term'of this. . Agreement or any renewals thereof. The provisions of this Agreement and any resolution supplementing the uses listed in Exhibit "A" is not intended to limit or supersede the planning and zoning powers of the County. " IV: In the event all or a part of the larid subject to this Agreement is taken in an. action in eminent domain or is acquired in lieu of eminent domain for a public improvement, this Agreement shall be null and void. for the land or interest in the land actually taken., but shall remain .2 0'2 I 'a in full force and effect as to the remainder of the land or interesJI t in the land not so taken or acquired. -The date an action in eminent domain is filed shall be the date this. Agreement is deemed null and t void as to. any land or interest in land subject to the Agreement which is taken by. eminent domain. V: This Agreement shall be effective as of the day and year first above written and i_ + shall remain in effect' for a period often (10) years therefrom. This Agr,ement shall be automatically renewed on the first day of January of each year for a period of ten (10) years from the date of said renewal, unless notice.of non -renewal is given as provided in'Sec-ion 51245 of the . Government. Code of California. VI: The Owner understands that he/she is not entitled to any publi. funds by reason ' of the execution of this Agreement or any renewal thereof although the use of said property is limited as aforesaid. VII: This Agreement may only be immediately canceled if, upon petition by Owner, the Board of Supervisors of County, under the provisions of Government Code Sea.tion 51282, finds: (a) thatcaricellation is consistent with the purposes of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; and (b) that cancellation is in the public interest. Upon cancellation, Owner shall pay to County.a cancellation fee determined and certified by the Board of Supervisors of County :n accordance with. the provisions of Government Code Section- 51283. and Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 99-124.,- Said cancellation fee may not be waived except as provided in Government Code Section 5f283 and shall be a lien upon the property described herein until paid. The amount o= the fee shall be an amount equal to 25%0 of the cancellation valuation of the property: One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, and one-half shall ' < be payable to the County of Butte .pursuant to Resolution No.99-124. VIII: Owner agrees, during the term of this Agreement, to provide County, upon written request, with. information relative to the income and expenses derived from and incurred in connection with the use of the land subject to- the Agreement for agricultural and compatible uses. IX: (a) The`Owner agrees that he/she, his/her successors, and assigns shall not . divide by sale, gift, or. financing, the property which is the su��b��ect of this Agreement into a parcel or parcels under separate.ownership having less than acres. However, if &-e division is for purposes of transfer to immediate family members, then the property may be divided into a parcel or parcels under separate ownership having no less than acres,- in accordance with the acreage standards in D-1, Column 1, of Resolution 99-124, provided that a Joint Management Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 51230.1 is executed. (b) A parcel division may occur at less than the. minimum Sizes specified in subsection (a) above if it is pursuant to a use permit for parcel segregation for agric-altural processing and the remaining contracted lands conform to the above minimum sizes. (c) Partial cancellation of this Agreement'for a homesite segregation may only be considered for an existing residence which has been in existence for at least 5 years and the land has been owned for at least 10'years by the owner, as specified in Government Code Section 66474.4 (b)(2), and if a permanent restriction prohibiting residential development is recorded on the balance of the land. Such homesite segregation must be effected through a lot lne adjustment, lot - merger, or tentative parcel map approved pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code and the Subdivision Map Act, and provided that the minimum lot size of the base zoning district is maintained. (d) Partial non -renewal of this Agreement is subject to the following requirements: the portion of the property subject to the non -renewal, and the porion of the property not subject to the non -renewal, must each have not less than Ab acres. 22 4 X: This Agreement shall run with the land described herein and shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and assigns of the Owner and County.. r XI: In the event of forced sale of lands subject -hereto for the settlement of a tax lien, this Agreement. -is null and void as to such land actually sold for that purpose. No penalty as provided for in section VII shall be charged for a cancellation under this paragraph. XII: This Agreement shall be canceled without payments or public hearing if it is replaced by any other enforceable restriction'authorized by Section 8 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, including; but not limited to, an open -space easement agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 51255, 'or whenever there is no operative legislation implementing said Article with respect to assessment practices. XIII: The property of the Owner hereinabove referred to and to w1Lch'the provisions of.the Agreement apply is situated in the County of Butte, State of California and isparticularly described as follows: e e- 5 ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LIPTRAP PROPERTY All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte,. State of California, described as follows; A portion of Remaining Lands as shown on that certain map entitled "Autumn Park Sjbdivision Phase 1", which map was recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, on August 12, 1999 in Book 147 of Maps,'at pages 99 through" 102, more particularly described as follows:. BEGINNING at the southwesterly corner of Lot."A" as shown on said "Autumn Park Subdivision Phase1"; THENCE along a. line parallel with and 60.00 feet northerly of the southerly line of said Remaining Lands, South 89°42'01" West, a distance of 1868.22 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of -California State Highway. 99 E;. THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27006'10" West, a distance of 2:09.82 feet THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line, North 63°19'53" East, a distance of 367.87 feet; THENCE North 26010'00" West, a distance of 185.43 feet; THENCE South 62016'40" West, a distance of 370.91 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of California State Highway 99 E; THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" West, a distance of 302.30 feet to the. beginning of a tangent curve having a radius of 618.80 feet, concave to the southwest, with a chord bearing of North 34 °35'25" West and a chord distance of 165.97 feet; bea - 9 THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line and northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle.of 15024'50", an arc distance of 166.47 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line, North 42017'50" West, a distance of 216.97 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line and along the northerly line of said remaining Lands, North' 89°37'19" East' a distance of 2,74-3.37 feet; THENCE leaving said northerly line; South 00017'59." East, a distance of 718.63 feet to the northeasterly corner of said Lot "A";' THENCE along the northerly fine of said Lot "A", South 89°42'01" West, a distance of 325.00 feet to the northwesterly corner of said Lot "A"; THENCE along the westerly line of said Lot "A", South 00017'59" East, a distance of 200.00 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Lot "A" and. the Point of Beginning; Containing 48.23 acres, more or less. . QVf ESS/04, A. F • No. 33381 Bruce A. Nash R.C.E. 33381 'Registration Expires 06/30/02 ��, C1 V1\ XIV: If the Owner breaches theterms of this Agreement in a manner.which results -in all or any portion of the property which is the subject of this Agreement not being used for the agricultural or open space uses contemplated by this Agreement, the parties agree that the County would suffer damages, but that such damages would be extremely difficult and impracticable -to ascertain. Therefore, the parties agree it is reasonable to determine that the amount of the damages which will be suffered by the County and payable to it by the Owner in such event shall be based upon the following calculation: $100 per month for any month or portion thereof in which such a breach exists, multiplied by. the percentage of the property affected' by said breach. Provided, however, that in no event shall the amount of such damages exceed $10,000. The parties further agree that either party may give noticeof non -renewal or partial non -renewal in accordance with this Agreement and the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as to the property car portion'thereof affected by the breach, and no damages shall accrue pursuant to this section XIV -upon termination of this Agreement. pursuant to said notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner and County have executed thds Agreement the . day and year abovewritten. CO ..OF BUTTE . �— /tan Dolan, Chair Butte ounty Board of Supervisors ATTEST: JOHN BLACKLO CK, Chief Executive Officer and Clerk of the Board '' - 3 �I it ,���— .' _ • STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss. COUNTY, OF On .before me, nom, personally appeared ,personally known to me .(or proved tome on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged• to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies); and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) acted, executed! the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (;Signature��c--�'� > . B, M - " CC1hi1ft:#1158507 • ,. Cn _ � v. NOTARY PUBLIC-CALf±URtdtA co' . Q t . COUNTY Of 131 w My Comm. Exp1mi OcL18,2001 .,55;,0• . (This area for official notarial seal) 1 Title of Document Date of Document No. of Pages Other signatures not acknowledged • 3008 (1/94) (General) m - ACREAGE STANDARDS Column 1 Column 2 r ` Type of Activity Incoming Contract Minimum Acres Building & Selling. minimum , acres Orchards (vineyards, kiwi, fiuit, and nut crops 20 . 40 Field. Crops 80 80. Irrigated Pasture/Riceland 80 80 Wetlands/Prime Hunting 80 r 80 .. Dry Land Grazing 160 320. '. Open Space 160 320 b. General farming, horticulture, commercial livestock production, commercial poultry - production, and similar activities. C. Open space for: 1. Wildlife & biotic habitat. 2. Scenic values. I. Scenic highways and byways. d. Any other use determined by the Board of Supervisors to be a compatible use in all agricultural preserves..29' - 8 e. Housing facilities (including trailers) to accommodate only agriculural employees and their families who are employed by the' owner or operator, to) work on their '• lE contracted lands. f. The drilling for hydrocarbon, including the installation and use of such equipment, structures, and facilities4s are necessary or convenient. 2. Accessory Uses: a. 'War'ehousing and storage of agricultural products. - b. Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses including agricultural' processing plants. r c. A stand or a display for sale of agricultural commodities produced on the premises including the incidental sale of agricultural products produced off -'site. d.. Water storage reservoirs and irrigation areas. e: Hunting and hunting clubs. !' f. Private airport or aircraft landing facilities. a g. Public Utility services. 3.- Conditional Uses: •a. Public and Quasi -Public uses, including structures and buildings. b. Veterinary hospitals and/or clinics.. c. Sand and gravel mine, not including asphalt and concrete batch p.tants. d.. Mines, mineral extraction, and quarries in Agricultural Preserve Numbers 7, 8, and 9. K:\L.CA\AGUSES.AGR 30 9' S ,BASIS OF BEARING ' - THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, - t5D' LEACH - AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL \ FIELD FREE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14, TAKEN AS SETBACK LINE FROM WELL NORTH 89°37'19" EAST. - 760 tet 16• IS3 1[a - 1'05 .170 L�]K OB" \ \ \ /0.443`6 AC 1199•37'17` 2713.37' LL) LOT 0 0 9860 AC 1.0541 3AC LOT 15 - LOT 14 1: 080 AC \7y - I ' 1.0062) _ _ LOT LOT 22 \ 1.0002 AC 1.0019 AC \ (7.0647) (0.8172) LOT 31 00.9645111AAt1110 (0.96 5) / LOT 35 - 1.i.oi AC (0.9650) (0.9667) _ 2 A, ZONE \ �e'�• 1 1 T 37 0.8641 AC (1.0198) (0.8645) (0.9845) - , .12244) (0.7646) . LOT 7 (0 a574 AC 08116) LOT � 34 LOT 5 LOT A 7 08330 AC (0.8268) LOT 28 L-1 64.10 \ \ I 0.8522 AC LOT 24 LOT 21 \ LOT 18 LOT 13 SCALE: 1" _ X0'-0' D - 75'71.40 \ ` (0.8688) 0.83153) \� \ / 0.831530 (0.74 3) \ / (0.7413).8337 1 I/ R=618.80 \ \ LOT32 (0.7383) I I (0.7383) (0.7673) I I (0.7413) _ . LOT 38 - ' 1.0398 AC - .1.3109 AC - (0.9622) I I \ LOT e (1.1082) \ 1 0(o SMS) . �T 2T (o eo]s) E \ .O SIr �JT' S ^9T SR ^6T LOT1 O \ a ^ 1 I I 1.otolAc / \ LOT 28 LOT 25 - I . I LOT 20 LOT 17 I I LOT 12 I \ LOT 3D (\ /) \ 0.9522 AC 0.8956 AC 0.8966 AC 0.8880 A 0.8966 AC - P OJECT \' 7.OT 9 - V I {0.8509) (0.8012) (0.8012) (0.8072) (0.8012) LOTS SIT$ (0.9668) vo \ I I I I I 010 LOT 33 1.3754 AC � (0.8762) I I LOT 3 , 8 ® NA tis°o'e" 7 1 LOT 27 LOT 28 LOT 19 LOT 18 LOT 119 LOT iD ' LOCATION MAP \ a s \ I I 0.9980 AC 0.9900 AC I I \ G.9980 AC 0.9BBOAC I o.8980Ac 0p698AC- a.( \ •'(0.7684) (0.7686) (0.7696) (0.7896) - (0.7684) 10.7547) / STREET 'LOT2' LOT 40 LOT 43 -C- 7.350 AC LEGEND: °� 1.000130 1.0.78 AC (0001 I (0.7859) LOT NUMBER LOT 100 FEMA X 3is:, \ 11 1 nl�T GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE {p I LOT 44 LOT 46 LOT 48 LOT 47 LOT48 LOT 49 LOT 50 LOT 61 LOT 52 LOT 53 NET ACRES (0.8496 "' D.BeBBAC\ 0.6763 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.8701AC I 256 r,. ~ (0.6667) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) - (0.6007) (o.SSW A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, \ LOT 41 LOT42 I I \ \ I 00 LOT °C° ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND 1.0001 AC 0.9462 AC oD LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE .(1.Dool) (0.9676) CONSTRUCTED- \ _ - - - - - •� EXISTWG PA IC I T T Y 11 A \V IC D Q I V 1= � CA. RonOwnr wn -+' - - EXISTING PA. CSA 87 SD AREA / FIRE HYDRANT + -- _ _ -- (TO BE MOVED) SW4701'W 2162 91' ZONE A ZONE X i GENERAL NOTES SUBDIVISION INPORMATION - 7p ,S 1 1 Ln �12�6 J - 1. TMIB TENTATNe MAP HAS BEEN DE 610N1D AND IS BEING ZONING ' �-I}� TI CECCED IN ACC ORDANCB WITX TNQ Ap PR OVED SR I O PRO OWNERS AND OTHER PROVISIONS 01 THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN, OWNERSUBDIVDER: EVELYN UPTRAP t. THE IN T,RIOR SUBDIVISION STREETS SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED 331 WALL STREET ewn Son " - IN ACCORDANCE WIIN LOCAL TYPE L•111 OR TYPE L•V OF THE CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95926 - R.OW. NORTH CHICO 6P EClr IC PLAN. Tei SMALL RQNAIN PRIVATE - �� STREETS AND SNA E. NOT BE OFFERED FOR DeTTYMAW TO THE ENGINEER: 808 FEENEY LOCAL TYPEL-V `tl, Lr/j/-\w`/ COUNTY 01 BUTTE. THE EXTENSION TE IAL TY DRIVE 1250EASTAVENUE,SLATE10 SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS AN ART ERUL TYPE A•N IN APPLIES TO STREETS D, E. F,G6H AC CORDANCe WITH THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN AND CNICO, CALIFORNIA 86973 OFF,RED /OR DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY 01 BUTTE. - 2. THE PROPOSED L07 AREAE SHOWN ARE OR088 LOT AREAS LAND USE: PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL AND INCL LOS THE PROPOSED PRNATa EAS EMe NTS AND THE FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL VESTING tr� EASEMENTS. AS LOT . TAE ((.03 14) EXAMPLE) Le) 8DI ,X CLUSIV2 OF NETEME NT B. THE TOTAL ARIA MOR ) ARa I610N IB 63.1260 ZONING: BRA -� AC REe. pi TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION lUll�►P .. 'Me McTSOD Sewwoe DI6PO CAl AND LOT AREAS UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAS 6ELECTRIC PROF M" N,eTS ALL Re OU IRE.2NTS 0/ APPONDII V11 OF THE TELEPHONE:SBC St BD up' tan BR SS BUTTE COUNTY CODE. SEE EMD NE NO •SOILS WAIVER ° WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK 6: ALL DRAINAGE RUNOFF SMALL Be RETAINED IN THE Rl Te NT10N AND LEACH FIELDS. BASIN PROVIDED. • - son, I 6. A PRIVATELY OWNED COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM SMALL Be - APN: 047.260.197 AND 047.260-199 Ro.w ADIVISION OFREMAINING LANDS,ASSHOWN ONTHAT CERTAIN MAP OF FORMED TO PROVIDE DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE TO THE LOTS AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 11, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS Or ERe 6U IRE0 ION, IRE PRO Tee PROVIDING THE 600 ovM WATER ReO ODIV1 FOR FIRE PROTECTION. _ ° LOCAL TYPE L-111 ° AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 - LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 7 STORM WATER WILL BE RETAINED ON-B1Te IN ROADSIDE LEACH _ - APPL1ES TO STREETS A B S C NORTH, RANGE I EAST, M.D.B. & M. - BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TRENCHES. - _ 0. THE SUBTHEDIVISION HAS AN AVERAGE LOT ARBA Or 0816 ACRES,_AND ' •_ n O - _- -- ' - - -' - BASE PROPERTY AND TNe - SR t ZONING. ONING EA FOR SUBDIVISION 0/ THE FR I FOR NE OR088 AR SUBDIVISION - 0.. 1 AB SHOWN, THE EXISTING SDP AREA WILL BE REMOVED AND WILL BE F THIS PROJECT. ON TME GUERNSEY PRO.I,CT TO THE U Q e QYS -_ - -- EVELYN C. LIFTS V"SP: SOUTH DI THIS PROJED 7, T . 1101IRT7NNR 4RIB .'--E---18n TM�BA� Bn .� - - - t°. 'IN LIEU 0/ LO7 DIMI Ne IONS ON EACH LOT,AS D ME ED BY THE DCO. fw FW2s APPLICATION, WE HAVE PRO ID,O 00.065 PND N,I LOT AReAS BAT66 ASSOOA7FS 18201 BOF-0FFO A ND, WILL PROVIDE LOT DIMENSIONS ON TN9 FINAL MAP. is :ul. •I1.FI tiVR:l R.o _SOODC JANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1 I DMI4AVYSA450CNICSCOM .,«. ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV APPLIES TO KMY11AWK DRIVE V PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMEI` (Submit Original and 4 Copies) To the Board of Supervisors of the County of Buttc. The undersigned hereby petitions) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Bitte to Cancel the Land Conservation Agreement executed betw* wn the County of Butte and L- l P i PQ, /A- P ona `3 as it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve No.- of the County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. [n support of this petition, the undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said i -00� agreement described as follow�Oyr7- _60 ns: , eo0 Si W /1J'6 � I � �� 0_3 jq. G(L f _S PC -7 S c213 Cir A'r�tc�1 r t �6 Z s i 2. That Cancellationot inconsistent with the purpose of.the Williamson ,4 t (Government Cancellation. 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. Executed thisd ' "� day of L'A-!LY �00 `f at ref ! C D California. Petitioner(s) APPENDIX E Date Filed: Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant): GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: G ALL yn! �. I P T,2r3 331 Wt Sr e t+ic 9-CA,Y spa 2. nddressofproject: %�ST 14 ,/!qa'IZ30c0' tJ� �� Gc�jLSaN2 N�� Assessor's Block and Lot Number: A i 3. Name, address, and telephone nuniber.of person to be contacted concerning this FMject: d- PP),ICANi` f}ND N CCtt fZ 4- Type of project: (I C., rezoning, subdivisi) (;+1 /tl-1A✓ ISa A) ,4cT A`;£ .1)� 2_xCi4,NfV&1 PAC'16-P_Ak1_L.Cd�i���P) ��''rb7rNC�- TTa Stif3'1Ji�iiSlt3,v S. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required 'or this project, inclu 'ng those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: _ �1;Tt�f 5U3 Diilt�(v ry M` P u rte.. C4�%fJ_f'{ 1 .6. Existing zoning district: PL A A) 7. Proposed use of site: l �� s t ►"7 !v T i .A t C)wk S[ T f S PROJECT DESCR1P'T ION g. Site sire. . 2 A C.r � S 9 Square footage of building(s). 10. Number of floors of construction. .11. Amount of off-street parking provided. . 12. Attach site development plan. 13. Proposed scheduling. fir' P- / N 6- �� I 14. Associated projects. 15: Anticipated incremental development. l6. ff residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sites, and type o[ household.sirc expected. T rZ-.S (+> iV j �.. cal L A' / w G ! e;,-5 17. if-commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally orie ►tcd, square footage of sales area, and loading Facilities. 13. if indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. . 19. If institutional, indicate the- major function, estimated employment per shut, estimated occupancy, lording facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the projec,_. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state thin and indicates clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects?: Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets As necessary) YES' NO. 21'. Change in existing features of any beaches, lakes, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground coutours. 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas. from existing residential areas or -public lands or roads. { 23'. Significantly change pattern, scale or character of general area of project. V 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 2S: Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. 26. Significant change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, -of alteration of cxisting drainage patters. .27. SuhsUtntial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicirtiy. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 34 percent or more. 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as tcxie substances; flammablcs or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, firer water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumptign (electrictiy, oil, natural gas, etc.) 32" Relationship to part of a larger projector series of projects. I NVTRONMENTAL SETTING 33: Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information ori topography, soil ' stability, plants and animals, .and any cultural, historical, or scenic saspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals attd any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, eor►mercial etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc), and scale of development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.). CFRTIFICATION: i hereby certify that -the statements furnished above and in the at ached exhibits present the data.and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the d are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. facts, statements, and information presente Date (Si . ature) For \\bcdev l\documcnt\appendixE.doc January 29, 2004 Attachment to "Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement" addressing Item 2 under Government Code Section 51282 It is the intention of the, Petitioner to show compliance with all government codes and identify the corresponding public interests served by (a) cancellati_an of the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject property.. Government Code Section 51282 requires two general areas to be addressed: (A) 'Public Interest' will be covered first, followed by (B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest Public interest will be served by cancellation of the LandConservation Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services,. (2) Contiguous Growth Patternand (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continueswithin 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 ($R-1), b). providing additional property for residential developm_=nt in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an .arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garver 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 vehi-les better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drivo :, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane and several additional smaller streets in the area east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire, station located across from the proposed Kittyhawk and Highway 99 intersection. Emergency personnel would gain access to rapidly grre a Te groute residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much o than the existing drive south to the Garner Lane intersection or north to the Keefer Road intersection. This road, as it is already shown on the Plan map, also allows for additional, non -emergency routes to and from Keiffer Road, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing for the enhancemen to t . of general traffic circulation.. As discretionary. funds available Butte County are very limited, the completion of and iihe ednt community benefits of Kittyhawk Drive may not be re antime soon. Cancellation of the Land Conservation Act ot1n Y subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed,`ri ch turn will provide for private funding for the constru`tion of Kittyhawk Drive. Conti ous Growth Pattern .a). The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and for ~ subsequent application for the WAEEP contract will alio. • contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an express desire within Butte County to provide for contiguous growthpatterns as evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resulting orderly growth of residential neighborhoods allows for the cost effective: addition of various support services, ranging from utilities to emergency services. b). The subject property is contiguous on the east border with an existing subdivision and contiguous on the south border with a o unit subdivision which was recently submitted to proposed 5 older almond orehard contiguous. Butte County planning staff • with and to the north of the subject property was leare'd of all trees within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR -1 and is located within the Plan area, will likely be the subject of development pressure in the near.future. Additionally, an exiting subdivision lies to the north of the recently removed almond orchard. 3: A ricultural Element Issues adopted the Agricultural Element in 1995. a). Butte County While the Element's express purpose is to preserve agncultu 2 2 Emergency personnel would gain access to rapidly grre a Te groute residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much o than the existing drive south to the Garner Lane intersection or north to the Keefer Road intersection. This road, as it is already shown on the Plan map, also allows for additional, non -emergency routes to and from Keiffer Road, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing for the enhancemen to t . of general traffic circulation.. As discretionary. funds available Butte County are very limited, the completion of and iihe ednt community benefits of Kittyhawk Drive may not be re antime soon. Cancellation of the Land Conservation Act ot1n Y subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed,`ri ch turn will provide for private funding for the constru`tion of Kittyhawk Drive. Conti ous Growth Pattern .a). The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and for ~ subsequent application for the WAEEP contract will alio. • contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an express desire within Butte County to provide for contiguous growthpatterns as evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resulting orderly growth of residential neighborhoods allows for the cost effective: addition of various support services, ranging from utilities to emergency services. b). The subject property is contiguous on the east border with an existing subdivision and contiguous on the south border with a o unit subdivision which was recently submitted to proposed 5 older almond orehard contiguous. Butte County planning staff • with and to the north of the subject property was leare'd of all trees within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR -1 and is located within the Plan area, will likely be the subject of development pressure in the near.future. Additionally, an exiting subdivision lies to the north of the recently removed almond orchard. 3: A ricultural Element Issues adopted the Agricultural Element in 1995. a). Butte County While the Element's express purpose is to preserve agncultu 2 land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "Allow for the conversion of agricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence where la-id has been determined to be irretrievably lost to urbanization. These would* likely be areas where urban development has surrounded or substantially encroached upon agricultural land and has limited its continued productive use." (Emphasis Added) The subject property was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in 1995 with SR-1 zoning. By placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization'.. The express purpose and `intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. That the subject property is rapidly being "surrounded" and "substantially encroached upon" is clearly the case at hand. Following extensive planning and research on the part cf Butte County with the aid of citizen input, this property was designated for residential development nearly,10 years ago. b). The issue of "limited continued productive use" as- noted above is the result of several factors which are also pointed' out in the Agricultural Element. Under Goal 2, Policies, Programs, Item 2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot "BUFFER BE ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL' DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT EXISTING' AGRICULTURAL USES FROM INCOMPATIBLE USE CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already been waived on the east border of the subject property mid appears that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to the south of the subject property. Granted, the Element, allows for the 300 foot standard to be "adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Those "unusual circumstances", specifically, the legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural practices of an orchard operation, have made continues operation of the subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting' multiple health and safety hazards at worst to neighboring residents. The following points'are part of the Environmental Information Form that accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review at this point as legitimate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an urban setting: 3 Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, filmes 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 wam 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. 3' In summary, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the ,Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue of Contiguity for efficient growth and development, ' and (3)' conforms to the spirit and intent found within the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is the express purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. . As an adaitional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exchange requires the California Department of Conservation to review this petition, to be in substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department can agree is acceptable and suitable for the exchange. 4 .10 In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found'to be F warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to ,effect a ` WAEEP plan. If, however, the Petitioner can find no acceptable WAEEP property for an exchange within.a reasonable time, it is the desire of the Petitioner to proceed with' the cancellation of the Land Conservation. Agreement and to pay the cancellation penalty fees as determined-by the Land Conservation Agreement recorded on December 22, 1999. ' Part B Five Findings Consistent with the Purposes of the Code Subsequent to the issues regarding Public Interest as described, Code Section 51282 -goes on to require that the board or council make all of the follcwmg findings: t L Notice of non-renewal has been submitted in a timelY: rlanner 2. Cancellation / ekchange will not result in adjacent land being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands adjacent to the subject property are located within the North Chico Specific ' Plans designated area for, development and are not currently in agricultural use or are already utilized as suburban residential. Any area to the west of the subject property (across Highway 99 to II 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.. F 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject property being. used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Chi© Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a precise guideline for growth and development over, and above the General Plan, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement brings the subject property into conformity with the Specific Plan and its long-range goals. ' 4 Cancellation / exchange will not result in, discontiguous development patterns as the. subject property is in fact contiguous „ with existing residential development as well as land currently in ` the development review process with Butte County 5. There is no."proximatenon-contracted land" which is both . available and suitable" ; and even if land was found which could be considered "available and suitable", it -would not provide for a ' "more contiguous pattern of urban development than development ; of proximate non -contracted land." The subject proper _y is , ' currently surrounded on two of three possible sides by urban development. The fourth side is across Highway 99 and falls ' outside of the Specific Plan area and is therefore unsuitable for urban development. . • r The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons for t cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. r Petitioner Date ' i LCAExchanggeDraft103 Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Information Item 22. As seen from SR -99, the property has a minimal wire fence along the highway and the southerly boundary. When completed, residential 6' high decorative sound walls along SR -99 and Kittyhawk Drive and/or fences will be constructed surrounding the project. The orchard will still be seen from the highway as well as may rooftops of the homes, once constructed. Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as.a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (e). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27.There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is.a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the . proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. Items 30 & 31. Any substantial change in demand for municipal services or increased fossil fuel consumption would be in accordance with and in compliance to the intended uses of the area as defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. 13 Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of - the North `Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is partof 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 boundari•-s of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan); as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a 30 year old 93 +/: acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly on Garner Lane and westerly on SR -99. Two earlier phases of division (1999 and 2000) on the easterly end created Autumn Park Subdivision, the divisions of which created -40 one acre home sites and a remainder of 52.72 acres. The remainder parcel is the project site. The site slopes uniformly from approximately 186' on the northeasterly boundary to .approximately 181' on the southwesterly boundary. The soils are stable and are categorized as vina loam. There are no rare or endangered plants or animals on the property and no•known cultural, historical or scenic features: There is one existing agricultural accessory . structure (approximately 24'x 60') on Lot 39 which will "remain. The structure is shown on the attached tentative map. " '. ' (Please see attached photographs) Item 34. The properties to the west are primarily agricultural in nature. The property to the south, owned by Guernsey, has been submitted to Butte. County for subdivision into 50 lots. Southeasterly "and directly east of the , project site are single family residential home sites ranging in various -sizes and ages. The property to the north and northeast .has been cleared of, the remaining remnants of an old almond orchard. It has been vacant and continues to be vacant of any use other than two home sites. Within these immediate areas there are no "known rare or endangered plant or animals, nor are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. '! The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. ' Each proposed lot and home, when built, will meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, i 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) v KtyHwkLCA CXL_102 „ r GARNER - WESTERLY DOWN KITTYHAWK DRIVE SOUTHERLY FROM SOUTHEAST . PROP. UNE VIEW OF PROPERTY SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE NORTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE NORTHEAST FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE SOUTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP_ UNE EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND SOUTH FROM SOLETHEAST PROP. LINE - �` Yom' E -fir � h ti si 'F VIEW OF PROPER' .NORTH OF PROJE, VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 ON LOT 39 ki 1 . ! r 46 • f 1 LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES - JUNE 30, 2004 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the 3A County Center Conference doom, #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 Joluison 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 Chainrian of this Committee and asked the public members to state their expertise and how long they have been on the Committee. , Lewis Johnson said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee for some time now. Joe Connell said he was taking Bill Olsen's place from the Farm Advisory Agency. Clarence Daley said he is a cattleman and has been.on the Committee for 15 years. . Dave Skinner•said he was,a farmer and has been on the Committee approximately 6 years. II. 'Applications. for immediate cancellation: Evelyn C. Liptrap —,APN 047-260'199 Mr. Breedon gave'a brief summary of this project., He explained the Williamson Act Easement. Exchange. Program (WAEEP). He briefly read the findings necessary to cancel a contract. He said he would like input from the Committee before developing findings which could be handled by the Committee giving instruction on each finding for staff to develop the findings.and bring them back to the Committee, or take the finding to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lewis asked if the area in question fell under the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). Mr. Holland said just the property on the east side of Highway 99. ■ Land Conservation Committee a Minutes a June 30; 2004 a Page 1 a -31 for farmers- to deal with the intrusion of residential dwellings and their Mr. Lewis said it is hard animals.: . Chairman Christopher said there is a 300 -foot agricultural buffer on the residential property. Mr. Lewis questioned the impact to the Highway. Mr. Breedon said that would be looked at in subsequent development actions. Mr.. Skinner asked about Kitty. Hawk Drive being completed to Highway 99. Chairman Christopher stated the road is planned, but not built. Mr. Breedon said it is a proposed alignment and is supported by the NCSP. The discussion was opened to the public. George Nicholaus said the property is bounded on the east by residential. He said the property to the. south is proposed for 50 residential units. He said to the north of the project site is approximately.68 acres of what use to be an almond orchard and is now bare land. Mr. Price asked how long before. farming stops -on the Liptrap property. Mr.. Nicholaus said the plan is to farm up to the time of development. He said he talked to Mr. Levey about his orchard that is not being taken care of. Mr. Skins er asked where the 300 -foot buffer was applied. Chairman Christopher said the buffers are applied on the new development side. Mr. Lewis asked what was located on the west side. He noted that there is a dust situation. Mr. Price said there are almonds.. He said the highway is wide and helps with the buffer. Mr. Nicholaus said the north boundary is SR -1 zoning. Mr. Lewis asked what is.entailed with the trading of contract lands. Mr. Breedon explained that it is a very lengthy process. He said there is no application for trading lands at this time. Mr. Hays asked if the $625,000+ figure was a penalty fee. He said it was his assessment that the $625,000 was the valuation of the 43 acres. Mr. Bailey said that the $625,000 isa 25% fee based on the current fair market value if unrestrictive.. He said the memo submitted should read "fee". and .not "value." 32 ■ Land Conservation Committee a Minutes ® June 30; 2004 a Page. 2 Mr. Holland explained how to figure.the penalty fees which are based on the fai- 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 ana'he did not know how to do that: Mr.. Breedon went through the justification for making the findings submitted by he 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 Bindings. 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. Fe 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, al 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 Deing taken out of production. He said 4 '/z yearsago iri 1999, this Commission placed the property m 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 i 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 wrier contract for a minimum of 10 years. He said the Committee has to balance out what was dcne 4 '/2 years ago against what they do now. Mr. Hays said that Ms. Liptrap was told by Mr. Reimers, Assessor that the land was going to be re- assessed at $50,000 an acre. He said Ms: Liptrap informed Mr. Reimers that she would not be, able 33 ■ Land Conservation Committee u Minutes ®June 30, 2004 ® Page.) ■ to afford the taxes and was told she could put the property into the Williamson Act. He assured the Committee that the only reason Ms. Liptrap put the property. under, contract was because she was advised to do so by the Assessor's Office. Mr. Bailey said according to the minutes of 1999, the Williamson Act conditions were explained to Ms. Liptrap and she agreed to them by signing the Agreement. He felt she should be.bound by the contract she signed. Mr. Nicholaus discussed the letter from the Department of Conservation as to the F-dvisability of this land going into a contract. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation, commented in their letter stating "The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential _housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in' 1995 and the County and the landowner entered into a Land Conservation Agreement in December. 1999. Since the Liptrap property was clearly within a planning area identified for development, the initiation of the Land Conservation Agreement in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when land designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restrictions to . agricultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as ' to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Breedon said th:. 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-befo_e the. Committee today, only the cancellation process. Mr. Nicholaus said the Department of Conservation questions the viability of tlus property going into . the Williamson Act. , Mr. Connell said it states in the letter that one of the findings is that there is no other property available to be developed in a similar manner. He said in looking at the map, thi's 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. S 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. a Land Conservation Committee a Minutes n June 30, 2004 v Page 4 34- Mr. Price said he understands that this property wi I1 be developed eventually. Chairman Christopher said the question is whether it is appropriate to cancel this contract or should it go through the 10 -year non -renewal process. Mr. Skinner said at this time the land is not contiguous and there are open areas both north and south of this property. He said until the southern development is approved the applicant is in limbo here. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel to discuss what is considered contiguous. Mr. MacKenzie said there is .no definition for contiguous. He said regarding .t7e second half of Finding 5; it does not seem that there is an argument that there is no proximate ncn-contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, because there is a parcel on the north and a parcel on the south. He said they -are looking at the question of whether the development of the contracted land would provide a more contiguous pattern of urban development. Mr. Hays said when the County first approved the Specific Plan area, LAFC•) 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 ir'side a plan. She reminded the Committee that why this property came into the Act is not the focus of this hearing. She said they need to determine if it is in the best interest to release the property from its contract quickly or long term and if the Committee can meet the findings to release it qui.: kly. 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 tha, the NCSP allows existing orchards to continue without interference by development. It was moved by Mr. Skinner that the Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee to detennine that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use and that the development of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard.would provide a more co.ztiguous pattern of development, seconded by Mr. Daley. 35 ■ Land Conservation Committee u Minutes a June 30, 2004 n 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 cgpsidered 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 takTs 10 years. Mr. MacKenzie said he did not think that the Comm ittee could make the first half of the findings for #5. He said, however, on the second part of the finding; "development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pattern of urban development" it sounds like this parcel is being compared. to the parcels on either side and the Committee is making a finding that it would make a more contiguous pattern of urban development"than the other two parcels. He said th-- question is what: would make 'this. parcel more contiguous than another and, the applicant haE 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. .36 mI Land.Conservation Committee u Minutes n June 30. 2004 ®.Page 6 Mr. MacKenzie said'tliere needs to be facts in the motion that define why it is that this particular; parcel would provide for a more.contiguous pattern of urban development than th? other parcels on the north and south. Chairman Christopher asked Mr. Skinner, if this'fuiding passes, would he be com--ortable with staff detailing out the reasons for ayes vote on the find i ngs. Mr. Skinner said he would be comfortable, with. staff delineating out the reasons for approval. AYES: Mr. Skinner, Mr. Daley, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Price NOES: Mr.'Contiell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED::Chairman Christopher Discussion on #11 = "That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice'of Non -Renewal has been served. " Mr. Bailey said that the Contract is dated 12/22/99; the Notice of Non -Renewal was recorded 5/28/04. He said per Government Code 51245 the Notice of Non -Renewal must come at least 90 days prior to the adversity date of the contract; ,which meant it would have bmn 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 P. Mr. Breedon said it is for the 2005 assessment roll. Mr. Holland said it means that the contract does not terminate in 2012; it terminates in 2013, so the form is wrong. He said tectmically the Conunittee can not make this finding... Chairman Christopher asked if the information and dates need to be changed ane Mr. Holland said yes. She asked if the forms were corrected, could the finding be met. Brief discussion. Mr. Breedon said the finding is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel if the Committee could be hearing an issue for non -renewal in next year's tax rolls today at this meeting. Mr. Mackenzie said the question is when the Board can make the requisite findings that something has been voted on before January 2005. Chairman Christopher asked what the law says about this notice being in a timely manner. Mr. Breedon said the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served pursuant to Government Code 51245. . 37 ervntinn C n remittee. ® Minuteq ® .Tune 10 ?004 m Pa.7e 1 ` Mr. Mackenzie read. Government Code Section 5 124 5. 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 land:, 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 alrTady 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 dint, notice, etc. He discussed the effect on the property across the street. Chairman Christopher said a discussion should have occurred at the point the pare --1 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. Skirmer, 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. Johrison NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED:. Chairman Christopher Mr. Breedon reported back to the Committee that the letter requesting non -renewal of the Contract was dated September 7, 2003. He said the request was sent to the Board of Supervisors which the Board acknowledges and then the Notice is recorded. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ June 30, 2004 ■ Page 8 to 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 BoardshalI 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 cid 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, Goveriunent Code, etc., that tells us in black and white a procedure different than what the department has been follow _ng. Mr. MacKenzie said that in the evidence code there is a section called " Servim by Mail" which means that you are deemed served 5 days after someone mails you a letter. Finding # 1— vote. Chairman Christopher recapped that a letter was received 9/7.'03 , that was more than 90 days less than the contract date in December. It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to find that the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley; Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #3= vote It was moved by Mr. Comiell, 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 C aunty General Plan. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. -oohnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ; -ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #4 — vote It was moved by Mr. Price, seconded by Mr. Johnson; and carried to find that cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development. AYES: Mr: Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr.. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. _Johnson NOES: No one 39 .. T anr� ('nncarvatinn (,n' rnittee n Minutes ® June M. 2004 ® FaQ6 9 a. ABSENT: Noone ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Findings under Public Interest. Finding #1 Vote It was moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors find that other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. AYES: Mr. Price; Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr.' Skinner, and Mr. Jclznson 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 recommenc.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 thatdevelopment 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. Skimzer, 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 Ass: ssor's Office. He . said he did not want the applicant's representatives to leave this.room today thinking that there is an appeal to that decision.. He said there may, not be an appeal process because tris is a contractual situation. Mr. Lewis asked what the fees were based on, the 2012 or the 2013 dates as th, final date. Mr. Holland explained that the difference in one year would not affect the evaluation. BREAK - 11:25 to:11:35 a.m. T and (nncP.rvatinn Committee ■ Minutes a June 30, 2004 m Page 10 D E P A R T M E N T OF CONSERVATION. S T A T E O F CA L I F O R N I A BUT s F APR 2 8 2P Opt DEA7 Ec L0FIN1 PST April 26, 2004 SEIRVICEs DIVISION OF Mr. Dan Breedon, Principal Planner LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION Butte County Dept. of Developmental Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 +801 .K STREET SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA RE: Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement; 95814 APN 047-250-199, Landowner:,Evelyn Liptrap PHONE 916/324-0850 Dear Mr. Breedon: FAX 916/32'7-3430 Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 for the above INTERNET consrv.ca:gov referenced matter. The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on GRAY DAVIS a roximatel 4823 primeagricultural acres, currently. planted with GOVERNOR pp Y. productive walnut trees, for the development of 53 residential building lots. The subject parcel was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in 1995 with Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum zoning. The landowner entered into the land conservation agreement with Butte County on December 22,-1999. The subject site is located east of Highway 99, north of Wilson Landing Road in Butte County. ' Cancellation Findings The applicable Williamson Act contract (Section VII, page -3) provides that tentative approval for cancellation may be granted only if the Board makes both of the following findings: 1) cancellation is consistent with purposes of the Williamson Act, and 2) cancellation is in the public interest. The contract requirements that both findings must be made are more. stringent than required in Government Code §51282. Section 51282 requires that either the consistency or public interest findings must be made by the Board. Government Code §51240 provides that contract provisions may provide for restrictions, terms and conditions, including payments and fees, more restrictive than or in addition to those required by the Act. The Butte County Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee will make a recommendation on the proposed cancellation to the Board of Supervisors.. Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 2 of 4 In addition to the requirement that both findings be made by the Board, tl-e 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 s-iall 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 con_ract 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. mal. 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 old=r orchard. It is speculated that this property is subject to development pressure from proposed and completed development in the Specific Plan area. Since agricultural lands lie west across Highway 99, outside the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan, it appears the requested contract cancellation is unlikely to result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. The proposed alternative use,.fifty-three residential building lots, is consistent with the County's General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject parcel is zoned 42 Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 ` Page 3of4 for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to the east and south. The Department agrees that development of the subject parcel will not result in a... discontiguous pattern of urban development. Evidence to substantiate a finding that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted Land does not appear, adequate. In reviewing the County's Williamson Act map and the North Chico Specific Plan there appears to be noncontracted land within the Plan available and zoned for residential use. These noncontracted lands are contiguous to existing urban, development and lie to the north, of the subject site and southeast of MuJd Creek. However, since tho Liptrap property is adjacent.to similarly developed pioperty ;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 profi-_able 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 ares; 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 providir,'g a more direct route for emergency.vehicles. Any decision to cancel a land conservation contract based upon a finding) that the continued restricted use is contrary to the public interest must also investigate the Mr. Dan Breedon._ April 26, 2004 Page 4 of.4 criteria used for or 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 intra Land -Conservation Agreemnt 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 lanc. 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 agr'cultural 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 tha 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 nn '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,