Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-011 .. ~/ .. ' ~. ~ TM P,,, i *, ~ z i ~ ~~ 1~ ~iv_'~~:, ..,.. ~_:~ W ~ ~ ., ., =~~ BOARD O'F SUPERV~S~ORS ' ~~ C0CINTY OF EsCiTTE, STATE OF CALIFnRNIA;: vy: _ Resolution No. 84-11 RESOL~]TION APPROVING TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF THE WILLIAMSON ACT FOR MIDWAY ORCHARDS WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 51282.1, Midway Orchards submitted an application for withdrawal from the Williamson Act Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 51282.1, an environmental impact report was prepared; and WHEREAS, this Board has held public hearings on the request for withdrawal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by this Board that tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for Midway Orchards property is adopted pursuant to the following determinations and findings: 1. The Midway Orchards property, consisting of 110 acres identified as Assessor's Parcel 40-02--116, is the subject of a petition for cancellation of a Land Conservation Act Contract pursuant to the special window provision of the Williamson Act (AB 2074). The petition was accepted for filing by the County on May 28, 1982. The proposed alternative use of the property is a low density residential development of one dwellling unit per acre. The conceptual development plan indicates the clustering of 110 units on the 110 acres with a variety of housing types in a PA-C zone. A 200- foot building setback buffer is proposed to surround the development. The Board held duly noticed and conducted public hearings on the petition and received evidence from all interested and affected persons. 2. With regard to the cancellation pursuant to AB 2074, the Board is required to make and does hereby make the following findings: A. The cancellation and proposed alternative use of the subject property will not result in a discontiguous pattern of urban development. In using the word "pattern," the Legislature intended that the Board look to all of the conditions and circumstances in the geeneral vicinity of the project site and not restrict itself only to properties sharing a common boundary line with the project site. This legislative intent is clarified by AB 779, which was signed by the Governor in September of last year. The project is -2- found to comply with the Board's adopted definition of "contiguous" which reads, "consistent with the development of the area or neighborhood not resulting in discontiguaus patterns of urban development." The alternative use proposed by Midway Orchards is consistent with the present and future planned development of the surrounding area. The project site is directly contiguous to the Southgate Industrial Community, property which has been general planned, zoned and developed for urban industrial uses over the last ten years. Additionally, Southgate Industrial Subdivision Unit 2, an application presently in process by the County, incorporates the construction of urban improvements directly alongside the eastern boundary of Midway Orchards for a distance of approximately 1/3 mile. Those improvements will, in part, consist of a drainage detention basin with pipeline. Further, there are other properties currently zoned and/or developed for residential uses in the vicinity of the project site, including but not limited to the Entler Avenue subdivision, at densities comparable to and compatible with the density proposed in the alternative use conceptual development plan. All urban infra-structure is readily available and accessible to the project site. Finally, the project design of the conceptual development plan entails a number of features to establish a transition buffer between urban and rural uses in the area. B. The proposed alternative use of the subject property is consistent with the applicable provisions of the County General Plan in effect on October 1, 1981. The land use map designation at that time was low density residential, a classification that permitted from one to four dwelling units per acre. The conceptual development plan for the project site proposes a density of one dwelling unit per acre, the least possible density within the permitted range. Thus, the proposed alternative use conforms to the site designation criteria for low density residential set forth in the Land Use Element of the County General Plan in effect on October 1, 1981. Further, the conceptual development plan proposes a project design of clustered dwelling units with a substantial 200-foot building setback buffer around the perimeter of the property. This design of the project site is superior to a conventional grid subdivision (such as the 201-lot proposal for the site in 1978) because of the significant preservation of open space and the enhanced compatibility with surrounding lands. The proposed project design will also comply with a resource management policy of -3- the applicable County General Plan for agriculture and crop land that low density rural residential development should be allowed as a buffer between intensive agricultural uses and urban development. still further, the applicable County General Plan recognized and recited the "American Concept of Property Rights" which requires the County to ailow wherever possible a profitable economic use for each parcel. The Board has been presented with substantiai evidence that the subject property cannot be utilized for productive and economically viable agricultural purposes. Finally, the proposed alternative use would facilitate the accomplishment of numerous housing element goals and policies through the provision of a diverse range of pausing types near areas of urban development and employment. 3. Cancellation of the Land Conservation Act Contract for the Midway Orchards property is subject to the payment of cancellation fees in the amount prescribed by statute and determined by the assesor. Those fees are to be paid prior to any subsequent discre- tionary action by the County relating to the property. 4. Frior to the filing of a certificate of cancellation, Midway orchards shall obtain approval of a General Plan amendment, zone change and subdivision map as necessary to accommodate the proposed alternative use. 5. The Final Environmental Impact Report, which includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the comments received thereon and the responses to those comments, has been completed in compliance with the Calfiornia Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guide- lines and the County Environmental Review Guidelines. No comments regarding the environment were received during the public hearings that have not already been discussed in the responses contained in the Final EIR. The Final EIR was fully and carefully considered in arriving at a decision on the petition for cancellation. 6. Although the cancellation and proposed alternative use of the subject property is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment, most significant effects can be eliminated or reduced to a level of non-significance by the adoption of mitigation measurers for the subsequent residential subdivision of the property as proposed by the alternative use conceptual development plan. In addition to the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project approval, there are numerous overriding considerations with respect to any remaining unmitigated significant environmental impacts. 7. The Final EIR identifies environmental effects resulting from implementation of the project. The EIR further addresses the significance of those impacts and the availability of mitigation -4- measures to reduce them. The recommended mitigation measures summarized on pages one through four of the EIR are hereby made a part of the project approval. 8. On page 3b of the Final EIR, six particular adverse impacts of the project are identified for which specific comments are warranted: A. Storm water runoff will increase. While such run- off will necessarily increase as an ordinary consequence of any development, subsequent development will include overall drainage and grading of the property will be undertaken to direct drainage to the landscaped areas as a means of enhancing percolation and reducing runoff from the site. B. Area traffic and traffic-related noise and air pollution would increase. This impact is again one which necessarily results from any proposed development. Miti- gation measures specified in the EIR will substantially reduce those impacts. A left turn lane will be constructed at the intersection of Mary Bill Ranch Road and the Midway. Warning signs will be required at the railroad crossing to the acccess road. The applicant shall consider the instal- lation of an automatic warning device at the railroad crossing. Construction-related impacts will be of short- term duration only. Dust control methods will be implemented to reduce air quality impacts during construction. Noise from vehicular traffic on the Midway or from infrequently passing trains on the railroad track will be mitigated by the 200-foot buffer zone along the western boundary of the property. Finally, as indicated in the statements of overriding consideration to follow, the location of housing to centers of industrial business in the south Chico area will act to reduce air pollution through shorter commutes. C. Approximately 110 acres of land will be removed from agricultural production. However, this removal is more theoretical than practical. All evidence presented suggests that the subject property is currently only marginally productive at best. Such evidence additionally indicates that the property cannot be operated on a viable basis as a commercial almond orchard, and its feasibility for other field or orchard crops on a commercial basis is highly doubtful. Further, overriding considerations are applicable to this matter. D. A potentially conflicting land use will be introduced into an agricultural area. Any adverse impacts will be reduced considerably by the 200-foot building setback buffer from the property lines. This setback will be a benefit for -5- making the project compatible with adjacent agricultural, residential and industrial uses. As stated under the industrial site designation criteria in the Land Use Element, it is not desirable to locate residential uses immediately adjacent to industrial uses; therefore, the buffer created by the building setback will meet this site designation criteria. Furthermore, the building setback buffer is consistent with the Land Use Element resource management policy of encouraging rural residential uses as a transition between intense agricultural and urban uses. E. Demand for public services and utilities will increase. This impact, like others recited above, necessarily results from any proposed development. In any event, public services and utilitites are currently available in the vicinity of the project site, and they can readily be expanded and accessed to the site. F. Energy consumption would increase. This again necessarily follows from any development. Energy facilities and supply are, however, currently available in the vicinity of the project site to accommodate any increase in needs. 9. Some of the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR may not be completely eliminated or reduced to a level of nonsignificance by redesign of the project or by incorporation of mitigation measures at this point in time because of the conceptual nature of the development plant for the proposed alternative use of the subject property. Nevertheless, any such impacts will be more specifically addressed in supplemental environmental documentation prepared in connection with subsequent discretionary action by the County to consider more detailed development plans for the property. Notwithstanding the foregoing and in light of the current project description and all available information, a number of overriding considerations of economic, social and other importance are found: A. The proposed alternative use will provide potential housing for employees of industrial businesses in the South Chico area. Such housing would also be advantageous in that workers would be close to their place of employment, reducing cross-town traffic. In addition to encouraging shorter commutes to employment centers, there will be a corresponding reduction in fuel consumption and air pollution. B. The proposed alternative use will create short-term benefits occurring during the construction phase of the project, providing new employment opportunities and otherwise boosting the local economy. -6- C. The proposed alternative use will improve the quality of groundwater in the general area of the project site inasmuch as the discontinuance of farming activities on the site, particularly where extraordinary chemical treatments are proposed to remedy severe horticultural problems, will reduce the introduction of organic and nonorganic contaminants into the groundwater, D. The conceptual development plan will provide a planned residential community which proposes a wide variety of housing both in product style and price, offering shelter for first-time home buyers as well as move-up housing potential. E. By proposing housing opportunities for a diversity of income levels and lifestyles, the conceptual development plan furthers the housing goals expressed in the County General Plan. F. The proximity of the project site to major existing urban infrastructure, such as roads, water, gas, electrical and telephone, represents a contiguous urban expansion as opposed to a leapfrog urban development. G. The proposed alternative use results in a reduced nuisance potential by establishing a use compatible with both existing and future anticipated uses in the area surrounding the project site. H. The removal of the project site from agricultural production will have the potential for strengthening the integrity of remaining existing agricultural lands and operations. Sma11-scale investment agriculture, such as that undertaken at Midway Orchards, has had a generally negative impact upon professional/commercial farmers. As a matter of common sense, the overabundance of producers and oversupply of product is in the long-run counterproductive to the continued viability of large-scale commercial agri- culture in the county. I. The conceptual development plan could establish recreational amenities which are proposed to be managed predominantly by a homeowners association, thereby possibly reducing County service costs. J. Traffic circulation and safety will be improved in the project area by, among other things, the installation of a left-turn lane at the intersection of Maxy Bill Ranch Road and the Midway. ld. The various alternatives to the project identified and evaluated in the Final EIR are rejected in favor of the project approved. -7- A. As to the no project alternative, the subject property has been shown to be infeasible as an almond orchard on a commercial basis, and its feasibility for other field or orchard crops on a commercial basis in highly doubtful. Further, the Williamson Act Amendment has provided a one-time window for the withdrawal of agricultural lands from Land Conservation Act Agreements if certain criteria have been met. All available evidence demonstrates that Midway Orchards' petition for cancellation meets the State criteria, and the no project alternative would not be consistent with the facts as applied to the recent legislation. In addition, approval of the proposed alternative use will have no precedential effect since there are no other pending window provision applications and all subsequent cancellation petitions must conform to the otherwise applicable Williamson Act criteria. B. As to a lower density alternative, the proposed alternative use is already at the least possible density under the applicable General Plan Land Use Element designa- tion. In any event, a lower density would not substantially reduce or eliminate any remaining unmitigated significant impacts. C. As to a higher density alternative, greater impacts would likely occur by doubling, tripling or quadrupling the density versus the conceptual development plan of 110 dwelling units in a cluster arrangement, which represents the least possible density pursuant to the General Plan and which conforms to all applicable policies thereof. D. As to a light industrial alternative, the environ- mental impacts would, even more so than the higher density alternative, likely be substantially greater on surrounding properties than for the proposed alternative use. In addition, the further encroachment of industrial uses into agricultural areas is disfavored absent extraordinary circumstances which are not present in this case. Also, Appendix 7, received from the Planning Department, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is included as part of the final document. -8- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, this 24th day of January, 1984, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler and Chairman Saraceni NOES Supervisors Dolan and Fulton ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None ~~ AL SARACENI, Chairman of the Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: MARTIN J. NICHOLS, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board o By ~~ ~vr.~.e.Pl~,-~T • '. i~Izdway Orchards - -- SCSI # 83080918 `~" .APPENDIX 7 PART A I. a. Letter £rom Dept. of Conservation dated December 15, 1983 b. Planning Department Response lI. a. Letter from Dept. a£ Conservation dated November 2:I, 1983 b. Memorandum to Board of Supexvisors c. Copy of AB 7~9, Agri.cultural Lands-Williamson Act Contracts-Cancellation PART B List of Those Commenting on Project or Draft ETR i~ ~r ---- ~~~~ ~Stnte~of Ca~iforrria ,, ~. RESOURCES AGENCY Ol~ CALIFORNIA ~~emorandum To = Dr. Gordon F. Snow Assistant Secretary for Resources Mr. Stephen A. Streeter J Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Date ~~.~ ~ ;. j~~~ St+bjecr: Midway Orchards FE2R Sch #83$0918 ij[J#t C GAO. I~ldi'}f! 9e i ~ ~`.¢p~~ From Department of Conservntior~-Office of the Director L'rovifle, C~~4i,arri~ The Department of Conservation has received the Planning Department's reply to our comments on the Midway Orchard Williamson Act Cancellation DETR and would like to make the following observations in acknowledgement. The Department's primary interest in this project is the protection of an important state resource - productive farmland. The Williamson Act contract cancellation issue is an administrative one, requiring interpretation of generally straightforward criteria, established by state law. We have indicated our concerns regarding the cancellation in a letter to the Board of Supervisors' Chairperson dated November 21, 1983 (a copy is enclosed for your information and use}. Beyond the administrative issues, the consideration of impacts of such a cancellation on this state resource should include not only the direct loss of farmland to non--agricultural uses, but the potential conversion of surrounding farmland. For the Department, if the Midway Orchards Williamson Act contract cancellation•is approved, the question becomes one of whether or not the property, and surrounding properties are of agricultural value, and therefore whether this conversion represents a lass of good farmland. We agree with the Butte County Planning Department staff that existing information does not yet allow for an objective determinat~.on o£ this question: updated, detailed soil information and a conjunctive agricultural economic assessment regarding the value of the land under- alternative crap management is still needed. According to the soil survey of the Chico area, the project site is covered by what was mapped in 1929 as the Vina loam, "one of the most highly prized" agricultural soils of the region (p. 38, Soil Survey of the Chico Area, California). The description of this soil, however, also includes a Vina loam, shallow phase. This phase is the Vina loam where it is underlain by the Tuscan stony clay loam or the Anita soil, a heavy textured, hardpan soil. In addition, the map accompanying the sail survey report PART A I• a• ._... _ __ _._._ __._~.... , ___-_..k. Dr. Gordon Mr. Stephen Page 2 F. Snow A. Streeter indicates that the Midway orchard vicinity includes stony and gravelly areas, perhaps inclusions of the Vina stony loam. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain the agricultural status o£ the area in question from this old soil survey. The applicant does a good job of documenting the problem that his orchard faces from the bacterial canker. Nevertheless, an adequate economic/agronomic assessment is still necessary, to determine the agricultural potential of -the site for other more resistant crops, such as alfalfa, as suggested by University o£ California Extension Plant Pathologist, William Moller {Revised DEIR for the Chico Area Land Use Plan, Appendix 8, Exhibit K). The Department restates its DF~R.recommendation that if a Williamson Act Cancellation is granted, and the applicant applies for a general plan amendment, a soil investigation be required for this property. The products of this investigation should include a detailed soil map based an actual soil. sampling and profile descriptions, and an agricultural suitability assessment. We recommend that the latter item discuss, in detail, the limitations and opportunities that the site offers for the production of commercial. crops typically grown in the area, as well as the economic costs/benefi.ts of each. If you have any questions please-call me at (916) 322--5873. Again, thank you for the opportunity to have input on this issue. Sincerely, Enclosure ~~' `'' ` Dennis J. O'Bryant Environmental Program Coordinator cc: Ken Trott Division of Land Resource Protection Art Mills Chief, Division of Land Resource Protection ~. I~4idway Orchards ~. ~ ~ AP AO-02-l1b SCH ~ 83080918 Planning Department response to letter from Dept. of Consexvata.on dated December 15, 1983. The letter basically reiterates comments made in their earlier letter of August 31, 1983 (reference: Appendix 5, II.a: of the EIR). Additional comments to those made in Appendix S, II.b. of the EIR -are as follows: Page 1, Second Para ra h - A statement is made that they are concerned not only w~.t tic irect loss of farmland to non-agricultural uses, but the potential conversion of surrounding farmland". Such potential conversion was addressed, to an extent, in the revised draft EIR and f~.nal EIR for the Chico Area band Use Plan, SCH # 80092314. Addition- al, data will be forthcoming (mast likely as an EIR supplement) as part of a General Plan Amendment to an urban designation. The present General Plan designates the subject area as Orchard and Field Crops. Pale 1, Third Paragraph -- T}~e ttvo questions raised are: 1. "whether ar not theTpraperty, and surrounding properties are of agricultural value" and 2. "whether this conversion represents a loss of good farmland". In order to objectively determine a response to these questions, the Dept. of Conservation recommends that "updated, de- tailed sail information" be obtained together with an "agricultural economic assessment regarding the value of the land under alternative crop management". We concur that such data would be highly beneficial in making a decision about this proposal. While time does not allotiti- for the preparation of such data prior to a tentative Board action on the Williamson Act Cancellation, staff wall work towards including such information in t}~e EIR supplement for the Genera]. Plan Amendment (GPA) pertaining to the l10 acxe Midway Orchards site. However, development of soil data that would meet Soil Conservation 5ervace standards may not be practical given the time and expense involved. Page 1, Fourth Paragraph - Comments are made regarding the soil survey o t e C xco area mapped in 1929 and the difficulty in ascer- taining the agricultural status of the subject area from this old survey. A copy of the soil survey map with an ovexlay depicting the 110 acre site will be available at the January 24, 1984 Board meeting. Refex to the comments for page 1, third paragraph regarding the option of developing updated soil data. The agricultural potential of the site for other crops, more resistant to bacterial cankex, has not been conclusively demon- strated. Options mentioned in the prior comments and response included kiwi, walnuts, pistachios or melons. Other orchard or field crops may be feasible. The only orchard crop f.or which cultivation problems have been noted, to date, i.s almonds. Refer also to the comments for page 1, third paragraph. I. b. .. _M.. Page 2, Third Para.~ra h -- In the event the Roaxd giants a tentat~.ve cancellation o~ the property from the land Conservation Agrccment (LCA), the Dept, of. Conservation lists the 1eve1 0l' detail to be included far the recommended sail investigation and agricultural 5ilitab~lity assessment. -The next step fox the appli.canf would be a GPA from Orchard and I:icld Crops to an urban designation. Tho applicant would still need to oUtain approval. far xezoning and a subdivision map, subsequent to a favnxahle action to amend the General Plan, prior to fil~.ng, by the County, of the cexfi.ificate for I.CA cancellation. 51ATt DF., CAIiF(}pN~t„yHc itESdUP.CES ACEN ~` _ . '•-^-'---~----~- GEdpGE D:ISICMfJIAN, Go.e•r.or DE~ARTNI~NT 4F CONSERVATi,a~ , ~. 4•. ~ . . ~,~~=_ C~IVISTON OF i~-ND RESOURCE aRflTECTICIN ~ ._A _ ..~. DIVIStflN OF MINfS AND GEOIpGY ~ ~ '•s.l-~'~ Jw-. RtV1510N DF Oll AND GA5 ' 1 2.115 Ninth Stred SACRAMfi+t70, CA 98$14 ' (916) 322--1080 November 21, 1983 Ms. Jane Dolan, Chair Board of Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Orova,lle, CA 95965-3380 Dear Ms. Dolan: The Department of Conservation .administers the Williamson Act on behalf of the Secretary for. Resources. ;~Te have been conc~uct-~ ing an ongoing review of requests for cancellation of Williamson Act contracts under recent."window" legislation (AB 207, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1981}. In conducting this review, we have become aware of an unusual situation you face in considering the Midway Orchard project, and would like you to know our concerns. Specifically, the County is required {by Section 51282.1 (f} of the Government Code} to make twa findings in ardor to tentatively approve the requested contract cancellation. First, the Soard must find that the "cancellation and alternative use will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development," Second, the Board must also find that the alternative-use proposed by the applicant "is consiste>zt with the applicable provisions a£ the ... county general plan which either was in effect on October •1, ~- 1981, or was amended after October 1, 1981, as a result of pro- ceedings which were for;na.lly initiated by the landowner or local .government .,, prior to January 1, 1982." It is with the second required finding, however, that our Department has concerns. Department of Conservation staff has discussed this gene~.l plan consistency issue with the County Planning Department,~~nd~repre- sentatives of the applicant. These discussions indicate that if the Board does approve the cancellation request, the proposed alternative use would still require a new General Plan Amendment because it is inconsistent with the current general plan designa- tion for the property. _ [:ELC~'Jc17 3Y pepart~I~rtt of Co:,serv~tia~ ~v-eay Pouc~ o~~ic~ ~~~~~v~ II. a. "j .. ~Ms. Jane Dolan ~~ Fage 2 November 21, 1983 ~~_ ~. ~~ , S Thus, xt seems clear~that.the Midway Orchard's cancellation request proposes a project which is inconsistent with the current general plan, on which the County initiated action prior to October 1, ].981. Although it may be argued that the findings language allows consistency with either the old or new provisions of the General Plan, we believe such an argument to be inconsistent with the intent of the Act and that particular section which was amended by AB 2D74. As you discuss this application, it may be useful to consider a last point. In reviewing the findings required for both window and nort~ial cancellations, we. believe that the' Legislature has dearly indicated that .a cancellation is an exceptional action, and, if granted, should be consistent with the'long-term, locally- adopted land use plans for an area. Nonrenewa~. of the contract has been, and continues to be, the principa3. method available for the contract holder to terminate a Williamson Act contract. The landowner for the project in question exercised this option five years ago,.and will be free of all contract obligations in 3988. Therefore, the applicant is not "locked into" the t°7illiamson Act permanently 'if you decide to disapprove the can- cellation request now before you. . If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Mr. Art Mills, Chief,~Division of Land Resource Protection, at {916) 324-0862. cc: Steven Nation. Art Mi11s Stephen Ol~,va Sincerely, Don I.. Blubatagh Director _... -----_ ..__._ ~ ~ ._.~_.~--- ...~ ..-_ ..~._~_____--~ _._ __.-~__.._. n . ~ .. , ..__.... , r ' r t.c" ~ ! t~ R }r 7 r y. 'ti ~ ~Vfr YX1 V~1 / ~ 4 , yV~ . Y __ ~ ~ .1 .. 'y,.,.,~..~TkpvaY ~nL•ti..~.a...~_...:..~~:ws.s.r-~r,-tM.;..n:.~-.4ny!,Fs..r.i.:.3lr..¢A~-•a~. ~.->^!.er,:hx~..r'.-! r-. •• } _r df :f f ~. . i ~f- ,~i -:~:. r 4. `_ ,~ ;:.~ - ~~ Y fr r..~'•r~": '~axkt, ~ps.z-:7~!r..rr ',r -Wr J. yr7 ~,,' r. -. y. :Y i Y T jM- ~"y! ~~~. I2~3~ s3'~~f~trrt'.L,s c~r~ is:; rc~ :I r. U~S!t7 AGl~I~tT~.'i'U~AI, LAI~1ll~-'fi'r' [I.l,iAri7Sf3i•, AG`I' «rrni; COi'Y`l'RAG°1FS-Cr~.iti`Ci~".LLA'I'i~i~ The 1. Assen)bly .3ill Ilia. 779 that c acted :x:.:Id. CI~IAi'TI;ji i2~ ' 5~.~ real: .Aat act to acltl Section 5~2A50.1 to the Govenln)ent Code, rel,ttino to ~' 5t 2 that " aUricaliural lan{f. p tt{ (Approved by Governor 5eptorr_bcr 30, i9Q.3. Filed with ni Stut rtember 30 19S3 c etar Se j S boc~rt~ u5~' t.' y ~ , . e r e ' wit}i4~ I.ECiSi.ATIVF CflUNSEi.'S DIGEST 1r'li~l't~ A$ 779, Robinson. Agricultural ]encl. to rn~ Fadsting clecisioslal and statutory law, in general. requires that tll4 ~ cj~`~::1 cancellation of a ti~lilliaxl)son Act ro:~tract between loc3t bo t Prn:nant its o~.~ and a larrcloivn~r be preceded by a finding that tfls cancGl!atioil is to el.: taz:szster~t with the purposes of the 1~~'iiliamson Act or is in the public 'I'l~: it;teres±. ~!rith respect to the first finding, the board of stapervisars or for t~~ tj)8 Gl~}I COEZ7lCil 1V}I3C~l1 !S Ii psi ty t0 the COritC~?Ct 1S !'E[jtllrf.~ t0 fi?3{:C ~iC:'i:~ various-sp~.ci led fixzdi.~gs preliminary to i.).:',.ing khc Fret firi.dinl,'r. C;!~;.~~ x}1b38 S'~f'Ci~1C firltlsng:; )IlCludB, ar;)03)~, atl'iEFS: (I} that Cat)C'~'.11',:ttQ!"1 25 ;:!: of tl]8 Contract IS I1{ii li~{k31~' t0 rPStllt In the rEiFlCiv~l of c~C11;tCt`I)t 1'1ii{Ti . from aUrictiltt:ral use; ~ (2) that cas)cellatior~ of the contract is for an aliesrtative use of the land ~vlzich is cozlsister)t with the city's cir ca7anty's general plan; acid ~3} that cancellation of the contract wilt not result in discot)tiouo:IS patterns of urban developlnent. Existi13g I~siv also provides an ~Ilternslive ~zZetl)od far tl~e ra~aceliat;orl of a 1'Jilliamson Act ca.)tract wl)iCl1 is of, jimited appl3catiorl an{1 limited duration. Under That ~iltern:~tive metliod, the board ar council Iuay grar-i tea7tative ap;i;UV~I ~Oi C~nCE'.1!ation nF:t contract if it Fncls: (1) that the cai)ceisation and Flterrlative use ~t•i11 not res>.ut in cliscantiguous patterns of urban dE~velopnaef)t; and (2) !'net the ali8rnativs use is cot~sisterit with applicable provisio;) of the rL: city o-r coo:?iy general plan, as speciFed. to ~:r. 1`]tis bil! wou!tl provide that the specific finding cortairied in (1} ~ t ~;V; aE t ie px`{:~:cling paraQ aph authflrizes t«e boa; d .or council to cancel a contract iEst finds that the a?terrlative use of the land tivil! be zural in ch~ex2cter and that the alternativE tine will r°sult withi:t tl~e ~for~•see~!bl~: 4:h:rein a cnnciU nos pattern of development wit}Iin the rlevant subr~:gion. This bil.! would also pxovicle that t`.e 1_+uarci or Vii' council shall riot bz rivcluir~d to find the;t the altrznative use wil! U~ F x imrnediatcly contiguous to like development. ' je i his bit] vS+pultl make various 5O2Cifi?{l .din{Ln;sand decli)rations ~ ~ ' f regarding the provisios)s of the bill. 1Fe,~~cc;nle rf the State of C•.•-rifcir~-ai:~ ~v cncl~.ssfall~sss: szctr ~ wo~~' S~:^'i'i4N 1. 'fhe Legislature Ends and c!4clares that. ~~OSSibI° ~ Coo= r171S?:Itf!I'~T^t:Yt)UI?S OE 4~Ii1~)tu'i ],~f;t l O~ tl)° 5t~!ti)tE:S cif 1'J~I, ~'~itl'l r e S } ~'~ rf~l~?Y C~u~~~s ar~a~!:iitintis in text ats ii.r~ittited ny vn~cr3in3 ~ T~. C~ _ iwv, Y .+ r• si, a'•."7:'.Sv.:?4u..~.r^-c7~`Y?'J~r._`7'..^.•~Rr .F!yrC r`4Y.v.,y,«a N-'^W~.T F..y - ~ t ! Z T 1 ~ ~ .. - F 4 ... ~%~y'_ ^y,,,~,a~adG,t+~C%t%.N+i5~t3~lLei:K.s2.~aa~".!ir.+T' - r~i:~ew awe.::x~e~.1::nJwa:+t.....n..~....:,.: .4r..:x.ti.,.~.~:..-....!~+r.; `:i,.:i.. s.~.'7ti+u.r.ce.;.r" .. - r;•. i' •~ _._ A ~ 1!9:3-1J~~1 t;w:Gtil.!~#t :i ti51Us~1 L'j:. ~~}~ ~ . ~ ~ - { rog.u-d to applicatinr,s which f,av~ F+e~~,z avpfr+1'eL! ~]y a Colil:ty [ao::r'c~ .. . ~ . . ~ C+i s::p~rvi;ors ctr c~it}' cou,tc•il 3rtd ~Nhic;z ;trt:: 5t~bjcct to litia:jti:u, a,zight - - - w;orzgfizliy r~stzlt in the clsnial of ear]cellatielzs tlncle~r tha# ch:~pter. ::;°.. -: - ~. Tflt. i.L.bi$l::ft:re t~ti,r?Fore: dt~clczr~~s tiz:tt this Firuli:zgs r:;cSt:iz•E,nents c,F . }•'~.:~-; ;~ .... ~~::~ .-` teat cha;~ter ts•cre ;tI3U are satisiiecl iF a lcc.tl bo:~rd ar c~DUncil l3as >ected in accorGatice tivith Section, 5i?~S(}.~ of the C:overnn]e,zt Cede, ' as ac~dEd by t~,is act. ' SECT. 2. St.ction 512~•~.I is ar]ded to th C:o~•crr4inent Corte, to - - read: _ - .. 51h...0.i. As r~5~~t1 in this ohaptFr, tn4 fnclirz~; oFa l.~octrd u: couricii .` -_ ~ . tit, t "cancell~tkior, ~.rzd alternative use ivitl ],ot rest,lt in CliscOrl:i tious patterns oFr.:nc~in duv~lopzt~Gnt" au{l'zt7ri res, but cioes not reLlt,ire, t„e ~3DaTd Or' coL7riCil to C~t]CEl ~ cOi,ir;lCt iF it finds that the trite; nativ:; _ ~ ~' - use witl b~; rural in chrir~a~te:r alzcl that the alternativa use evil? result - - . . within the for~seEahly futt,re in a cor,tinuotts pattern oFdeveloprnent - ~t~itl,tn thc' selevazat sulJrr~gioa~. TfZe. ba:trd or cot:ncil is not recd±:ired to find tiaat tiic: altentakive use will lie immediately corzti~t,nus to likE ~ ~~, :`..; ~.~ devc:lop,ne„t. lr, rendering its fi~~iding, the Luard or council acts in =~r - its oti~rr, discr~#ion to ev=tltlatr~ the prap~~sed alternative Ilse according ,; ~ "•`` to existing; :t,-zd projected conditions within its local jrtrisdictian. 7'he prol~isiorzs of th':s section shall apF,ly a~]ly to those proceedings ~ ;~" ;,::. for the carzcel'ation of contracts which were itzitiatf~d pc::suarzt to -- ~ . Section Slix~32.t, anal, cansisti-s:t -uith the pravisioias of Szcti,~Ii 9 of Chapter 3C~J~ of the Statutes of I98#., shall apply to the same extslat ~ .. - as tl~e provisions of Section 5}2fi?.1, natwithstandil,g their rep~:al. _ . '- G,r~t3~lli.~IA~. #fi S'~Oii 1 "'•~d~ d 11? U.L ~4+ sxA L~~C~~••••' S~r:CCixi!'Y ~ ~ . S~r~atc ;L~iil i*~a. ~ Ara act to an~~4lzd arzd repeat Section -132.7 of the Labor Cccla, ~ancl ~ ~ - to al~,e,:d anti repeal Sections ~ t 10~ and 133L~ of; a,xd to t;clcl S~ctiDns -~ ~'~~;~:~ t11C~i.4~ and 13 CA.I, to t;1p YPnal CDd.e, relsrting to cri•,tinal history. tAp~rovect by G,ovc:rnc~r Sr temt+~r :A, t~•33. Fi?ed vrit~ - ~ ~~ 5.-cret:~ry o! 4t:~t..~ Septen~tr~•r 3l?. 1k'-~.] - LEG.St..AT#Y~. C4Lr~iSFt:S ll1CFS3' _ SF3 S~, ^aYYS. Summary Crir:'zinUl ~:istory i„Forrna#icrt. - . . ' _ ~:xistisig la~.v si3eciFx$s +r:~~ious ,persons 3vl]a,-r,ay x~C~.iv ;state ;utd ~ - . •r r iDCat sitrnrn:tiry criminal heskory izzForrnatian, as clefirted. _ _ . This bi31 ~vorald stake khe intr:nt of she 1L.egislaiure to pro~rid? FDr the S.~curity of the Olympic Gaines in a Iicndiscrinzinatary m:tnn~~r, arld _ v~oulr3 ir:clcrde the 194f C)lyrnpic Carnes .La:v EnForcvm8nt - ~~~_ Coordinating Cotancil anti its de:cignatr:d renreserti:iti+~~s v.~itlzin '~ SymSat D ie:e?itni_s i~xF e1~t_`tion 7J~ i . .~ . -.. .f ' 4' + ~ r wr'. rt 4 / -C i, r T r t }1 - ~ r ~ 4 r V ^ K . ~ } r ..eTN v. :.Rr-. d.4:-i .. .,.. _. ~.. ~....e .~5.. _~.w ~.•st xf. r-r-~... ~_~..^~...i.d ......~.!.°.~~.tr_. ._ ._. :.--i.. _.i1^w _.:J11 :._. ..itiiF.l?.!+[~ C~• .. a. AP 40-02-11b MIDWAY ORCHARDS Cancellation oI' LGA Agxeemcnt llnder Windox~' Provision {AB 2074) List of Those Commenting on the Project or Draft EIR August 30, 1983 Baird of Supervisors Bill Cottingham October 25,_1983 Board of Supervisors Robert Egan Alva Ilouscman Andrew House Louis Ca.menzi.nd, Jr. Gwen Coats ~ November 1, 1983 Board o~ Supervisors Philip Kohn Bi11 Cottingham November 22. 1983 Board o~ Supervisors Philip Icahn Jack Adeline David Kuebler I~Iester Patrick Joseph Janelli Frank Brazell Lloyd Heidenger Bob Hartman Andrew house Her} Heidenger Steve Sayer Leonard Hampel Louis Camenzind, Jr. Ed McLaughlin ~ t`' C~ i ~ r, r t~ ~'+ } r~ ~s:f,• E ~~ PART B