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 (10)
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF EXISTING LAND USE CONSERVATION CONTRACT INSTRUMENT NO. 1999-0052839 WHEREAS, the _subject__property 52.72 -acre property proposed for cancellation (APN: 047- 260-199) is owned by George Nicolaus the ("Applicant") and is located at the western terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Gamer Lane and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area of Butte County, and is currently subject to the provisions of a Williamson Act Contract between the Butte County and Evelyn C. Liptrap, recorded December 22, 1999 as Instrument #1999-0052839 of the Official Records of Butte County (the "Contract"); and WHEREAS, a Notice of Non -Renewal of the Contract was filed with Butte County by the Applicant on September 7, 2003; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2004, the -Applicant submitted to the Butte County Department of Development Services a Petition .for FlafW Cancellation of a Williamson Act contract to develop a mining use on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's Petition for the Tentative Cancellation of a Contract ("Petition") was determined to be complete and a copy of the Petition and a general description of the land subject to cancellation were mailed to the California Department of Conservation on September 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is being required to satisfy all conditions, contingencies, and processes per Government Code Sections 51283, 51283.4 and 51283.5 and all other conditions specified in EXHIBIT A here attached; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Butte County as follows: 1.' The Board approves the Petition of George Nicolaus for-0awecancellation of the Contract, based on the findings and determinations set forth in the attached EXHIBIT B Findings in Support of Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract, which are hereby adopted by the Board and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. In connection with the Board's decision to approve tentativel'cancellation of the Contract, the Board has independently reviewed and analyzed and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, referenced hereto as EXHIBIT C and deemed it as the appropriate document for purposes of compliance with CEQA, and certified that the document has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 3. The Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors is authorized to execute all agreements and documents necessary to effect the purpose and intent of this Resolution. 4. The Director of the Department of Development Services is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination in the manner prescribed by law. eA 5. Within 30 days of the tentative- cancellation of the contract, the Clerk of the Board shall publish a notice of the Board's decision, including the date, time, and place of the public hearing, a general explanation of the decision, the findings made pursuant to Section 51282 of the . State Government Code. V 6. Within 30 days of the tentativeyp6cancel lation of the contract, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall transmit a copy of.the published notice of the decision, as described above, to the Director of Conservation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, this 11th day of September, 2007 by the following vote. AYES: Supervisors and Chair NOES: ABSENT: NOT VOTING: CHAIR Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Deputy . r EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF CANCELLATION The owner shall satisfy all conditions, contingencies, and processes per Government Code Sections 51283, 51283.4 and 51283.5 and any other conditions required upon approval by the . Board of Supervisors..The specified conditions and contingencies to be satisfied are: 1. Payment in full of the amount of the fee computed under the provisions of Section 51283. The Board notes that the valuation used in the calculation of this fee is subject to the requirements and conditions of Section 51203 and 51283.5. 2. Owner will provide a statement of acknowledgement that unless the fee is paid, or a certificate of cancellation of contract is issued within one year from the date of the recording of the certificate of tentative cancellation, the fee shall be recomputed as of the date of notice described in Section 51203 or the date the landowner requests a recomputation. 3. The landowner must obtain all permits necessary to commence the proposed alternative use. 3 I 1 EXHIBIT B Findings in Support of Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act, FINDINGS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In connection with the Board's decision to approve tentative- ial cancellation of the Contract, the Board has independently reviewed and analyzed the Mitigated -Negative Declaration (EXHIBIT C here attached) and has deemed it as the appropriate document for purposes of compliance with CEQA, and certified that the document has been completed in compliance with CEQA. FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE WILLIAMSON ACT Based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds that the --,pal _cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement executed between Butte County and.George R. Chaffin on February 26, 1968, which Agreement is recorded in Book 1515, pages 600 through 605, from which Applicant has petitioned to remove approximately 175 acres of APN 041-140-014 (new APN 041-140-073, 175 acres) is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, Government Code section 51282, subdivision (b) in that: The statutory findings pursuant to government code section 51282 (b) as recommended by staff supporting the Cancellation are detailed below. Section 51282 (b) Find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act as follows: Finding (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been ' served: a) The original request for cancellation was delivered to Butte County on September 7, 2003, and was subsequently acknowledged by a recorded Notice of Non- renewal in accordance with the Government Code. Finding (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. a) Lands adjacent to this parcel are located within the North Chico Specific Plan, which designates lands surrounding to the north, south, and east for residential development. The 49 -acre parcel immediately south of the cancellation parcel is already the subject of a tentative parcel amp application to Butte County. (TSM 04- 07 "Guernsey"). b) State Route (SR) -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenline at this location, which allows for urban type development only east of SR -99 and agricultural uses to the west. The pattern for development of this area identified by the North Chico Specific Plan and the General Plan's Greenline policy reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this property is likely to result in the removal of adjacent.land from agricultural use. 4 Butte County Department of Development Services uTr TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR o Fo 0 0 7 County Center Drive o 0 Oroville, CA 95965 0 (530) 538-7601 Telephone OUR (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATIONBUILDING * PLANNING September 6, 2007 Evelyn C. Liptrap 331 Wall Street Chico, CA 95928 Re: .CANC 04-02, AP: "047-260-199 Dear Evelyn C. Liptrap: Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda Report concerning your application for a Immediate Cancellation of he Land Conservation Agreement executed between the County of Butte and Evelyn C. Liptrap on 12/22/99 on property zoned SR- I (Suburban Residential) & O -P (Open Space). Should you have any concerns with the report or conditions of approval, please contact us in advance of the meeting so that we may work together to resolve your concerns. A public hearing has been set for September 11, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville.- California. The Board of Supervisors' recommends that the applicant or their authorized representative be present at the hearing to respond to any questions the Commission may have: Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Steve Troester of this office at 538-7.153, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely na Bonham Commission Clerk Enc. cc: George Nicolaus, 66 Marybill Ranch Road, Chico, CA 95928 Re- 'Williamson Act Cancellation Certified Value To Nicolaus Family Trust: Butte Count Section 51283 of the Government code, the Assessor's Office certifies the cancellation valuation for the following parcel: A_P.N.. 047-260-199 Market Land Value $5,040,000 LAND OF NATURAL VU EA LTH AND BEAUTY Market Growing Value - Value subjeci to cancellation fees $5,040,000 Indicated State Cancellation Rate/Fee KENNETH O. REIMERS Indicated County Cancellation RatwTee August 24, 2007 assEssoR = $1,260,000 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3382 Nicolaus Family Trust C/O Nicolaus; George R. & Connie J. Trustees Telephone: (530) 538-7721 66 Maybill Ranch Rd. Fax (53©I s3sassl Chico, CA 95928 Re- 'Williamson Act Cancellation Certified Value To Nicolaus Family Trust: As provided for in Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 51283 of the Government code, the Assessor's Office certifies the cancellation valuation for the following parcel: A_P.N.. 047-260-199 Market Land Value $5,040,000 Market Structure Value - Market Growing Value - Value subjeci to cancellation fees $5,040,000 Indicated State Cancellation Rate/Fee 12,5%= $630,000 Indicated County Cancellation RatwTee 12.5% = $630,000 Total Cancellation Fee = $1,260,000 Section 51203 of the Government Code allows the assessee(s) and the Department of Conservation the right to request a formal valuation review from the Assessor within 45 days of this certified valuation. If either party requests a formal review, the Assessor will notify the other party as to the situation. The parry requesting review has thirty (30) days to submit information pertinent to the valuation to the Assessor This information will be given to the other party, which in turn has twenty (20) days to submit a response, The review should be completed within 120 days.. Respectfully Submitted Ken Reimers, Assessor by Blake Bailey Supervising Appraises ec' Butte County Development Services, California Department of Conservation & Assessor File - LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY D < n KENNETH 0. REIMERS November 12, 2004 ASSESSOR •-'` "' ; ` ' 25 COUN-Y CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CAA IFORNIA 95965-3382 Dan, Telephone: (530) 538-7721 Fax: (530) 538-7991 George Nicolaus had appealed the cancellation value for the Liptrap property- The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 12/8 with a certified cancellation value r-ndered that day. - The Assessor's Office and George Nicolaus (agent for Evelyn Liptrap) have agreed upon a stipulated cancellation valuation: The cancellation valuation agreed.upon is $1,500,000. - Though thestipulation still has to be signed by the Assessment Appeals Board (just a formality), I thought you may want to place the value certification on the Board of Supervisor's December agenda in order to expedite the cancellation recording and future subdivision requirements. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you. BUTTE _ COUNTY, NOV 15 2004 Blake Bailey DEVELOP MENT Senior Appraiser SERVICES n . ` • y ..v t h .. d' . ,. colr a .. LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AN•DBEAUTY_. ., KENNETH O. REIMERS ASSESSOR •,,s��w „� May 10, 2004 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE ` ." OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3382 Telephone: (530) 538-7721 To: Concerned Parties "'' Fax: (530) 538-7991 - - From: Butte'County Assessor's Office - Re, CX.C.A.-Properfy Valuation and. Calculation of Cancellation Fees - ' As provided for in Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 51283 of the Government Code,`the Assessor finds the following values for the following parcel: F A.P.N. 047-260-199, Market Land :Value $2,500,000". Market Structures NCV"r Market Growing NCV^ Total Market Value . ' .. .$2,500,000 State. CancellationRate 12.5% _= $312,500 �. County Cancellation Rate ' 12.5% = $312,500 Total Cancellation Fee $625,000 : Respectfully submitted ` - Ken Reimers; Assessor By Blake Bailey,-_,". "Senior Appraiser . ` - t�}ice ' � �_4 r' •c," Butte Count -K.z. LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY Market Structure Value - .t' KENNETH O. REIMERS August 24, 2007 ASSESSOR Indicated State Cancellation Rate/Fee 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE Indicated County Cancellation Rate/Fee OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3382 Dennis O'Bryant, Program Manager Department of Conservation Telephone: (530) 538.7721 801 1w, St. MS 18-01 Fax: (530) 538-7991 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Williamson Act Cancellation Certified Value To Dennis O'Bryant: As provided for in Chapter 7, Article -5, Section 51283 of the Government code, the Assessor's Office certifies the cancellation valuation for the following parcel- A.P.N. 047-260-199 Market Land Value $5,040,000 Market Structure Value - Market Growing Value - Value subject to cancellation fees $5,040,000 Indicated State Cancellation Rate/Fee 12.5% = $ 630,000 Indicated County Cancellation Rate/Fee 12.5% = $630,000 Total Cancellation Fee = $1,260,000 Section 51203 of the Government Code allows the assessee(s) and the Department of Conservation the right to request a formal valuation review from the Assessor within 45 days of this certified valuation. If either party requests a formal review, the Assessor will notify the other party as to the situation. The party requesting review has thirty (30) days to submit information pertinent to the valuation to the Assessor. This information will be given to the other party, which in turn has twenty (20) days to submit a response.. The review should be completed within 120 days. Respectfully Submitted Ken Reimers, Assessor by Blake Bailey Supervising Appraiser cc: Butte County Development Services & Assessor File LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AN-D BEAUTY KENNETH O. REIMERS ati �� 3�,:: :�.,.,�• _ November 10, 2004 A 3SESSOR `:•.� •> ,' ' 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3382 To: Butte County Board of Supervisors From: Butte County Assessor's Office relepnone (530) , 21 Fax: (530) 538-7991-7991 Re: Certification of Williamson Act Parcel Cancellation Valuation As provided for in Chapter7, Article 5, Section 51283 of the Government Code, the Assessor's Office certifies the cancellation valuation for the following parcel: BUTT E COUNTY A.P.N. 047-260-199 Evelyn Liptrap NOV 15 2004 Market Land Value" : $1,500,000 DEVELOPMENT- Market Structures - NCV SERVICES Market Growing . NCV Total Market Value. $13,500,000 Indicated State Cancellation Rate 12.5% - $187,500 Indicate County Cancellation Rate 12:5%0 = $187,500 Indicated Cancellation Fee $375,000 This valuation is based on" a value stipulation agreed to by the Assessor's Office and the applicant of appeal #04-020. Due to stipulation, the assessee has no right to appeal under Section 1605 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Respectfully Submitted Ken Reimers, Assessor by Blake Bailey Senior Appraiser CC: Butte'County Planning & Appeal 04-020 applicant George Nicolaus BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - NOVEMBER 8, 2005 0523-011 Public Hearing - Petition for Immediate Cancellation of a .Williamson Act Agreement - consideration of a petition to immediately cancel a Williamson Act agreement on a 52.72 acre parcel, located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane, and east of, and adjacent to, State Route 99, in the north Chico area and identified as APN 047- 260-199. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been prepared for this project and the Planning Division is recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration - action requested - OPEN HEARING AND CONTINUE OPEN TO A DATE AND TIME TO BE DECIDED BY THE BOARD. (**360) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 11:06 A.M. AND CONTINUED OPEN TO DECEMBER 13,--2005, AT 10:35 A.M. 1 RECESS: 11:08 A.M. RECONVENE: 11:27 A.M. 0523-012 Public Hearing - Ken and Mary Brown - entative Parcel Map Appeal - consideration of an appeal of nditions of approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide 2.3 acre parcel into two parcels of 1.03 and 1.3 acres. anitary sewer service to the property is available throu a recorded "Sewer Service and Annexation Agreement" with e City of Chico. Water service would be provided by the Cali nia Water Service Company. Access for the additional parcel is proposed by Via Morro Court. The project is located on the rth side of Via Morro Court, and identified as APN 011-020-083 TPM 04N-29) - action requested - OPEN HEARING AND CONTINUE OP TO A DATE AND TIME TO BE DECIDED BY THE BOARD. (**444) MINUTES $ZIC HEARING OPENED AT 11:28 A.M. AND CONTINUED OPEN TO CEMBER 13, 2005, AT 10:45 A.M. PAGE 18 NOVEMBER 8, 2005 AI it 'r�s�iyr' —4r - P �• r 301, EB pro a _ n r ;®fir 0 � .mmc,o almm ��U�ll ;U11 �a�'d�r� ng y rea'� mum I■ 7�� rr111111 .r r r ► �� ��. oevempf �r..tGr�r►4' e I ►- J / tA. ';' �-• �,�_ � .s T3 s t - ,�Pf �'� tom. :� "� %- �r� ,w a •,i 70fa lot low laid North Chico Specific Plan Area (pink) tow, _vim-• ell Ot Tip. Me Xi MAP. a"'n7iei� :? cY �1�'R!�M�M.1� _ F0 q-.__. - -tib(! 911 Chico Sphere of 40 E... Influence NOW • i rY 0 Developed i / r ■ , a � BRUCE S. ALPERT COUNTY COUNSEL OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 PHONE (530) 538-7621 FAX (530) 538-6891 ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL ROBERT W. MacKENZIE ELIZABETH McGIE DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL FELIX WANNENMACHER ROGER WILSON BRAD STEPHENS April 10, 2007 Mr. Dennis O'Bryant Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection 801 K Street, MS 18-01 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Dear Mr. O'Bryant: _ RE:' Response to Department of Conservation's March 1, 2006 Letter Regarding Consideration of the Proposed Cancellation of the Liptrap LCA Contract Thank you for your staff's letter of March 1, 2006. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte recently adopted a cancellation policy providing that contracts may be cancelled pursuant to the "consistency" findings set forth in Government Code section 51282. Further, more facts concerning both the above proposal and the characteristics of the area within which it lies are presently available. As a result of the above, our present inquiry is focused on the second half of the finding set forth in section • , 51282(b)(5): that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. We have reviewed the California Court of Appeal's opinion in Honey Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1122. As you know, in Honey Springs, the court discussed both "contiguity" and "urban development" in the context s of a proposed LCA contract cancellation and held that a proposed development was "contiguous" to existing and/or soon to be developed "urban" areas and that the development was not a catalyst for the type of "lea fro " growth that the Williamson Act was designed to curb. The court also held that the proposed project 1-' P g to � P P P j was in fact an "urban development," in spite of the fact that the project, as described in the court's opinion, does not appear.to conform to what the average person would generally consider to be urban development. E Mr. Dennis O'Bryant April 10, 2007 ; { Page 2 n �( ' - = We are seeking clarification of several issues. In that regard, we have several questions with which we would greatly appreciate your department's assistance. a <Of course, these questions are asked in the context of a board of supervisors' (BOS) consideration of the second half of the finding set forth in section 51282(b)(5): that development ; of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. 'T "The court, in Honey Springs, set forth the following definition for "contiguous:" ' Actual contiguity to existing urban development, either at the time of cancellation or soon thereafter, must be the standard, because any appreciable delay between r construction of the alternative use and achievement of contiguity results in the r ;3 F very evil the contiguity requirement was intended to abolish, i.e., premature and disorderly patterns of suburban development. We believe the contiguity + requirement may be satisfied by showing the owners of intervening parcels have .-the current ability and intent to develop their land within a reasonable time. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1145. f The court stated further that: The board or council is not required to find that the alternative use will be 4 immediately contiguous to like development. In rendering its finding, the board or council acts in its own discretion to evaluate the proposed alternative use according to existing and projected conditions within its local jurisdiction. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1138. ' 1:- Do the above two passages from Honey Springs accurately summarize the appropriate ' --definition for "contiguous?" The Honey Springs court set forth the following standard for "urban development:" ' Whether the particular property ... is to be considered "rural" or "city", depends largely upon its surroundings and the character of the property in the +> neighborhood. If the buildings and improvements in the neighborhood are few and scattered; they partake of the character of the country, rather than of the city } ,or town,. and are occupied by persons engaged in rural pursuits-- the locality , ' should be considered rural. On the other hand, if the houses and improvements Partake of the character of the city or town, and are mainly occupied by persons engaged in city pursuits, the locality should be considered as city and not rural. A ,.. locality which is laid out in small lots, of the usual size for city or town lots and ,partly built upon with city improvements, such as paved streets and gas or water , •Mr Deiuvs O'Bryant -April 10; 2007 Page 3' . � ' _ '�... • _ � r ' The Court stated that relevant factors used to determine whether a development or area is rural or , .y of natural `slope,"minimum parcel sizes, availability of public transit, ability to cluster housing to preserve, open space, height of buildings, on-site sewage capacity, landscaping, lighting, space r between structures, proximity of employment centers, preservation of open space easements, size of area to be served by commercial facilities, the attractiveness of commercial facilities to n F ' regional travelers, and the size of signs. Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1141-42. ` -The Court suggested that: " "Although the respective weight given to each of these factors enumerated in these `nonexclusive lists will vary among themselves and from county to county, we believe using this definitional approach to identify "urban development, "will allow ,an accurate characterization of the development, consistent with the t v objectives of preserving open space, insuring orderly development of our y urbaiiized areas, and recognizing the reasonable expectations of all concerned parties. -Id. at 157 Cal.App.3d 1142. Does "the language from Honey Springs set forth above accurately summarize the _ 'appropriate standard for assessing whether a proposed project constitutes an "urban development?„ t ; 13t: Mr'. J. Kyle Nast's above referenced letter of March 1, 2006 was very informative concernirig.tfie.definition of "available, " which is set forth only in the first half of Government - Code section 51282(b)(5). When assessing whether a project on contracted land would provide i` more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted .land, pursuant to the second half of section 51282(b)(5), however, can a BOS also limit its 1 ` mquiry=to,proximate noncontracted land which is both "available" and "suitable," as it would do': - -in an inquiry conducted pursuant to the first half of section 51282(b)(5)? ;, r ' . 4 Are -any of the following facts not significant to an assessment conducted pursuant to the second half of section 51282(b)(5)? A. ,The proposed alternative use (development of one -acre minimum parcel size residential lots), proposes residential development to the maximum density allowed under the CouiityYGeneral Plan and zoning ordinance, as well as the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), adopted by* County of Butte in 1995. Z.` The northern boundary of the incorporated area of City of Chico is ` ; approximately 7250 feet south of the Liptrap parcel. C.- The northern boundary of the City of Chico Sphere of influence is t approximately 1750 feet south of the Liptrap parcel" {D"The western boundary of the Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Area is 4pproxunately8150..feet east of the Liptrap parcel Mr'Deriri�s O'Bryant, ; x Aprn1" 10,.2007, 'Page 4. -E: Tlie Liptrap parcel is within the "North Chico Planning Area", also referred to . - as"the "Area of Cooperation" subject to a joint planning Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) e xecuted;the eCounty of Butte and the City of Chico in November 2003, which explicitly , recognizes thin,"a substantial amount of new residential, industrial, commercial, office and t. , school development can reasonably be expected to occur within the North Chico Specific Plan ; Aiea,as a result of the implementation of the Plan and the rezoning." F:.. The closest bus stop to the Liptrap parcel is approximately 3/4 mi. away. - G' Caltrans requires the construction of an east -west arterial street (proposed to ' become.kittyhawkDr ve), in order to connect both the proposed Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey ` subdivisions to SR 99. H. The proponent of the Guernsey subdivision and owner of the (noncontracted) ' parcel ur`imediately to the south of the Liptrap parcel, Mr. Guernsey, has refused to fund the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. "J.."However, Mr. Nicolaus, the proponent of the Liptrap cancellation, has offered - to'fund the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. -, 5:" Finally,, would you agree that the issue of whether or not the land proposed for ' cancellation as presently zoned (Suburban Residential 1 -acre minimum parcel size) to its optunum use(higher density may become possible if and when a sewer system in the area , r becomes,feasible) is not a factor that should be evaluated by a BOS considering the second half. -{ ` ofahe finding set forth in section 51282(b)(5): that development of the contracted land would provide`.more; contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate ; noncontiacted'land?i . 1. have attached maps and an aerial photo which show the Liptrap parcel, the area that it lies - ithin:and.tht characteristics of that area. Please assist us in clarifying the above referenced a issues at -your earliest convenience._ We greatly appreciate your courtesy and cooperation in this ' matter.; . - Very truly yours, ' F r R BRUCE S. ALPERT Butte Co ouns w t RobeA W. MacKenz' , Chief Deputy County Counsel ;4 Enclosures cc:'SteveOliva:. l '' . J. Kyle Nast Tun Snelhngs 'Richa"rd ,Price ,, s +ye _ '-r` 'l , ..M } _.y r. '.. <� tri.• , 1{#" { 7 �Y ra,�'� i.7 iia'' / w w � r � r • - R .,tA Chico Redevelopment Agency- x Project Area Boundaries ar '6 } � / .t., . � 1 � �� .... f St's �; t'; •. f }y �` � °, ')•, J . ::i 7 Central Chico r �? ,1,�5 y s '� j. F + ` ✓ �. r•,;��,+.. Chico Mhuucipal Aiiport t Y �` ' r• �`+T'z Greater Chico Urban Area Southeast Chico Amended` -� i- i•. 4�-'t) .. _a �+y.t DCF .,•�+, � '�Ta +t�,�' S,.`ri/.';ai.r �""�`!�3•; �..� � � - J SY' ,� .Y tt �S.a:' r �,'� St y'\11'•i�,.f f ---. 1 '` /. J. i �v tyyY�a' �rS4;v �. a � ,+ �- ' T �EAS1 Avfl )', �•��;`�•'— � ... 'yf ,ar 'Sf ,any ` Ki t1 y +t• i tYYY�• s :,}+'?,. '�"'' t -i E «i; „_,.� '�! A '• y_�.� ,], i4r s •= r+ 1 ` f 1. _,C'f'/t) t�l�" +�f#!`•,:", J. S• ^f'Yl .r'' I e '� .:P". �. s,'"'a. f „tr •fit i Y � >+•,I}��.}�j(I +�.y. /�;� �• y�1�_ � tl. ,�• r _ u I� ti ft• 177 4 �� ', ` '�'- n' Ira rr �' \.J'��rr .r \ 1 71 Jul �'��� �y�-..•+-....�.. .; ! t, a �•T KJ'r �k�t \ ' C.&U. t ti ;•'TT �+ . ' err,, ,:•..:� o _ 16 .� ./tr p' ►•' ,�.. )•. •'ti`'a � �.'; y"". � -+�� �' - w't� ::i• �.,;s, • ,1 't, ��s`.�}.�,r++'. ' d f.'A'� ��•y � ..I.,r,_•, f .'�' 'f/ Y `•t � � r I � `L;f �i_,.►�.w fir'..-:...°.r.--w`-e.....r,_r�'S..-..- .,..-ri .'^� - - _ .... _ ,�, - � ,.�� .. �. � � � �s�" ry. ..,_ .♦ y r -+-._5i , _ r.",.• ? • ..�.,va.- ..T _.w h L s=" i E lh - p„�o-Tw `Yom. 1� ',1.111'■ I■ ... i I'M 1 III �y - �. �,�',µ ,y .� � ., 1Egt" f '�� `•.�/' .�.� �v.� ,�� apt ��i�st .:.r , III 1, ■ utl Ill '�� :;,,�,��;, ,, � ,,�� ► � vim•: r ��i~•'�� ?i�1� � �, gay �:: _ - - _ ��� -► ^� .ter PINMini imIF lh - p„�o-Tw `Yom. 1� ',1.111'■ I■ ... i I'M 1 III �y - �. �,�',µ ,y .� � ., 1Egt" f '�� `•.�/' .�.� �v.� ,�� apt ��i�st .:.r , III 1, ■ utl Ill '�� :;,,�,��;, ,, � ,,�� ► � vim•: r ��i~•'�� ?i�1� � �, gay �:: LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES —March 19, 2007 The meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room, #2$ County Center Drive, Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Joe Connell, Farm Advisory David Skinner Clarence W. Daley Blake Bailey Lewis Johnson Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Absent: Pete Calarco, Development Services { Also Present: Steve Troester, Associate Planner Rob MacKenzie, Deputy Count. Counsel Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager Tina Bonham, Commission Clerk MINUTES - None ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee members and staff may r. -,quest additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order. Chairman Price announced that there were no changes to the order of the agenda. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A.' "Evelyn C. Liptrap" (George Nicolaus owner) Application for Immediate Cancellation, APN 047-260-199. Mr. Troester gave a brief summary. There was discussion regarding a possible misinterpretation by the Director of Development Services however, Chair Price and other committee members agreed that there was not a misinterpretation. Chair Price asked about the recordation date. Mr. Troester said the Notice of Non -Renewal preceded the actual recordation date and that the committee had recommended the Notice of Non -Renewal date be used instead of the recordation date. Mr. Troester then went over the five findings. There was discussion on other parcels in the area and the development that is anticipated on those parcels. This discuss --on included the funding of a signalized intersection that the Guernsey project does not want o pay for at this . time. Mr. Troester commented that the Guernsey project willingness to pay for the signalized intersection should not be something the Committee takes into consideration. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page I of 4 ■ ZVI LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES —March 19, 2007 The meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room, #2$ County Center Drive, Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Joe Connell, Farm Advisory David Skinner Clarence W. Daley Blake Bailey Lewis Johnson Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Absent: Pete Calarco, Development Services { Also Present: Steve Troester, Associate Planner Rob MacKenzie, Deputy Count. Counsel Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager Tina Bonham, Commission Clerk MINUTES - None ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee members and staff may r. -,quest additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order. Chairman Price announced that there were no changes to the order of the agenda. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A.' "Evelyn C. Liptrap" (George Nicolaus owner) Application for Immediate Cancellation, APN 047-260-199. Mr. Troester gave a brief summary. There was discussion regarding a possible misinterpretation by the Director of Development Services however, Chair Price and other committee members agreed that there was not a misinterpretation. Chair Price asked about the recordation date. Mr. Troester said the Notice of Non -Renewal preceded the actual recordation date and that the committee had recommended the Notice of Non -Renewal date be used instead of the recordation date. Mr. Troester then went over the five findings. There was discussion on other parcels in the area and the development that is anticipated on those parcels. This discuss --on included the funding of a signalized intersection that the Guernsey project does not want o pay for at this . time. Mr. Troester commented that the Guernsey project willingness to pay for the signalized intersection should not be something the Committee takes into consideration. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page I of 4 ■ M Chair Price asked for County Counsel's opinion. Mr. Robert MacKenzie read Finding #2 regarding economic feasibility. He said that it is in line with statements that courts have made regarding this Code section. He said that the Committee is not supposed to consider the fact that the new subdivision is much more economically desirable for the land owner than the current agricultural operation. Mr. Troester continued going through the Findings. On Finding 5 he referenced a letter from the Department of Conservation's legal council that provided answers to questions that Mr. MacKenzie asked in December of 2006. Based on the scenarios that Mr. MacKenzie provided the response was that the Guernsey property could not be considered to be available. Break 9:50 for ten minutes. Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee will have to find either that there is no proximate non - contracted land that is both available and suitable for the use for which it is proposed or that the development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land. He believes that staff is looking at the second half of the finding. He said that since the bullet at the top of page 12 of the staff report references the first half of the finding it would be better that the Committee not discuss it because it isn't relevant. Mr. Blake Bailey talked about a subdivision east of the Guernsey parcel that appears to have roads that can be used for connectivity. He asked why those roads are not being utilized. Mr. Troester said he would have to do research before answering. After discussion regarding the connectivity issue Mr. MacKenzie suggested having Public Works available to answer the road and connectivity questions. Chair Price opened the public hearing. Mr. George Nicolaus addressed the Committee. He said that he had talked with Guernsey regarding the signalized intersection and the possibility of sharing that cost with him. Chair Price asked County Counsel's opinion on making a determination. Mr. MacKenzie said he believed the Committee should wait until they can talk with Public Works. Mr. Bailey said he believes there is enough information to make a determination. Mr. Connell said he wants more information before making a determination. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 2 of 4 ■ It was moved by Mr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and unanimously carried to continue item for further clarification from Public Works and Department of Conservation. V. AUDIT WORK PROGRAM UPDATES: 1.Finding #5: Substandard Parcels: Please refer to the attached letter of March 8, 2007 to the landowner. It appears that APN 022-310-034 was sold out of compliance with the Williamson Act contract's 160 -acre parcel size minimum. Staff is recommending that the LCA Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors initiate "partial contract non -renewal" on APN 022-310-034 (38.58 acres), owned by Gary and Janet Little. Mr. Troester said that a certified letter was sent to the Gary and Janet Little. He has spoken with Gary Little who chose not to be at the meeting. He said that Mr. Little has an acditional 80 acres that he would like to merge in with the current parcel as well as another large parcel that he would like to include into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell asked if this would be a non -renewal or is there a way to negotiate. Mr. MacKenzie said there is the ability to simultaneously cancel and renew a contract. Chair Price asked who owned the remaining 120 acres. Mr. Troester said it is the Gunn family and others. It was moved by Mr. Bailey, seconded by Mr. Connell, and unanimously carried to recommend County initiated Contract Non -Renewal pending any other action. 2.Update on revised Butte County Williamson Act Inclusion Contract forma= (no progress since February 5, 2007 meeting). VI. INFORMATIONAL UPDATES: 1. Williamson Act Amendment application received for George R. Chaffin 1968 (Martin Marietta), CANC #06-01, of 175 acres. This amendment is a condition of the cancellation, so that the contract accurately describes the land still subject to the contract. Mr. Troester said they have received application and are processing the application now. It will probably be an action item on the Board of Supervisors agenda. 2. Status of Wayne and Kathy Birkholz Immediate Cancellation #04-02. Development Services staff has forwarded, to the Office of the County Counsel for review, a draft staff report to the Board of Supervisors, was projected to be agendized for the Board of Supervisors March 13, 2007 meeting, now on hold. Mr. Troester said there has been another transfer of the land. Staff is assessing =f there is a viable ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page 3 of 4 ■ cancellation petition. Chair asked when this item will be on the calendar. Mr. MacKenzie said that information is being gathered from Assessor's and Planning so that the Board of Supervisors has a complete picture. - 3. Distinction between "Assessor's Parcels", developable parcels, and legally -created parcels (staff has not yet prepared this presentation). Mr. Troester said the item needs to be kept on the agenda and staff will address i- as soon as time permits. VII: COMMITTEE CONCERNS Chair Price wanted to know the status on what is left to do regarding the audit Mr. Troestersaid they should have enough information to prepare a detailed response to the audit. Chair Price would like the Committee to be part of the General Plan 2030 update. Mr. Troester said it would be appropriate for Committee to meet with the General Plan staff.. Mr. Bailey spoke of other counties and how they fared with the state audit. " Hr said that Butte: County did very well .with the audit and believes that the County should have no problems when the next audit occurs. VIII. , DISCUSSION • . Date of the next meeting. Board Chambers are already reserved fir Monday, April 23, 2007 9:00 a.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 A.M. Richard Price, Chairman Land Conservation Act Committee K:\Planning\LCAWfNUTES\LCA0418.06. doc ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ March 19, 2007 ■ Page, 4 of 4 ■ r 7 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATE _DELLA.RA_T_ION 1 O -QR � Tentative� Immediate Cancellation_of Wil ' son_A f Contract (Liptrap/ Kittyhawk Park Subdivisn), CANC 4-02) wI o t Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellatwn of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-0Z'A COUNTY OF BUTTE �� v 1.0 A. B. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES w INITIAL STUDY }' FOR Tentative Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Co ract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02).ts Ji PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Evelyn Liptrap (original owner, 2004), Nicolaus Family Trust (current owner) Staff Contact: Steve Troeste ,Principal lanner, stroester@buttecounty.net, 530-538-715= ��P_ C ro'ect Nam : Liptrap ttyhlawk Par�.. �) Te ativeL Immediate Cancellation of Willizms�on Act �Q Contrac . � In /. ,✓ � �I`� S� � 1 V IS 7 �- �S 7 " �'�UU / D. Project Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kitty awk Drive approxim=ly 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in thekrth ChAContrac . E. Tvpe of Apalication: Tentative Immediate Cancellation of Williamson A F. Assessor's Parcel Number: 047--199 G. Project Site Size: 52:72 acres H. Current Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels); OS (Open Space) I. General Plan Designation: AR (Agricultural Residential) J. Environmental Setting: The property is currently developed with a walnut orchard. here are no other improvements. The terrain is flat, with no defined drainage courses. a pr erty is located within the North Chico Specific Plan. The western portion of the property 0 R-99. A county n , est eria , Kittyhawk Drive, would be developed along the prop rt th boundary from �J Hicks Lane to SR -99. The property is shown to be in a 100 year flood zon CQ K. Surrounding,Land Uses: The property's west boundary fronts on SR -99 A residential subdivision (Autumn Park) is located adjacent to the east. Other undeveloped lands lie to the north and south. L. Jh S I I -/ N T s s een viewed for consisten ' t e Adopted rterific Plan CS goals d p es and will utilize adopted Certified Enviro ental Impart (CEIR) ared for the p a the is environmental document. The N is a ed -use large ca development plan is s as a broad reaching site planni 1 _:or lar er. elopmen in the uni rporated North Chic These doc were adoop by h ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division m Page 1 ■ t Project Description: The applicant requests the tentative immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. A. Tentative Subdivision Map (Kittyhawk Park TSM) has been submitted concurrently proposing to create minimum single family residential parcels. The Tentative Map appication is currently consi rel in omp a This Initial Study revievA 1 e enacts associated with the Williamson Act Contract cancellation,- .4UW tA1 d-te the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision (Kittyhawk Park TSM) i tel soutpl Guernsey residgntial subdivision (TSM 0407). so Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) Board of Supe rs in March o 95. Pursuant to Government Co Se on 21083._ l if an EIR has been certified for d ton of a Specific Plan, the application o EQA shall b�limited to effects upon the enviro nt h are peculiar to the parcel or t e prof t and whi we t �J ddressed as signific effects in the CEIR. n eam2Fi a revue tt-- ew'ect takes into account the adjacent "Guernsey` Tentative division Map application TSM 04- This map is on the 50.9 -acre parcel (APN 047-260-198) to create 50 single family residential parcels, located immediately south o Li trap c�rtcel t7S'� d parcel, across the 60' Kittyhawk right -of --way. It is likely that theropp illiamson Act / TIT cancellation and subsequent development of the site as a single-family residential subdivision would result in the development of the Guernsey subdivision. Although the Guernsey- project is referenced in this environmental impacts review, it is anticipated tha a separate Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document and process is required f evaluation of that prof ect. he ernsey Tentative ivision Map (TSM 0 - 7) applicatio as qn deemed `complete", an a Initia dy/Mitigated Negative DeclaratI (IS ) has bee? prepared or this projec °t a pion as not.l advanced to public -heari The Guernsi.y project applicant disagees some o e pr' posed mitigation mea es an s electe zot accept some of the mit' tion measures foun in the IS/MND, preventing that document tom bein oticed and circulated for public review and subse pent ublic hearin e first of these ttty aw ar or uernsey subdivisioNhick receive approval from be county, wouTbTTbee required to bear the up -front costs of building the Kittyhawk Drive roadwa aying for the signalization of the Kittyhawk Drive/Highway 99 intersection. Although t eco ty has indicated that it is willing to structure a payback agreement for a proportiate portion 'otffese costs by future developers on the area, the Guernsey applicant believes that development of that project Q, is financially infeasible until the Liptrap/Kittyhawk Park subdivision, or other similar development (which depends on construction of Kittyhawk Drive) is approved. O'✓ 1 The Guernsey Tentative Subdivision Map application was submitted in accordance with the County's Flexible Lot Size Ordinance (Butte County Code Section 24-82). The project proposes to create 50 single family residential parcels (in two phases) with a gross average parcel size of 0.58 acres (sized 0.46 to 0.95 acres) from a 50.9 acre parcel. A 22 -acre open space parcel is also proposed. Sewage disposal would be provided by a community sewage disposal system located on the open space parcel. Water supply would be provided by individual on-site domestic wells. A drainage retention pond would be located on the open space parcel to handle drainage from the development. Access- and circulation would be provided by four internal subdivisiDn roads, including three cul-de-sacs, connecting with Kitty Hawk Drive, a proposed new Count' arterial would provide access to SR -99 and Garner Lane. All proposed roads will be offered for dedication to the County of Butte. M. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Development Services Department, Butte Count - Environmental Health Department, Butte County Public Works Department, Butte Count; Fire Department, and Butte County Air Quality Management District. $02.0 DETERMINATION ro J ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 4A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepF.red. . ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■ Project Name. Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contr t (Canc 04-02) [ ] I find that the proposed. project COULD have a sig ' ant ect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] ; I find that the proposed project MAY have a' "potentially significant impact" o_ "potentially ' significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed -in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, ani 2)'has been -addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only tre effects that. remain to be addressed. [. ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately. in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. t Prepared by: Steve Troester, Associate Planner Date Reviewed by: Stacey Jolliffe, Principal Planner Date 3 ■ .Butte.County Department of.Development Services m May 1, 2007. ■ Planning Division ■ Fage 3 ■ Project Name: Liptrap.lmmediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project; however, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, potentially significant project related impacts are reduced to a "less than significant" level '(CEQA Guidelines 15382). [ X ] 4:1, Aesthetics [ ] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4.3 Air Qua1Ly [ ] 4.4 Biological Resources JX] 4.5 Cultural Resources [X] 4.6 Geologic Processes [ X] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [X] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use [ ]: 4.10 Mineral Resources [ X ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing [ ] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ X] 4.15 Transpa-tation/Traffic [ J 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) " A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are .adequately" supported .by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses follcwing each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No, Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved" including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative. as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency, has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is" substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "?otentially. Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the: incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' . to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, `Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) "Reviewed Under Previous Document" Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) 'Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above chectlist were: within the. scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document puirsuant to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■. Project Name: Liptrap Imirrediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by: mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. , c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were inco.-porated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project: J 6) _ Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts. (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previous -- y prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. . 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. j 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) . The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than '!Vo Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Irnpact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views X in the area? Impact Discussion: f The proposed Williamson Act Cancellat Act. concerning resident�opmer remove the restrictions associated with the V1+illiamson —nt upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative u land division that has been concurrently. submitted (Planning Division File #T 04- ) e proposed 48 lot residential Liptrap/ Kittyhawk Park subdivision would have light and glare at are similar to the existing 1 -acre parcels located within the Autumn Park Subdivision adjacent to t east, and other land uses drarar"er-mitiecl in this area under the nnnfirnhip. SR -1 zonin Guernsey Subdivision immediately south of the cancellation parcel would result in similar impa a existing open space view project site would be replaced with conventional single family rest ential development, although 22 cr$of open space would be retained along State Route 99 and the new Kitty Hawk Drive arterial road. Butte County De artment of Development Services ■ iMay2007■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■ 1.1554 .�- r �,). . Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Neither the Liptrap/ Kittyhawk Park nor the Guernsey subdivision site is located along a State or County designated scenic highway. Neither project is located in an area considered to be a scenic vista, scenic highway or other special scenic feature. Visual Resource impacts are discussed within the CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan indicates that project elements of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) mitigate impacts to visual resources. This project would not affect a scenic vista nor have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The structures that could be built as a result of the two subdivision projects would most likely have outside night lighting for safety and security reasons. Additional lighting may in the form of lights for business signs. This lighting could have a significant impact on the adjacent residential uses. To reduce lighting from the site from significantly impacting the adjacent residential uses, Mitigation Measure # 1 is recommended that requires all outside lighting on the project site be fully shielded and contained on-site. Construction of a typical residential subdivision causes short-term visual impacts. Grading operations and construction activities create a visual impact, and construction debris, rubbish and trash can accumulate on construction sites and are unsightly if visible from off-site. The completion of the project improvements would eliminate the short-term visual impacts of the grading and construction operations. Mitigation Measure # 1 Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concur_ ently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "All outside lights shall be fully shielded and directed on-site so as to prevent glare and excess lighting on surrounding parcels." Plan Requirements: Building and site plans shall indicate the location and type of lights to be itstalled. Timing: The provisions of this mitigation measure shall be complied with at all times. Monitoring: Building inspectors shall -check and ensure compliance on-site. The Development Services Department shall investigate and respond to any complaints of excess glare or light originating from the project site. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the X California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Impact Discussion:. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) The proposed Tentative Immediate Williamson Act Contract Cancellation would result in the conversion of ' farmland, since the current walnut orchard would become available for the development of 1 -acre lots upon removal of the Williamson Act Contract restrictions, as proposed under the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision application. 'However, the North Chico Specific Plan has designated this area for residential development at a 1 -acre density. This property is located in an area that has been designated by the County Gene --a1 Plan for -urban uses not agricultural uses. Although the Guernsey property has been farmed in various ways in the past, it is no longer being farmed at this time. The County zoning designates this area for suburban residential development. The County zoning does not support commercial agricultural activities. a. The CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the impact of the North Chico Specftc Plan on agricultural land uses. The CEIR noted that implementation of the Specific Plan would t-nsult in the conversion. of approximately 475 acres of agricultural lands. However, because 213 aces of these soils are not considered prime agricultural soils and because the remaining 262 acres are substantially in conflict with adjacent residential -development, and are located on the urban side of the. Greenline, this is considered a less -than -significant impact. The CEIR further explains that the Count -'s existing Greenline Policy establishes SR -99 as the boundary between urban/suburban to the east and agricultural to the west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use, and no impact is anticipated. The use of tliis adjacent land for single family residential development is further recognized by the landowner who has submitted a subdivision map to the county for review. b. The approval of the Tentative Immediate Cancellation would remove the Williamson Act contract. On April 26, 2004. the Department of Conservation commented on the petition for Tentative Immediate Cancellation, that adequate supporting information had not been provided to substantiate all of the required findings for cancellation. On April 23, 2007 the Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the findings required under the Government Code (Williamson Act) and made a recommendation that the findings can be made in this instance. The Committee reviewed ' the impact of the Tentative Immediate Cancellation on surrounding Williamson Act Contracts and agricultural land and determined that the cancellation would not have a negative influence on these lands. Any cancellation will require that the Butte County Board of Supervisors independently make the statutory cancellation findings of fact pursuant to Government Code Section 51282. C. See item a. above. Mitigation Measure: None required: 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air qualityplan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? ■ Butte.County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ Project Name: Liptrap1mmediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Impact Discussion::' Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards .in an effort to protect human health and welfare.. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment' if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem. Butte Cou_-ity and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM�o). Currently, Butte County is in attainment.for all'the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application iE currently ; incomplete. The Guernsey Tentative Subdivision Map application (currently on hold for cost sharing on. road and signalization improvements) would create 50 single family residential parcels from a 50.9 acre parcel. The Butte County, Air Quality,Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of residential developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate air, quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the .NCSP. These` mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #2 —Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan: Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the .North Chico Specific Plan Resider tial. Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. 2: All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation offinal map showing the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. ■ Butte County .Department of Development Services m May 1,.2007m Planning Division m -Page 8 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal:. Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated c. . Result in a cumulatively considerable.net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? Impact Discussion::' Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards .in an effort to protect human health and welfare.. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment' if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem. Butte Cou_-ity and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM�o). Currently, Butte County is in attainment.for all'the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application iE currently ; incomplete. The Guernsey Tentative Subdivision Map application (currently on hold for cost sharing on. road and signalization improvements) would create 50 single family residential parcels from a 50.9 acre parcel. The Butte County, Air Quality,Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of residential developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate air, quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the .NCSP. These` mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #2 —Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan: Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street trees must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the .North Chico Specific Plan Resider tial. Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. 2: All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation offinal map showing the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. ■ Butte County .Department of Development Services m May 1,.2007m Planning Division m -Page 8 Project Name`. Liptrap•Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the. landscaping and street tree plan 'is submitted and approved. Timing: The. landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of. the Final Map, whichever comes first. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #3, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavation and Construction Place a_ note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently, with the map or on an:additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the, development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing, grading; earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks ,or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust• after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include - wetting down such areas in the later, morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. , 3. -Soil stockpiled for'more than two days. shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation." ' .4. The developer shall post. a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule. 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). 5. Abide, by the following additional measures during all subdivisionconstruction activity: a. Use, alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all,building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. i Butte County Department of Development Services m May 1, 20071m Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:. ' Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on.any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X X species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X X regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree X X reservation policy ordinance? U Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? G A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any -unique, rare, X X threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, X X ' am hibiansi fish or invertebrates)? i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for X X foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? . j: Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident X X or migratory fish or wildlife species? k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could X X " hinder the normal activities of wildlife? Impact Discussion: . The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for such development. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would likely result in ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1,_2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) " development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. Further development on the cancellation property would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision , Map which has been -concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is • currently incomplete. ' The California Department of -Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted with respect to , the presence of sensitive plants and animals and their habitats. According to the Natural Diversity Data t `-Base„the project isnot located in an area considered to contain these resources. GIS land coverage data ' supplied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention shows that the project site is r designated as "Agriculture", not as any viable habitat type. -The CEIR'of the NCSP'was also consulted concerning this project area. Figure 6-1 of the CEIR for the , NCSP shows that orchards are the predominant vegetation type in this area. As described in the Project Setting section of this Initial Study, walnut orchards continue to occupy the subject property. The .CEIR :? indicates that orchards are of little direct value to native biological resources other than insects,' because agricultural practices keep plant•species diversity to a minimum, and little nesting'or foraging, habitat is available to wildlife. Some of the species that can take advantage of agricultural habitats provided 'in the Plan area are deleterious to productivity' and are consequently discouraged and/or prevented from foraging there. The CEIR also states that orchards can play a 'role in providing a lot -disturbance buffer between , 'developed areas and. biologically rich riparian habitat that is present in some locations of the Plan area. In the case of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map there are no riparian resources present. The CEIR indicates -that .there are several areas of potential impacts to biological resources as a result of NCSP implementation, such as impacts to riparian resources, vernal pools and other ephemeral; wetlands; disturbance to nesting areas of the black -shouldered kite and burrowing owl; California Department of Fish s and Game Species, of Special Concern; loss of foraging' habitat for the Swainson's hawk, - disturbance/removal of habitat used by the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle; and, disturbance to special status plants in the Plan area. The CEIR indicates that the NCSP contains many project elements that ' mitigate these impacts to levels of insignificance. r There are -impacts, for. which the CEIR recommends further mitigation, but the resources that these " mitigations are for are not located oti the subject properties. Specifically, the CEIR requires Army Corps permits for impacts to wetlands. 'In the case of the subject property no Corps Permit is required. because CEIR Figure 6.2 Wetland Resources does not identify any wetland resources in the project area. Pre- i' ' • construction surveys are recommended for the presence of the black -shouldered kite. In the case of the subject property no pre -construction survey is recommended because CEIR Figure 6.1 shows that the property is not located near any trees known to be active black -shouldered kite habitat. Comprehensive4 • rare plant surveys are recommended on all land designated for development. In the case of the subject property no rare plant• surveys are recommended since this property is developed with an orchard, a vegetation type and use that preclude the presence of rare plants, due to the amount of disturbance. , associated with this agricultural activity as explained above. ,Although ,the design- of the proposed projects (Liptrap Cancellation/Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey ` subdivisions) are not anticipated to cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, the ` collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is required, prior to filing a Notice of ` Determination for ,the project,- unless the .project proponents provide verification from the California. . Department of Fish and Game that the project is exempt from the fee requirement. If a required fee is not paid for a project, the project will not be operative, vested or final and any local permits issued for the. project will be invalid (Section 711.4 (c) (3.) The project site is not known to contain any species identified as a. candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by t c, the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat; have a substantial'adverse effect on federally protected . wetlands as defined by Section .404 of the Clean Water Act; conflict with any local policies or ordinances 3 r protecting biological resources;'or, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation: None required.- ' E Butte•County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 20�7i ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11. m • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would also likel} result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. These two sites have already been heavily disturbed by the development of a walnut orchard (Liptrap/Kittyhawk) and prior agricultural activities (Guernsey property). Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as rock walls, water di-ches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -Trade site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. The NCSP CEIR indicates that the highest sensitivity areas within the Plan area are lands located within 100 to 200 feet from stream courses. A majority of these areas are already afforded protection by the 100 foot no -development setback required along Keefer Slough. The subject property is not located near any of these areas. Approval of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Tentative Immediate Cancellation would not result in an impact to archaeological resources ider-tified by the CEIR (CEIR Figure 7-1). However, this finding does not necessarily preclude the presence of archaeological resources that may be buried and would only be uncovered during construction work and land clearing. For this reason, a mitigation measure has been set forth below that requires cor_struction activity on the two subdivision to cease if cultural resources are uncovered and that the area of the find be protected from further disturbance until a professional archaeologist determines the significance of the find and makes recommendations for mitigation. Mitigation Measure #4 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet of the Liptrap/Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivisions that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notif-mation of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archa: ological ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X X an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would also likel} result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. These two sites have already been heavily disturbed by the development of a walnut orchard (Liptrap/Kittyhawk) and prior agricultural activities (Guernsey property). Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as rock walls, water di-ches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -Trade site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. The NCSP CEIR indicates that the highest sensitivity areas within the Plan area are lands located within 100 to 200 feet from stream courses. A majority of these areas are already afforded protection by the 100 foot no -development setback required along Keefer Slough. The subject property is not located near any of these areas. Approval of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Tentative Immediate Cancellation would not result in an impact to archaeological resources ider-tified by the CEIR (CEIR Figure 7-1). However, this finding does not necessarily preclude the presence of archaeological resources that may be buried and would only be uncovered during construction work and land clearing. For this reason, a mitigation measure has been set forth below that requires cor_struction activity on the two subdivision to cease if cultural resources are uncovered and that the area of the find be protected from further disturbance until a professional archaeologist determines the significance of the find and makes recommendations for mitigation. Mitigation Measure #4 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet of the Liptrap/Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivisions that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notif-mation of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archa: ological ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■ Project Name:' Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, -pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this'- note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. ' Plan Requirements:' This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the. map or on -an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and . building plans: Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should -cultural resources be discovered, the landowner. shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. - The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. { 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact. Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Expose people'or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or ' death involving: 1. _' Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the X State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking?" _{ 3: Seismic -related ground failure-, including. liquefaction?. X 4: Landslides? :{ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, X ; and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use , of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal , or waste water? Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map .concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would also likely result in development *of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte Comity is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII: The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault located approximately 32 miles from the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975, resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of .ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill, located more than 20 miles southeast of the . project site. In the northwest corner of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north -Lorthwest trending ,faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain. Fault or. Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to 6.9 in the area in 1892.. There is some speculation as to the exact location of the historic earthquake epicenters and some question if they actually occurred on the Midland-Sweitzer fault (Butte Count', 1977). The Butte County GIS Fault., Lines theme shows that a possible fault with activity unknown is located approximately 1.4 miles to the east of the project site. This fault is a part of the Foothill Shear ?one and has not experienced any known movement during historical times. No impacts are anticipated since no rupture of a known earthquake fault exists in the project area. Like most of central California, the site is expected to be subjected to seismic ground shakin€, at some future time. Accordingly, all buildings, pipes, light poles, roadways, and other improvements would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building requirements. Because the project appears to be located such that the probability of significant ground shaking is low, and because the structwes would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code standards for the appropriate Seismic Hazard Zone, potential geologic impacts would be less than significant. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a. moderate potential for liquefaction: The impact would be less than significant. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map also indicates that the property is located within an area of heavy groundwater withdrawal and is a potential subsidence area. Although so designated, this designation is general in nature, and is applicable to virtually all of the Central Valley area of Butte County. Although subsidence is a problem in all of the Central -Valley in California due to groundwater withdrawals for irrigation, there has not been any documented incident that indicates a specific problem at this location. No impact is anticipated. There is no soil erosion potential for these sites, according to Butte County General Plan GIS data. The CEIR for the NCSP. indicates that implementation of the NCSP will increase erosion and sediment transport into vicinity creeks and drainages, if proper erosion control measures are not implemented. The NCSP contains policies (Policy 7.2) concerning grading and erosion control. The requirements from tris policy that are applicable to these projects are set forth below as project Mitigation Measure #5 below. The Conservation Element's Expansive. Soils Map indicates that the two project sites (Liptrap/>Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivisions) have a moderate expansive soil designation. Standard construction practices as required•under the Uniform Building Code address the impact of expansive soil on foundations and buildings. No impact is anticipated. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May2■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■ Project Name`. Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) . The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the Liptrap site is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1-acre lots proposed by the Kityhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. Mitigation Measure #5, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any.site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): I The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installa_ion, and building site development: 2. No building site shall be. approved for construction which does not have provisions for ccmducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices. and with the design and landscaping standards of the North.Chico Specific Plan. .4: Grading and unprotected exposed'surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth-lined •§wales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip-rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./s,:cond, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to .satisfy Public Works requirements, for no: increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of.Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to cor-struction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing:. This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing,,road. construction, utilityinstallation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte. County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shalll review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 0 Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■ . Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation, of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- _{ quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, :{ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land.use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? E For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people _{ residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuationplan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including Xwhere wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Discussion: The two project sites (Liptrap/Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivisions) are not listed on the wrb-site of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List), and is not near any listed sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restric=ions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would also likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. Both properties are located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Tentative Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. N.ither the proposed Tentative Immediate Cancellation nor the development of these two subdivisions would interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Rather, the develo :)ment of ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Kittyhawk Drive from its current dead-end through to Highway 99 would enhance emergency response services in the project area. The project is located within.a State. Response Area for wildland:fires, and is subject to the State's: fire safe regulations (Public Resources Code Section 4290). The project would be connected to a pressurized community water system, and fire hydrants would be installed on the site. Parcels greater than one acre in size are required to provide building setbacks from property lines for, fire safety and clearance. Pa -cels less than one acre are not required to have:a 30 -foot building setback, but must provide for the same practical effect. The Butte County Fire Department/CDF states that development of these lots requires that State and County Fire Safe regulations be followed. The Fire Safe Regulations would be reflected as Concitions of the Subdivision Maps.. The Butte County Fire Department/CDF would review building permit plans for all new structures placed on the site and ensure compliance with the fire safe regulations. Regulations pursuant to Public - Resources :Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey Subdivision Maps. The nearest staffed Butte County fire' station is Station # 41, which is located in close proximity to this location, on the opposite side of SR -99. The project would not expose people or structures to wildland . fires. The Butte County Fire Department is concerned about the future traffic signal located at Sit -99 and Kittyhawk Drive backing up vehicles in front of fire station #41 blocking the station's driveways. Butte County Fire requests "KEEP, CLEAR' zones to be painted in the southbound lanes in front of each driveway, an "opticom" device is. also required to be installed on the traffic signal that would allow for remote control by responding emergency vehicles. These requirements are set forth below a.; project mitigation measures. ' Mitigation Measure #6, Butte County Fire Station #41:. Butte County Fire requires the fmllowing measures.to ensure.that the traffic signal proposed for SR-99/Kitttyhawk Drive intersection does not impact Butte County Fire Station #41 operations:. 1. "KEEP CLEAR" zones, shall be painted in the southbound lanes in front of each driveway entering SR -99 from Butte:County Fire Station #41, 2. 'Intersection signal lights shall be controlled by an opticom priority control or comparable system . (to be determined by Butte.County Fire) installed on the fire apparatus. Standard to be de -ermined by Butte County Fire in coordination with CalTrans. Plan Requirements:. To be required upon installation of the traffic signal. Timing: The required improvements shall be installed at the time of traffic signal installation and operation. Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works, Development Services and Butte County Fire shall review compliance through inspection. Mitigation: None required. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■Planning Division ■ Pie 17 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than Yo Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact, Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated. a. Violate any water, quality standards or waste dischargeX requirements? . . ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■Planning Division ■ Pie 17 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation.of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would also likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey sLbdivision immediately to the. south: Although the Liptrap Cancellation/Kittyhawk Park subdivision applicant proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company through an on-site production well, and the GuemsTy project. . by individual wells, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley aquifers at this . location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. This site is level and the soil type is not prone to erosion. These two projects could, nevertheless, affect surface water quality due to .siltation resulting from erosion caused by land clearing, road cor-struction, ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ M-1;'20011 ■ Planning Division ■ Psge 18 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than leo Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course X of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off --site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. C Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality? .K g Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by Federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood X Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year.flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as X a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would also likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey sLbdivision immediately to the. south: Although the Liptrap Cancellation/Kittyhawk Park subdivision applicant proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company through an on-site production well, and the GuemsTy project. . by individual wells, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley aquifers at this . location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. This site is level and the soil type is not prone to erosion. These two projects could, nevertheless, affect surface water quality due to .siltation resulting from erosion caused by land clearing, road cor-struction, ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ M-1;'20011 ■ Planning Division ■ Psge 18 ■ Project Name: Liptrap.Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) utility installation, and building site development. Mitigation concerning impacts from these development activities has been set forth below. The Butte County Department of Public Works has commented that the Liptrap Cancellation/Kittyhawk Park subdivision project is located almost entirely within the 100 -year floodplain of Keefer Slough (FEMA " Map 06007C0320D, dated April 20, 2000). The Department of Public Works comments that this area has been known to flood more frequently. The project design of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map has the potential to alter the floodplain, subjecting future residents and adjacent property owners to increased flood hazards. The Department of Public Works indicates that the applicant has not provided "detailed design information demonstrating that it is feasible to develop within the floodplain, while providing adequate ingress and egress during flood events, and providing suitable building pads above the flood levels; without adversely affecting surrounding properties (Source: Department of Public Works Comments on TSM 04-11, February 25, 2004). In a letter dated December 10, 2004 the applicant indicates " that drainage calculations will be provided to the Department of Public Works to address their concerns. No new .information has been received at this time. A portion of the Guernsey Tentative Subdivision application property resides within the' 100 -year floodplain (Zone A) of Keefer Slough, according to FEMA map 06007C0320D, dated April 20, 2000. That portion of the property that would be developed with residences is not located within the floodplain. . Neither property is not located in an area prone to mudflow or other natural hazard. No impact would occur with respect to these.natural hazards. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application also proposes to abandon an existing retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins to handle drainage from both .the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk . Park subdivisions. Any new storm water retention_ basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed and made operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality'Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to considering this item as complete. The Environmental Health Division has commented that Lots 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map cannot be approved with the existing (Autumn Park ,Subdivision) storm drainage basin shown. No residential lots can be shown on this area until the alternative storm drainage basin is approved and functional, and the existing storm drainage basin is abandoned and deemed suitable for residential uses. This item will" remain incomplete until the Department of Public Works is satisfied with the drainage plan and altemative.drainage is provided for the Autumn Park Subdivision. As discussed within the Project Description section of this Initial Study the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map application.is considered incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts associated with the cancellation but also discloses impacts that could be related to the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision. Mitigation for flooding and drainage concerning the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map is not provided at this time because the application is considered incomplete. Ifeither the Kittyhawk Park or Guernsey subdivision projects result in more than one (1) acre of soil disturbance, which' is likely, a General Activities Construction Storm Water Permit is required to be obtained from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The General Permit regulates pollutants in discharges of storm water associated with construction activity (storm water discharges) to surface waters. The.permit must be obtained prior to any development activity. This requirement will be added as a condition of project approval. Both projects would ultimately result in the creation of new impervious surfaces such as roads, houses, accessory structures, and driveways. A significant increase in surface water runoff can be expected due to the reduced absorption rate created from the new impervious surfaces. The runoff has the potential to exceed the capacity of existing drainage facilities in the project area. The Public Works Department requires that_ the applicants submit a plan for a permanent solution for drainage. The plan would specify ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■ Project Name: Liptrap.lmmediate Cancellation, of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) how drainage waters shall be detained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage. channel or facility. , The "plan is also required to show that there will be no increase in the peak flow .of storm water runoff from the site. Temporary (leach trench type) systems that do not increase the peak runoff from the site and payment of appropriate drainage fees maybe approved. With the inc_usion of this mitigation measure, no significant impacts would occur to off-site drainage facilities. Mitigation Measure # 7: Storm Water Drainage Plan Prior to the recordation of the Final Map a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to, and approved by the „Department -of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained or retained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or, facility arid shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to saie channel or facility. Place a note 'on the additional map sheet or document to be recorded with the Final Map that states: "Development, on the lots shown hereon will require either the installation of a permaneril solution . for drainage, with a storm drainage system connected to an existing natural watercourse or publicly " maintained system, which has capacity for the storm drainage from the proposed development or the installation of additional. temporary (leach trench type) systems, which do not increase the peak runoff from said lot and "payment , of appropriate drainage fees, in accordance with Butte County Improvements Standards." Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on building and site development plans. Timing: The drainage plan shall be submitted and approved prior to any grading of the property, and prior to recordation of the map, and the required improvements constructed or bonded for construction prior to recordation. Monitoring: The Department of Public Works shall ensure that the required plan is submitted aid ensure , that the drainage improvements are constructed or bonded for construction. The property is not located in an area prone to mudflows or other natural disasters. No impact waild occur with respect to these natural hazards. - Mitigation Measure #8, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following regpirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): L The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control, - associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility install tion, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting.. " surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public str:et. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. 3.. All exposed. slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management: Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4: Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. "All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: m Butte County Department of Development Services m May 1, 2007 ■Planning Division ■ Rage 20 ■ Project Name: Liptrap lininediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) . . a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c:: Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second; in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d.. Detention. outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for. no increase in peak runoff;, prior to discharge into' flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County " 'Department of Public: Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing:. This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented prior to any site development activities (including land clearing, road: construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shad] review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. 4.9 LAND USE: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impart Under . Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Physically divide ar established community? X b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general X plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation lan'or natural community conservationplan? X Impact Discussion:..- .'The Liptrap Cancellation/Kittyhawk Park subdivision and Guernsey subdivision proposals are located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan; which serves as a broad,reaching site.planning tool for larger residential, commercial and industrial developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. The. concurrently submitted Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision'Map and Guernsey. subdivision contemplate development that is consistent with the SR -1 zoning im.plemented . by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore do not have the potential to physically divide an established community. These projects do pot have the potential to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction -over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 200%I ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ , • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation. of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) The Butte County, Land Conservation Advisory Committee ' has recommended to the County 'Board of Supervisorsthat. the. findings required by the Government Code for Tentative Immediate Cancellation of this' Williamson Act Contract can be made in this instance. The Board will hear this request after circulation of this Initial,Study and taking action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. The proposal will not conflict with any applicable habitat- conservation plan or natural community:., conservation plan... . Mitigation Measure: "None required. 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Ni Impact Reviewed Under 1 Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to'the region and the X residents of the'state?" b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan, or other land useplan? Impact Discussion: . . e The proposed projects would not use or extract any mineral ,or energy resources and would rmt restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral _esources. Mitigation Measure:. None required. F A41 41 NOISE: - Would the, proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under . 1 Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 'excess of standards established in the local general plan X or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise . levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without theproject? d. . A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without theproject? e. ' For a project located within an airportland use plan X or, where such a plan. has. not been adopted, within 1 r{ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the W511iamson Act concerning residential. development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the. Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and . development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. It is an undesirable by-product of society's normal c.ay-to-day activities.. _ Sound becomes. unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it cau;;es actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that it has an adverse effect on people and their environment. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment, loudspeakers, or' individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of'6.0 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically "hard" sites and 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically "soft" sites. For example, a 60-dB(A) noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3.0 dB(A) and 4.5 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively. Sound levels can also be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers. Sensitive receptors are facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Noise -sensitive Deceptors in the project area include dwellings that are adjacent to the project site. The project site is located in a residential area with generally low noise levels and is not subiect to any significant continuous noise. Vehicular traffic noise and noise from residential uses are the dominant' sources of noise on, and in the vicinity of, the project site. Existing noises not associated with -residential uses in the area include occasional aircraft arriving and departing the nearby Chico Municipal Airport. Uses associated with this project would not create a significant increase in ambient noise levels within or in proximityto the project site. Noise from the project would be compatible with the existing noise environment which, is dominated by residential uses and vehicle traffic similar to that anticipated from this. project. During construction, the site preparation and construction phase would generate temporary sound levels ranging from approximately 70 to 90 dB(A) at 50 foot distances from heavy equipment and vehicles. These construction vehicles and equipment are generally diesel powered, and produce a characteristic noise that is Butte County Department of Development Services m May 1, 2007■ Planning Division ■ Page 23 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal:. Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? L For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working X in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the W511iamson Act concerning residential. development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the. Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and . development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. It is an undesirable by-product of society's normal c.ay-to-day activities.. _ Sound becomes. unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it cau;;es actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that it has an adverse effect on people and their environment. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment, loudspeakers, or' individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of'6.0 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically "hard" sites and 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically "soft" sites. For example, a 60-dB(A) noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3.0 dB(A) and 4.5 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively. Sound levels can also be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers. Sensitive receptors are facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Noise -sensitive Deceptors in the project area include dwellings that are adjacent to the project site. The project site is located in a residential area with generally low noise levels and is not subiect to any significant continuous noise. Vehicular traffic noise and noise from residential uses are the dominant' sources of noise on, and in the vicinity of, the project site. Existing noises not associated with -residential uses in the area include occasional aircraft arriving and departing the nearby Chico Municipal Airport. Uses associated with this project would not create a significant increase in ambient noise levels within or in proximityto the project site. Noise from the project would be compatible with the existing noise environment which, is dominated by residential uses and vehicle traffic similar to that anticipated from this. project. During construction, the site preparation and construction phase would generate temporary sound levels ranging from approximately 70 to 90 dB(A) at 50 foot distances from heavy equipment and vehicles. These construction vehicles and equipment are generally diesel powered, and produce a characteristic noise that is Butte County Department of Development Services m May 1, 2007■ Planning Division ■ Page 23 ■ e Project Name`.' Liptrap.Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) primarily concentrated in the lower frequencies. The powered equipment and vehicles act as point sources of sound, which would diminish with distance over open terrain at the rate of 6 dB(A) for each doubling of , ,the distance from the.noise source. For example, the 70 to 90 dB(A) equipment peak noise range at 50 feet .� would reduce to 64 to 84 dB(A) at 100 feet, and to 58 to 78 dB(A) at 200'feet. Since construction is carried out in several reasonably discrete phases, each has its own mix of equipment. _ and consequently its own noise characteristics. Generally, the short-term site preparation phase, which requires the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers; scrapers, trenchers, tricks, etc:, would be the •� ., noisiest. The ensuing building construction and equipment installation phases would be quieter and on ` ' completion.of the project, the area's sound levels would revert essentially to the traffic levels. Mitigation r . Measure # 7 is recommended to address these substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise r; r levels resulting from'the Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivision project developments. i The Butte County General 'Plan Noise Element establishes a conditionally acceptable community noise level of up'to 70 dB CNEL for construction activities. Given the nearness of the project site to existing' residential structures, construction noise may have a significant impact on nearby residences. To help 'reduce noise related impacts`to the nearby residents, Mitigation Measure #5 is recommended that limits =. - :• .construction activities between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and,7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No " construction activity would be allowed on Sundays and holidays. The mitigation measure also requires that ,the developer designate one, person to act as a disturbance coordinator to handle any noise -related, -' ' complaints. • , �, Noise impacts in the'Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivision project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to the project's,west boundaries. Information presented within the CEIR for the NCSP - (Table 11-3) shows that an acceptable outside noise level of 65 decibels CNEL (per the Butte, County '. { • . General Plan) is achieved at a distance of 65 feet from SR -99. The two proposed subdivision maps do not ' ,propose any residential development in the area where higher noise levels, exceeding 65 decibels CNEL - occur (>160 feet from SR -99). Residential development is proposed to be setback from SR -99 a total ..distance of at least 300 feet. Therefore residential development within these developments would not be, subject to noise levels that exceed community standards as provided for in the General Plan.. 4 } - The project site is not located within the vicinity of heavy manufacturing uses, mines, railroad tracks, or other' " ' existing uses that could'generate ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise that would significantly affect s proposed on-site uses:The proposed project would not include the development of land uses that would r k . generate substantial ground -borne vibration or noise or use construction activities that would have such effects ^ because no mid -or high-rise buildings or other structures are proposed that would require heavy footings where the use of heavy piledrivers would be required. Therefore, a less -than -significant impact would occur. The Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivision project areas are located within Compatibility Zone D for ' - - the Chico Municipal -Airport. Airports can be a source of significant noise impacts. However, the project is shown to be well outside the 55 decibel noise contour for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed' Tentative Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The . Kittyhawk Park and .Guernsey Tentative Subdivision Maps have been found to be consistent with the 2000 :,,.• S AL UCP for the Chico Municipal Airport with no required conditions. ' MitiEation' Measure # 9To reduce construction -generated noise the developer shall implement the, ' 1_ following measures to mitigate construction noise throughout all construction periods: 1. Limit construction activityto daytime hours (6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) with no construction activity on F ' Sundays or holidays; 2. .,.Use best, available noise suppression devices and properly maintain and muffle diesel engine -driven ' construction equipment; 3. , ' Construction equipment shall not idled for long of time;. . periods " -4. • Locate stationary equipment`as far as possible from sensitive receptors; ` ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■May 1, F2007 i Planning Division ■ Page 24 ■ ' , Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 5.., Designate a Disturbance Coordinator and post the name and phone number of this person conspicuously at the entrance(s) to the project site so it is clearly visible to nearby residents most likely to be, affected by construction noise. This person would manage complaints resulting from construction noise. The Disturbance Coordinator shall contact noise sensitive receptors ar_d advise them of the schedule of construction." Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and . . building plans. Timing: The mitigation shall be applicable during all construction activities. Monitoring: The developer and the Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring ccmpliance with this mitigation and shall respond to all complaints of noise. Department of Development Services shall investigate all complaints of excess construction -related noise. 4.12 HouSING: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the proposal: � Significant Significant Significant Impact Reviewed . Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,. necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create housing impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently .submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. Butte County is currently home to over 217,200 people, with a projected population of 241,515 by 2015. This projection is supported by the fact that population increase has been steady for the last ten years, with an annual average increase of 1,770 people (0.9 percent). Between 1996 and 2006, population grew about 9 percent in the county. The proposed Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivision projects would create 48 (Kittyhawk subdivision) and 50 (Guernsey subdivision) parcels respectively and thus has the potential to add an estimated 237 people to Butte County (98 units x 2.414 persons/unit — assuming all occupants are new residents to Butte County). This is not considered significant because this amount is consistent with what is planned by the North Chico Specific Plan for this area. . The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May L,_2007 ■Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ . T • Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation.of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kitty -hawk Park Tentative, Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. - These projects are located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuart to Public `Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to. be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk, Park Subdivision Map. The'two proposals would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impact of increased residential development in the County affects the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the .project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The two proposals would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The -project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicants will be required to place a rote on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Butte County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, . ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■May 1, 2-007 ■ Planning Division ■ :?age 26 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than Nc Reviewed Would the proposal:,'. Significant Significant Significant Imp::ct Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in X order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance •objectives for any of the public services? b. Fireprotection? X c. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kitty -hawk Park Tentative, Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Removal of the Williamson Act restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. - These projects are located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuart to Public `Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to. be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk, Park Subdivision Map. The'two proposals would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impact of increased residential development in the County affects the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the .project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The two proposals would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The -project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicants will be required to place a rote on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Butte County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, . ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■May 1, 2-007 ■ Planning Division ■ :?age 26 ■ Project Name:, Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) and drainage facilities from development as proposed under the Plan (County Service Area 87). These fees shall be collected at the time of application for building permits on the 48 individual parcels proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. These fees are intended to off -set impacts to public services from the residential development anticipated by the North Chico Specific Plan. The project site is located within the Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) park facility fee area and any new -dwellings placed on the site would be subject to payment of recreation impact fees, which would.be collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. Mitigation: None required. . 4.14 RECREATION:. Impact Discussion: a.. - b. - These two projects (Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivisions) are not large enough to require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code. Impact Fees for recreation would be collected at that time of building permit issuance on each of the 48 individual residential lots within the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision. As a result of the size of the proposal and collection of mpact fees no impact to recreational -uses is anticipated. The project site is located within the Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) park facility fee area and any new dwellings placed on the site would be subject to payment of„recreation impact fees, which would be collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. 'Mitigation Measure: None required. 4:15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would. the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous. Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility X X would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse.physical effect on the X environment? Impact Discussion: a.. - b. - These two projects (Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey subdivisions) are not large enough to require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code. Impact Fees for recreation would be collected at that time of building permit issuance on each of the 48 individual residential lots within the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision. As a result of the size of the proposal and collection of mpact fees no impact to recreational -uses is anticipated. The project site is located within the Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) park facility fee area and any new dwellings placed on the site would be subject to payment of„recreation impact fees, which would be collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. 'Mitigation Measure: None required. 4:15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would. the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: _- Significant Significant Significant Lnpact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■, Page 27 0 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Nc Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated b. . Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X L Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act .concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional traffic from this parcel. Further development: would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division tha= has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Removal of the Williamson Act r,:strictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. The both the Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey Tentative Subdivision Maps propose to connect the existing Kittyhawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Garner Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Chico Specific Plan and would have the potential to enhance circulation to the plan area and provide a needed additional access point to SR -99 for this area. The combined traffic impact (97 residential lots with 10 trips per day estimated, equaling 970 potential average daily trips generated) of these subdivisions could nevertheless have impacts to area roads and SR -99. Although the 1995 Certified EIR for the North Chico Specific Plan assessed traffic impacts ir_ this area, more site specific information was considered necessary by the County and CalTrans. CalTrans has also commented that the proposed new Kittyhawk Drive connection would act more like an arterial road, with its tangent alignment and southerly intersection with SR -99 than the originally proposed configuration. This revised configuration was not analyzed as part of the North Chico Specific Plan EIR. The new configuration proposed. a more perpendicular alignment for the approach of Kittyhawk Drive to SR -99, which is considered an improvement over the previously proposed connection. County staff and the California Department of Transportation therefore required the completion of a Traffic Impact Study concerning traffic impacts from these subdivisions, and from the proposed cornection of Kittyhawk Drive with SR -99. A study was completed by RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis, Kittyhawk Park/Guernsey Subdivisions, Butte County, California", dated . February 8, 2005. This study, as modified by RKH's letter dated July 28, 2005, is incorporated into this Initial Study and is available for review at the offices of the Butte County Department of Development Services. This study includes a complete review of the project's traffic impacts and traffic impacts under cumulative conditions. Further environmental review and analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map applications complete. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May_1,.2007 ■ Planning Division ■ :?age 28 ■ Project Name: Liptrap.Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) This traffic impact analysis found that the new intersection of SR -99 and Kittyhawk Drive would have an LOS of "D" in the AM and LOS of "E" in the PM peak hours. The CalTrans' Guide for the preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, updated December 2002, recommends that the target LOS be mainta_ned at a transition between LOS "C.". and LOS "D". Therefore, a traffic signal and intersection imprcvements, including turn lanes, are required at the new SR-99/Kittyhawk Drive intersection to avoid s_•gnificant impacts to traffic flow. With signalization, the intersection would operate at an LOS of "A" curing all hours of the day. It is recognized that this traffic signal will benefit other developments in the a --ea and a reimbursement agreement will allow the developer to be proportionately compensated for the cos.. of these improvements. Although traffic impact fees are collected in the North Chico Specific Plan area, (priorities for construction are set under the County's Capitol Improvement Program (CIP). Signalization of the SR-. 99/Kittyhawk. Park Subdivision is currently not slated for improvement under the current CIP. Other needed mitigation includes providing intersection lighting per CalTrans intersection design Standards, providing for safe subdivision road approaches, signage; and: appropriate street alignments (alignments with adjacent Kittyhawk Park Subdivision roads) at the new subdivision access roads at the new Kittyhawk Drive arterial..These' traffic improvements have been set forth, below as project mitigation measures. Adequate on-site parking would be available for each of the lots proposed by this subdivision. The proposed Kitty Hawk Tentative Subdivision Map project would not conflict with accepted policies, - plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Mitigation Measure 010, Traffic Impacts In order to address the impacts of this project.on traffic and circulation the following mitigations we required: A'. Submit Construction Plans for SR-99/Kitthyawk Drive Intersection to Public Works and CalTrans for approval. Obtain CalTrans Encroachment Permit and Install full traffic signalizatiion at the proposed.Kittyhawk Drive/SR-99 Intersection, along with related improvements and turn lanes to the satisfaction of the California Department of Transportation. Install improvements per approved plans: . B. Install intersection lighting in accordance with CalTrans design standards. C. Place County Standard stop signs and pavement legends on the subdivision street appr-)aches to Kittyhawk Drive with County authorization. D. Within the corner sight triangles at the three new subdivision street intersections on Kittyhawk Drive construct no fencing or signs that would obstruct visibility. Trees should be planted so as to. not create a "wall" effect when. viewed at a shallow angle within the sight triangles. TEe type of shrubbery planted within the triangles should be of a species that will not grow higher than three feet above the. adjacent roadway surface. Trees planted within the sight triangle areas should be large enough that the lowest limbs are at least seven feet above the surface of the adjacent roadway. E. Align all subdivision streets on Kittyhawk Drive' so that no ,off -set between streets within the Guernsey Subdivision and the adjacent proposed Kittyhawk Park Subdivision exists. F. Identify viable funding mechanism and schedule for the installation and cost sharing for improvements listed in A. through C. These may include developer installation and a pro -rata reimbursement agreement tied to square footage of building permits Plan Requirements: Performance of requirements A through F. as set forth in the Mitigation Pleasures above. Timing: The completion of this mitigation shall be performed by the .installation or posting of in in lieu financial surety (bond) for the full construction amount and entering into a Subdivision Agreement to complete the construction within one year, all to be done prior to the recordation of any project Final Map. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services, Public Works, and the California Department of Transportation shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this mitigation. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 29 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impazt Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the' X a licable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or, may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? E Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? . g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and X "regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion:: a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated. with the. Williamson Act concerning: residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional utility and service system impacts from this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of . the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that -ias been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Removal of the Williaatson Acte restrictions and development of the Kittyhawk Park subdivision would likely result in development of the proposed Guernsey subdivision immediately to the south. For the Kittyhawk subdivision, sewer service is currently not available at this locatioc, and the applicant intends to provide individual on-site septic systems to handle sewage generated by the project. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the p_operty is suitable for the development -of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots, proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. As a result, wastewater treatment:. requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be required: For the Guernsey subdivision, sewer service is also currently not available at this location. The applicant intends to provide a community sewage disposal system located on the open space parcel that would collect sewage from individual septic tanks. Waste Discharge Requirements would be required .from the Regional. Board prior to Final Map recording. The Waste Discharge Requirements would require the sewage system to operate. within limits imposed by the: Regional ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May_1, 2007■Planning Division ■ Page 30 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Board. The Regional Board and the. Environmental Health Division has provided conceptual approval of the proposed community sewage disposal system. Storm water drainage would be handled by an on-site retention system. The drainage retention pond would be located on the open space parcel to handle drainage from the development. Neither the community sewage disposal system nor the on-site retention system would be located in areas that would cause significant environmental impacts (refer to Initial Study Checklist Item 4.4 —Biological Resources) Water supply would be provided by individual on-site domestic wells. No impact is anticipated. The applicant proposes to provide water service to the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map from. the California Water Service Company and no on-site community system or production wells are . proposed. The County requires will serve letters from the California Water Service Company prior to accepting the Subdivision Map as complete. The Guernsey . subdivision developer proposes to provide domestic and fire flow water supplies through a community water system that would utilize on-site production wells. _adequate groundwater is expected to be available for this purpose and no further entitlements for wanr supply would be necessary. No impact is anticipated. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application proposes to .abandon an. existing retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and b..iild new retention basins to handle drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions.' . Any new storm water retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be co_zstructed and "made. operational to the satisfaction : of the Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Division-, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to accepting the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map as complete. The two developments (Kittyhawk Park and Guernsey Tentative Subdivision Map!) would - increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount.' According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by 'the year 2018. The projected capacity of the landfill anticipated the incremental growth represented by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: None required. 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (SECTION 15065: Potential) Less Than Less Than N- Would.the Y Reviewed proposal: p P Significant Significant Significant Impract Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a.fish or Wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X. community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a raze or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ■ Butte County Department "of Development Services ■May 1, 2007 ■Planning Division ■ Pa;e 31 ■ Project Name: ,Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Would the proposal:. Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant 1 o Impact Reviewed I Under. Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated b. . Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future ro'ects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human _{ beings, either directly or indirectly? a. The project does not have the. potential to substantially degrade the quality of the enrironment.. beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study. b. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures 1-10 as set forth in. Section 5. of this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c.. The project does not have the potential to have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: . Not Yet Updated. Will update once MMs are nailed -down. Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The. Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan.' Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street tree.; must be planted within six months of: the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within -the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific '.planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty. Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted, by the . applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October . .11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. 2. All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map. showing the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwo-k shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. Timing: The landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final,Map;.whichever comes first. . Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate' Emissions during Clearing, Excavation and Construction Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: 'Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler, systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to c-eate a crust after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this w-Duld include wetting down such areas. in the later morning and after work is completed for the day aad whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept'moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.,, .4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. 'This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 200 and 205.(Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■ Planning Division ■ Page 33 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation•of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 5: Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity: a.. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Burte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural. Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or. on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric ar historic. cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools o_- chipping debris, cans glass, etc:; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work. within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation .procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered; State law requires immediate notification of the. County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological .context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for. Native American participation in determining .the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility Lzstallation, and building.site development. Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a 'separate document which is to b. recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure.shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner. shall notify the Plannir_g Division and, a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. Mitigation Measure#4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submimd to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following t rquirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): 1. The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion " control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2: No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have previsions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public ,street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services m May 1, 2007 ■Planning Division ■ Page 34 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent. erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standarjs of the North.Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and. unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain evens. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a.' Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b.. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c.. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7.t./second,, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. . , d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy PubLc Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the.Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to censtruction of onsite residential- improvements, including buildings and service lines: Timing: 'This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development, activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The .Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. Mitigation Measure #5, Traffic Impacts In order to address the impacts of this project on traffic and circulation the following mitigations are required: G. Submit Construction Plans for.SR-99/Kitthyawk Drive Intersection to Public Works anc CalTrans . for approval. Obtain CalTrans Encroachment Permit and Install full traffic signalizatioc at the proposed Kittyhawk Drive/SR-99 Intersection, along with related improvements and turn lanes to .. the satisfaction of the California Department of Transportation. Install improvements p.r approved plans. H.. Install intersection lighting in accordance with CalTrans design standards. . :I. Place County Standard stop signs and pavement legends on the subdivision street approaches to Kittyhawk Drive with County authorization. J. Within the corner sight triangles at the three new subdivision street intersections on Kityhawk Drive construct,no fencing or signs that would obstruct visibility.. Trees should be planed so as to not create a "wall" effect when viewed at a shallow angle within the sight triangles. The type of shrubbery planted within the triangles should be of a species that will not grow higher ttan three feet above. the adjacent roadway surface. Trees planted within the sight triangle areas st,iould be large. enough that the lowest limbs are at least seven feet above the surface of the adjacent I oadway. . K. Align all subdivision, streets on Kittyhawk Drive so that no off -set between streets within the Guernsey Subdivision and the adjacent proposed Kittyhawk Park Subdivision exists. ■ Butte,County Department of Development Services ■ May !,2M ■ Planning Division ■ Page 35 ■ -� Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Association of Governments. Regional Travel Demand Model. Information extracted in . personal correspondence with Chris Devine of the Butte County Association of Governments staff. December 4, 2001. 2. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Aericuliural Preserves Map, established by Resolution W 67- 178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987: ' 3. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map, Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County GIS Data. Oroville, CA: November 2001. 6. Butte. County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safeb. Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Environmental Checklist Form, Evaluation of Environmental Impact• File Number 93-15. Oroville, CA: February 8, 1993. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA- CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 10. Butte County Planning Department.. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 11. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. '12.. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1; Scenic Highway Element. Groville,: ". CA: CH2M Hill, .1977. . 13. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, ' CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 14. Butte County Planning Department. School District Man. Oroville, CA. • 15:.Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville,.CA CH2M Hill, 19.77. 16. ,California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 2000 All Traffic Voltunes on .: California State Highway System. 2001. +. 17. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 1998 Truck Volumes on . . California State HighwaSystem. 1998. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services m May07 n Planning Division ■ ?age 37 ■ ;. Project Name: Liptrap.Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) .7.0 CONSULTED. AGENCIES: [X] : Environmental Health ' [X] Public Works [X] Building Manager [ ] `BCAG [X] ALUC [X] LAFCo [X] Assessor [X] Development Services [ ] Chico Unified School. Distr, . [X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [X] City of Chico [ . ] City of Biggs [ ] . City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise ' [ . ] CA Department.of Forestry .[X] . Caltrans (Traffic) [X] Central Reg. Water Quality. [X] ,. Department of Conservation [ ] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol [ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] US Fish & Wildlife Service [X] Agricultural Commissioner [ ;] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ } Oroville Union School Dist. [ ] Feather River Rec. Dist. .: [ ] El Medio Fire Dept: [ ] OWID [ ] LOAPUD [ ] PG&E [ ] . Pacific Bell [ ] Palermo Union School.DisC ■, Butte County Department'of Development Services ■ May 1, 2007 ■Planning Division ■ Page 39 ■ 2619 Forest Avenue Suite 140 Chico, Ca 95928 North Valley ser*es - Phone (530) 891-6344- ' r Real Estate Consduts & Apora�Sers Fax (530) 891-0616 Mr. George Nicolaus x� 1 v t a i s q�/ 5 66 Maryhill Ranch � Chico, CA 95928 C Re:, —Appraisal real property, Vicinity of Chico— APN 047-260-199 Dear Mr. Nicolaus: 6 March 2007 Out Job No. 07-13 In response with your request, I have made an estimate of the current market value of the property referenced above. It is a 48.23 acre portion of a 52.71 acre legal parcel; the appraised parcel comprises the tax parcel APN 047-260-199 and is currently improved as a permanent planting of English walnuts. The property lies on the east side of Highway 99 three lots north of the intersection of Highway 99 and Wilson Landing Road in an unincorporated area of Butte County. Appraisal Information The type of opinion offered is the current market value of real property interest in the subject property in its "As Is" condition. The intended user of this report is Georg, and Connie Nicolaus, the current owner (the Nicolaus's have owned the property since April 2005 when it was purchased for $1,350,000 along with the adjacent APN 047-260-197, prior to 2005 the .property wasowned by Evelyn Liptrap who had owned the property sinca the middle 1990's). The intended use of this report is for the establishment of a current market value to be used in discussion between the County of Butte and the Nicolaus's in their bid to bring about an early: withdrawal from the Williamson Act contract which encumbers the property. The report may be used by the Nicolaus, their agents and the County and its agents. This report is not intended for use by any other parties or for any other purpose. This report is in a Summary format and reflects the value of the subject as of 1 March 2007. The interest appraised is a fee. lacks concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter. The property is located in Flood Zone X and therefore the property is not usually subject to flooding. The property is currently zoned A 20 by Butte County and Pre -zoned R-2 by the City of Chico. The R-2 city zoning allows 14 residential units per acre. The property sold in April of 2006 for $4,500,000 or $311,203 per acre, cash to the seller. Sale 4 (042-640-020) is the sale of one legal lot with a total of 13.40 acres located directly west of a northwest portion of the. City of Chico. The neighborhood has some older single family homes and new single family homes on residential lots. The property is generally level and has access to connections with dry utilities, and is expected to have city water and sewer. Glenwood Avenue is paved but the frontage lacks concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter. The property is located in Flood Zone X and therefore the property is not usually subject to flooding. .The property is currently zoned A -SR by Butte County and Pre -zoned R-1 by the City of Chico. The R-1 city zoning allows 6 residential units per acre. The property sold in. June of 2006 for $4,050,000 or $302,239 per acre, cash to the seller. Conclusion of Land Value All of the sales were adjusted in the market conditions section for not being encumbered by a Land Conservation Contract, the adjustment made is based upon a 25% annual return and seven years (-79%).. Other major adjustment was for entitlements in place at the time of sale. Data 3 was adjusted upward at 25% per year for three years for the option period. Before adjustment the comparable sales had price per acre indications ranging from a low of $72,024 per acre to a high of $311,203 per acre. After adjustment, the sales had price indications for the subject ranging from a low of $26,469 to a high of $29,409 per acre. The subject was purchased in April of 2005 for $1,350,000 or $24,903 per acre, but had been in escrow for the better part of a year..I have given greatest weight to Sale 1 and Sale 2 because they are closest to the subject and have I good overall similarity concluding that $27,000 per acre is a reasonable estimate of value for Ithe subject. This computes as follows: 48.23acres @ $27,000 per acre ---- $1,302,210 ...Say, $1,300,000 ` J . r Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Page 1 of 2 Troester-, =Steve ---_-,-- "From: Bailey, Blake Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:00 PM To: 'Adele.Lagomarsino@conservation.ca.gov' Cc: Troester, Steve Subject: RE: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations _ ___ Attachments: Mead Cancel lation.pdf; Birkholz Cancellation.pdf; Lip rap Cancellation.pdf Adele, Attached are the cancellation valuations for the requested parcels. If there is a parcel number error, please let me know (Mead and Birkholz have several "cancellation" or "non -renewal" issues). Two of the three of the cancellation matters are getting long in the tooth (circa 2004). If the Government Code would allow it, I would be. happy to update the value to reflect current market value. Is there such a provision? If you have any questions, please let me know. Blake Bailey Appraisal Supervisor Butte County Assessor's Office (530) 538-7507 Fax (530) 538-7991 PR/VACYNOT/CE: This message is intended only for the use ojthe individual or entity to whom it is addressed /t may contain .`njormation that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited /fyou have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you. From: Troester,,Steve Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:33 AM To: Lagomarsino, Adele Cc: Bailey, Blake Subject: RE: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations' Adele, Sorry to be a little late in responding to this, but I just got back today. from a vacation. So that you have the most current information available, I am forwarding this request Bla.<e Bailey of the Assessor's Office, and requesting that he provide you with the most current valuations on the Mead and Liptrap cancellations. Thanks Blake. Steve From: Lagomarsino, Adele [mailto:Adele.Lagomarsino@conservation.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:13 -PM To: Troester, Steve Subject: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations 8/16/2007 Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Page 2 of 2 Hi Steve, Hope this finds all well up your way. I received notice and copies of the scheduled public hearings on the,following Williamson Act contract cancellations Birkholz Li ptra p Mead The only current.cancellation valuation appears to be for the Birkholz cancellation dated February 28, 2007. The Liptrap valuation on file was prepared in December of 2004 and there is no record of the Department receiving a cancellation valuation for the Meads. Do you have something more current or should I contact the assessor directly? Thanks, Adele Adele Lagomarsino Williamson Act Program Analyst (916) 445-9411 FAX(916)327-3430, adele.lagomarsino@conservation.ca.gov 8/16/2007 r. . i 'i Butte _County Department of Development Serviceso�uTrFo TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 0 0 0 0 partial immediate tentative cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract -p Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on 31.21 acres (two parcels).. COUNZy 7. County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION "BUILDING " PLANNING July 26, 2007 TMr. Dennis O'Bryant - ---California-Department of Conservation. 801 K Street, MS 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 .RE: "Birkholz" Tentative Immediate Partial Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract, APN 026-250-021 (18.88 acres) Wayne and Kathy Birkholz (Owner) and APN 026-250-022 (1.2.33 acres) Jim and Carol Wilson (Owners). °Lipfrap" Tentative Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract, on a 52.72 acre parcel, APN 047-260-199. "Mead Orchard". Tentative Immediate Partial Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract, General Plan Amendment/Rezone, and Right-of-way Abandonment, 2.82 acres, APN 039-260-060. Dear Mr. O'Bryant: Per Section 51284 we are here transmitting to you a copy of the notice of public hearing and copy of the petition materials regarding the three above referenced Wu;liamson Act Cancellation Petitions.. Please Il me should you have any questions regarding this transmittal` Sincerely,.. j Steve Troester, Asst ciate Planner Butte County Dept. of Development Services #7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA, 95965 (530) 538-7153 S • 1 � 'sS - - .s rte' � J - a 1M�- •, iv Me y,r C�� _ _r ♦' ♦{ e 4 � �• • y - ' � ` ' / 0-2` 44 � � .- ;6.55. q . - • ' ' _ _ Y Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Page l,of l Troester, Steve From: , Troester, Steve Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:33 AM To: ^'Lagomarsino, Adele' Cc: Bailey, Blake Subject: RE: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Adele, Sorry to be a little late in responding to this, but I just got back today from a vacation. So that you have the most current information available, I am forwarding this request Blake Bailey of the Assessor's Office, and requesting that he provide you with the most current valuations on the Mead and Liptrap, cancellations. Thanks Blake. Steve From: Lagomarsino, Adele [mailto:Adele.Lagomarsino@conservation.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:13 PM To: Troester, Steve Subject: Williamson. Act Contract Cancellations H i Steve, Hope this finds all well up your way. I received notice and copies of the scheduled public hearings on the following Williamson Act contract cancellations Birkholz , Liptrap: Mead The only current cancellation valuation appears to be for the Birkholz cancellatiDn dated February 28, 2007. The Liptrap valuation on file was prepared in December of 2004 and there is no record of the Department receiving a cancellation valuation for the Meads. Do you have something more current or should l contact the assessor directly? Thanks, Adele Adele Lagomarsino Williamson Act Program Analyst (916) 445-9411. FAX (916) 327-3430 adele.lagomarsino@conservation.ca.gov 8/13/2007 Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Troester, Steve From: Lagomarsino, Adele [Adele.Lagomarsino@conservation.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:29 AM To: Troester, Steve Subject: FW: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Attachments: noticeexample.pdf From: Lagomarsino, Adele Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:55 AM To: 'Bailey, Blake' Subject: RE: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Page 1 of 3 Good Morning Blake, Thanks for responding. The Liptrap and Mead valuations need to be updated. Cancellation valuations have a year term upon determination by the assessor. Government Code section .51203(c). When the assessor sends notice to the Board, notice also must be sent to the landowner and the Department. If the Board takes action to certify the cancellation valuation within the year -the valuatio-i term begins anew upon recordation of the tentative cancellation for a one year period per GC section 51283.4(a). If no action is taken by the Board within the year of the assessor's notification, then the valuation a>pires. As an. example: The assessor sends out a cancellation valuation for land dated June 1, 2006. Your original paragraph indicating the value is current for one year from the assessor's determination is consistent with section 51203(c). On May 25, 2007, the Board approves a tentative cancellation on the land and certif-es the cancellation fee provided by the assessor dated June 1, 2006. The term of the cancellation valuation now expires one year from the date of recording of the approved tentative cancellation. Again, it assumed the tentative cancellation will be recorded upon its approval, not weeks or months later. - If the tentative cancellation is not certified and recorded by the board/council until Efter June 1, 2007, then the land would need reassessment for the cancellation valuation prior to any action by the board/council. FYI -I've attached an example of an assessor' notification letter to the Dept from Fresno Co. Adele Lagomarsino Williamson Act Program Analyst (916) 445-9411 FAX (916) 327-3430 adele.lagomarsino@conservation.ca.gov From: Bailey, Blake[mailto:BBailey@buttecounty.net] 8/21/2007 Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:00 PM To: Lagomarsino, Adele Cc: Troester, Steve Subject: RE: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Adele, Page 2 of 3 Attached are the cancellation valuations for the requested parcels. If there is a parcel number error, please let me know (Mead and Birkholz have several "cancellation" or "non -renewal" issues). Two of the three of the cancellation matters are getting long in the tooth (circa 2004). If the Government Code would allow it, I would be happy to update the value to reflect current market value. Is there such a provision? If you have any questions, please let me know. Blake Bailey Appraisal Supervisor Butte County Assessor's Office (530)538-7507 Fax (530) 538-7991 PRIVACY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited Ifyou have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you. From: Troester, Steve Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:33 AM To: Lagomarsino, Adele Cc: Bailey, Blake Subject: RE: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Adele, Sorry to be a little late in responding to this, but I just got back today from a vacation. So that you have the most current information available, I am forwarding this request Blake (Bailey of the Assessor's Office, and requesting that he provide you with the most current valuations on tI-e Mead and Liptrap cancellations. Thanks Blake. Steve From: Lagomarsino, Adele [mailto:Adele.Lagomarsino@conservation.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 1:13 PM To: Troester, Steve Subject: Williamson Act Contract Cancellations Hi Steve, Hope this finds all well up your way. I received notice and copies of the scheduded public hearings on the following Williamson Act contract cancellations 8/21/2007 I/ 0 Gerawan Farming, Inc. Attn: Mr. John Sweet P.O. Box 67 Sanger, CA 93657 Dear Mr. Sweet: County of Fresno June 8, 2007 Robert C Werner Assessor -Recorder Re: Cancellation Valuation for a Portion of ALCC# 5937 Pursuant to Section 51283(a) of the California Government Code, the cancellation valuation of approximately 22.22 acres, described in Exhibit "A" and further identified as a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 333-081-37, is; certified to be $297,000. The cancellation fees, as specified under Section 51283(b) of the Government Code, would be --2 and 'h percent of this figure or $37,125. Senate Bill 1820, effective January 1, 2005, repealed Section 51203 of the Government Code wid added a completely new Section 51203. Part of that Section states that..."a cancellation value shall be -onsidered current for one year after its determination and certification by the assessor." This means if the canceEation fee is not paid within one year from the date of this letter, then per Section 51283.4... "the fee shall be reconmuted as of the date the landowner requests a recomputation". Section 51203 of the Government Code also establishes the procedure for a formal review of fie cancellation value. Either the landowner or the Department of Conservation may file the r uest if they believe that the value is not accurate. The review re uest must be made within 45 days of receiving this notice. It must contain "the reasons for believing the valuation is not accurate and the additional information the requesting party believes may substantiate a recalculation of the property valuation". The requesting party must also provide this information to the other per'• If the Assessor determines that the information submitted "may have a material effect on the 9aluation of the property" then the Assessor will initiate a formal review.. The Assessor has 120 days from the receipt of the request to complete the review and may recover reasonable costs of the formal review from the requesting party. If the Assessor determines that the information submitted will not materially effect the cancellation value, then no formal review'will be made. In either case, the Assessor will provide the parties with a written determination. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact the undersigned at (559) 488-3509. If after discussing the matter you still wish a formal review, the appropriate forms and instructions will be sent to you. Very truly yours, Dwayne E. Morine f Supervising Appraiser JUN.9 200' Real Property Di-6sion DEM:gI rEnclosures V cc: Mr. Dennis O'Bryant, Dept. of Conservation Half of Records, Room 201 / 2281 TUlare Street / Fresno, Callfomla 93721 / Phone (559) 488-3509 / FAX (559) 262-4122 P.O. Box 1146 / Fresno, CA 93715-1146 Equal Employment opportunity * Afflrmattm Action • DlsaDkd Employer Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive . Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecounty.net/dds www.buttegeneralplan.net — _,L—. (j Q ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING PLANNING S August 27, 2007 (Board of Supervisors Meeting of Septembero,! 2007) Butte County Board of Supervisors. 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 r , 0, Subject: �er►Ma IGS ��° i✓IG /J'I t.t 6✓��S aF ISMSO� f , -5�%►►9W1,1104-491 Ib J 1 -4 Original applicant Evelyn Liptrap and lubsequent/current owner\George Nicolaus have requested the immediate cancellation of a Williamson•Act Contract (CACN#04-02) pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel_(APN 047-260 199).�The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately` ,100 feet,�test of Gamer'Lane, east of and adjacent to State Route 99 in the north Chico area. On,April 23,,2007_the Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee voted to recommend that the Board of.,Supervisors approve the Tentative Immediate Cancellation of the 1999;Ey 'Liptrap" Williamson Act Contract (here attached), subject to the condition of payment of.the applicable cancellation,fee, and recordation of a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, with the `findings gas detailed ink 'the attached Board resolution, pursuant to Government Code Section'51282. , Cancellation Hearing Process. This hearing �(and_. accompanying, environmental review) is solely for consideration of the Williamwn,/Act Contract Cancellation application. Government Code Section 51280 — 51287 (regulating Williamson Act \cancellations)�.requires that the applicant state a specific future alternative -,use for the land currently, restricted by the Williamson Act contract. The agricultural use for this Williamson Act contract is/orchard crop production. The alternati✓e use cited in the cancellation\petition is residential development (Kittyhawk Park TSM 04-11, here attached). Although the Kittyhawk Park TSM 04- 11 project is on the same parcel as the cancellation (APN 047-260-199), approval of the TSM 04- 11 application would be considered by the Planning 'Commission by a s`eparate�environmental review and public hearing processes. It is possible that there may -be substantial modifications to the current Kittyhawk Park application before it completes those environmental review and public hearing processes before the, Planning l Commission. Background: The applicant's initial Petition for Tentative Immediate Cancellation was received by the Planning Department on January 30, 2004. Attached is the applicant's amended petition of March 12, 2007, which focuses solely on meeting the statutory "consistency" findings. Acting on a recommendation from the Butte County Williamson Act Advisory Committee (LCA Committee) to approve this petition for cancellation, on November 8, 2005 (agenda report attached) the . Board opened and continued a public hearing on the petition until December 13, 2005. At that meeting, the Board directed staff to return this matter to the LCA Committee to allow for additional information to be submitted into the record and to prepare detailed cancellation findings based on that information. A major focus of the LCA Committee's 2006 work plan was the updating of the Butte County Administrative Procedures rf Uniform Rules for Implementing the Williamson Act. Anticipatin that the Committee would reend modification of the County's local rules and procedures contract cancellation findi gs° king them consistent with State law) the applicant's reques h t action on the petition be , awaiting the Board's adoption of those revised rules. Specifically; the revised rules adopted by the Board on January 23, 2007 state that the Board of Supervisors may make either consistency findings per Section 51282. (a) (1) or public interest findings per Section 51282. (a) (2) in approving a cancellation. The applicant's.coritract contains wording requiring that both sets of findings be met for cancellation. In public he gs before .the L Nis Committee on June 30, 2004, January 11, 2006, and March 19,,2007 (s #me attaches `i�e Committee accepted and studied additional testimony. At itsAi4 meeting�on this matter on April 23, 20 t e Committee a recommended "consistency" cancellation findings. The Plannin D partment's April 23, 2007 staff report (here�atfached) to\they LCA Committee conSolida es and summarizes the. Committee's final recommendations to the Board on this petition for cancellation.` Statutory Williamson Act Cancellation Findings The Board of Supervisors may grant tentative approval forcancellation of a Williamson Act contract only if it makes either public interest or cconsistency findings.\The LCA Committee's analysis determined that the statutory public interest -findings could not be made, but that consistency findings could be made per Government Codee,Se`ction (GC 51282(b)' s,follows: a) In order to find that the cancellation is'co s ste i ith the,numoses of the Williamson' Act, the Board of Supervisors must alsdfind e7 sq , (1) That then" ancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. (2) Thatancellation 'is 'not likely tolresult in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. (3) That cancellation�is,fo an-alternativ use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county,general plan. (4) Tliat�cancellation` will not result general patterns of urban development. (5) That there isproximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which itis proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development I f the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development%than development of proximate non -contracted land. As used in this subdivision "proximate, non -contracted land" means land not restricted by contract y pursuant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that,it can serve as a practical alternative for the use which is proposed for the restricted land. As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the,'salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such non -restricted land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels (GC §51282(b)). The LCA Committee focused on Findings 4 and 5 as key factors in considering this cancellation application. Specifically, the primary considerations are that: • Cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. 2 Development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pF-tterns of urban - development than development of proximate non -contracted land. Exhibit B of the Board resolution (here attached) for the recommended approval of the cancellation provides twelve supporting facts and rationale for Finding #4 and thirteen statements of support for ' Finding'#5. The attached letter of comment from the California Department of Corservation (DOC) of April 26, 2004 states, "... it does appear that development of the contracted land would provide - more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land" (Finding #4). As reflected in the findings attached as Exhibit B of the attached Board resolution, the LCA Committee determined that cancellation of this property would also consistent with the definitions and discussions of "urban" (vs. "rural") and 'contiguity to existing urban development', as discussed by a key guiding case law opinion\regarding Williamson Act cancellations, the California Court of Appeal's opinion in Honey/Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1122 (copy herea ttached). Environmental Review: The cancellation of a Williamson Act contract is consider a project that requires review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)!/TkWitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND, #SCH 2005042079, Exhibit C of the attachedrBoard Resolution), assesses N'the" immediatd. cancellation of the Williamson Act contract for environmental impacts pursuant lo <CEQA. The IS - MND was circulated for agency and public review and comment from July 15 through August 15, 2007. Although this IS -MND and public hearing are solely- or..the Williamson Act Cancellation application, the CEQA review process requi�es,that the Mitigated Negative Declaration must also reference and describe any applications `in the immediate area,which°are currently before the county, as well as the reasonably anticipated'impacts'of those\projjects. In the case of this cancellation the related projects are the Kittyhawk Park.TSM•04-1:1?and the Guernsey TSM 04-07 (immediately south of the,-Liptrap property)\Those applications are currently considered incomplete _— tr;'and are,not yet ready,fo`r process i ng "before the Planning Commission. Notice of the County s.intent to adopt this Mitigated�Negative" Declaration (IS -MIND) determination was sent to 61 individual property -owners withiny the general area of the 'project site. Four comments (here attached) were,received regarding;the IS -MND: Jim Ring (neighbor), Dan Hatcher (neighbor), ,George Nicolaus\(project owner), -and CALTRANS. The comments of the two neighbors-�a`nd' Nicolaus weee related to the eventual residential subdivision development, and included opposition to a,recommended,mitigation measure requiring removal of the walnut trees on - the site,,and the through`=connectivity, street circulation pattern of the existing Anjou Court and Magness,,Court (Autumn Park\Subdivision) with the streets of the proposed Kittyhawk tentative subdivision map,(to the west). The CALTRANS August 15 letter of comment also focused on the traffic and storm agg issues of the proposed Kittyhawk TSM 04-11. TSM 04- 11 will be Tv% rJ,G✓ addressed by nvironmental review and public hearing processes 'before the Planning Commission only after,a,determination is made by the Board on the petifion for cancellation. Condition of cancellation,#3 below requires that the cancellation would only be valid once the landowner obtain all permits necessary to commence the proposed alternative use TS 04- 11). `e.ororo� vF Cancellation Fee: The cancellation fee is payment made to cancel a Williamson Act contract that provides a private for+ benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(f)). Prion 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)). Cancellation valuations are valid for one year per Government Code Section 51203 (c)) and are subject to update. On August 24, 2007 the Butte County Assessor 3 s MI updated the previous (December2l, 2004) cancellation valuation and has determined a fair market _ value of $5,040,000 'for the 52:72 acre cancellation parcel (APN 047-260-199). Per the applicant's contract and the updated Butte County rules and procedures (adopted January 23, 2007, this results ' - in a 12.5% cancellation fee -of $630,000 due to each the Department of Conservation and the County. -The total cancellation fees for this property would therefore equal $1,260,000. -Per- 4nSIS►Ie/ ' - Section 51203(b), within 45 days of receiving the Assessor's notice of valuation, if the Department of.Conservation or the landowner believes that the current fair market valuation certified pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section' 51283 or Section 51283.4 is not accurate, the department or • the i landowner may request formal review from the county assessor., Recommended Conditions,of Cancellation: r. The owner shall satisfy all conditions, contingencies, and processes per Government Code, 'Sections 51283, 51283.4 and .51283.5 and any other conditions required upon approval :by the' Board of Supervisors. The specified conditions and contingencies to be satisfied are: ' p 1. Payment -in full of the amount of the fee computed under the pro�lsiolon�sof Section 51283.. The Board ' notes that the valuation used fin the calculation -of this fee.is�subject to the. F requirements and conditions of Section 51203.and 51283.5. ,2. Owner will provide a statement of acknowledgement, that unless the fee is paid, or, a F. certificat .of cancel n of coWract is issued within one year from the date of the recording -of, the rtificate of entative ncellation, the fee shall be recomputed as of the date of , notice described in Section 51203 or the date the landowner requests a recomputation. 3.' The' landowner must obtain all permits, necessary to,commence the proposed, alternative ' use. Recommended Action: , Based on the findings of fact in the accompanying agenda report, staff and the Butte County Land. 'Conservation Act A�dvisory�Co m recomme!�that the Board of Supervisors - �l��✓I hq o s ; 1) Adopt the;lnitial Study/ litigated Negative Declaration in compliance with CEQA. 2) Approve the tentative immediate cancellation of the 1999 Williamson Act Contract between, -' Butte County and Evelyn C. Liptrap, recorded as Instrument #1999-0052839 on Assessor's. Parcel Number 047-260'=199, 'based on the accompanying findings of fact, subject to all condiiions`,�contingencie`s and requirements as listed in the accompanying resolution, subject to alhother•applicable federal, state and local regulations. The Board directs the - Clerk of the -Board to`prepare and record a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation pursuant.to Section 51283:4 - If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Assistant Director Pete Calarco, at 530-538-2167 or me at 530-538-6821. Sincerely,- -' Tim Snellings,.Director 4 " { Attachments/References f - - , "The references listed' below include the LCA Committee's and staff's prior analysis and. ,. assessment of this petition for -cancellation: A. Vicinity, General Plan and Zone Map. " B. 1999 "Evelyn Liptrap" Williamson Act Contract. j - , C. Resolution 2007- . for adoption of the IS -MND and approval,o C NC 04-02; D. Original November 8, 2005 Board agenda report. E. Kittyhawk Park TSM 04-11 Plat. F.; Updated Petition for Cancellation CANC 04-02, received March 12, 2007. �3 r G. Planning Department April 23,2007 staff report�to the LCA Committee. -H` DOC Comment Letter; (4-26-04) ' I. California Court of'Appeal's opinion in Honey Springs �Horneowners Assn. v?Board of ' w Supervisors (1984). 157 Cal.App.3d 1122. - - r J. Three letters of comment from landowners regarding the,IS-MND. K. I,CALTRANS.August 15;' 2007 letter of co mm ent,on the IS MND. Assessor's letters of Cancellation Valuation. " -M. LCA Meeting Minutes -'(6:30.-04) Meetingl(6 0) ar(� Meeting 01-11-06) _ I A • • Meeting (033--.1,9-071) -Meeting 04-23 07 N. Board Meeting Minutes (12-13-05) r ' O County Counsel's; etter (12+2105) P. DOC,Counsel Letter of 3..-1=06 `• ;Q..MOU, Coop. Plan., Chico Area of Concern (10-21-03) R. Area/Ownership �Map c , ry u - • • •- } � - •fir n�• p S• - � }• Y.r- N -1 ' r _ � •• ': _ 4 .:. . !. • � ; 1. ,. utte oust LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY KENNETH 0. REIMERS , - October 30, 2007 ASSESSOR 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3382 Dennis O'Bryant,-Program Director Department of Conservation Telephone: (530) 53877721 801 "K" St. MS 18-01 Fax: (530) 538-7991 Sacramento,_ CA 95814 Re: Williamson Act Cancellation Certified Value To Dennis O'Bryant: As provided for in Chapt--f 7,. Article 5, Section 51283 of the Government code, the Assessor's Offic, certifies the revised cancellation valuation for the following parcel: A.P.N. 48.23ac ofparcel 047-260-199 Market Land Value $3,470,000 Market Sfructure Value - Market Growing Value - Value subject to cancellation fees $3,470,000 Indicated State. Cancellation Rate/Fee 12.5% = $433,750 Indicated County. Cancellation Rate/Fee 12.5% = $433,750 Total Cancellation Fee = $8.67,500 This valuation is a revised certified valuation pursuant to Section 51203 of the Government Code which allowed the {� assessee(s) and the Department of Conservation the right to request a formal valuation review from the Assessor { within 45 days of the original certified valuation. The original value certification was made on August 24`h, and then on October 5`h, the assessee formally requested a value review and submitted new evidence for insp ,-ction. I - F Respectfully Submitted Ken Reimers, Assessor by Blake Bailey / Supervising Appraises Ce: Butte County Development Services & Assessor File f Miscellaneous Appraisal Sheet Owner: Liptrap Parcel: 047-260-199 Event: ' Dept. of Conservation Value Request for Cancellation Review Date: October 30, 2007 BTB 38 - The subject parcel is 152.72ac (48.23ac subject to cancellation) located on Hwy 99 North of Chico. The parcel is. zoned SR -1 with at entative subdivision snap (Kittyhawk Park Vesting). The site has the potential for 52 lots. The site is currently in walnut production (11965 Sers) with a hose pull irrigation system. There is a 1500sgft equipment shed on the parcel as well. The parcel is partially in the AO flood plane and the remainder is in the X zone (500 year flood plane). a .. The parcel is currently in.the Williamson Act and has property taxes based on "value in use" rather than "highest and best use". For the basis of the State Department of Conservation Williamson Act Cancellation review (R&T 51283a), the current value review will be the fair market value of the land 4s though it were free from contractual restriction. The highest and best use has been determined to be SR -1 subdivision development. As such, the improvements and trees have minimal (if any) value. The true value is. within the land itself. Comparable sales for SR -1 & SR lands are as follows: ' Keefer Road List 29.8ac SR -1 $3,300,000 $110,738/ac Tentative 22 parcel map (similar to subject except flood zone) 047-440-037 9/06 26.38ac SR -1 $1,900,000 $72,024/ac Raw Land (similar flood zone, no tentative map) 047-350-062 6/06 13.77ac SR -1 $1,800,000 $130,719/ac Raw Land (much smaller though similar attributes) 047-350-062 3/06 13.77ac SR -1 $1,800,000, $130,719/ac Raw Land Since the subject parcel has a zoning of SR -1, the sales of similarly,zoned parcels would best indicate the unrestricted market value of the subject. The indicated unadjusted market value of Chico area SR -1 land is $72-$130K per acre. The update appraisal submitted by the subject parcel owner (Nicolaus dated 10/3/07).included three the comparables above (Keefer Rd., 047-440-037 & 047-350-062). There is little indication that parcel shape or size has a significant impact on overall value. The only real adjustment needed is for flood zoning. Previously an adjustment of 20% was used. This may have been to conservative. This will be increased to 35% (as indicated by 047-440-037). An adjusted market value range of $72,000 - $78,400/ac has been determined. The best indicator of unrestricted market value was determined to be 047-440-037 @ $72,000 per acre. Similar flood zoning and proximate size and location make it a very good indicator of market value for the subject. New cancellation valuation for 047-260-199 (48.23ac) is $3,470,000.' Cancellation fee: State Fee 12.5% x $3,470,000 = $433,750 County Fee 12.5% x $3,470,000 = $433,750 Total $867,500 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Govemor A t yDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IISTRICT 3 703 B STREET P. O. BOX 911 MARYSVILLE; CA 95901-0911 PHONE (530) 741-4025 FAX (530) 741-5346 TTY (530) 741-4509 tAug ist 15, 2007 - 07BUT0040 COUNTY AUG 1 12007 IDSERVIc�N j' 03BUT99, PM 39.30 Liptrap/Nicolaus Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract CANC 04-02 Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/MND) SCH 2005042079 ,. Mr. Steve Troester, Associate Planner Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Troester, Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Initiad Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Liptrap\Nicolaus project The project proposal seeks the tentative, cancellation of a Williamson Act contract for a 52.72 -acre parcel. While the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract by itself will have no impact, the planned creation of a 48 single-family lot subdivision will have impacts. The project is located in the vicinity of State Route (SR) 99. Our comments are as follows: . Transportation/Traffic Section 4.15 pg. 30 • Mitigation Measure #11, Traffic Impacts, item "A," identifies the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Kitty Hawk Drive and SR 99. The 2005 Traff c •Impact Study (TIS) used for the MND does not demonstrate that signal warrants were met. Caltrans will not approve the construction of a signal if a signal warrant threshold is not met. We recommend that a Peak Hour Warrant be us 1-d for analyzing this intersection. We further recommend that anticipated cumulative traffic volumes be used in the analysis. Please submit findings from any subsequent warrant analysis. . • If subsequent signal warrant studies reveal that thresholds are not met we request I ,that you propose other mitigations, such as a stop sign at Kitty Hawk Drive and SR 99, which,would reduce the impacts to "less than significant." We recommend conducting an analysis of a stop sign with a median acceleration lane on SR 99. Caltrans recently constructed a center two-way left turn lane in this location that could serve the purpose of the median acceleration lane. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Steve Troester, Associate Planner August 15, 2007 Page 2 • We further suggest that the construction of right turn lanes with sight wedges be analyzed. Please submit any additional proposed mitigation measures. Hydrology and Water Quality Section 4.8 pg. 19 Storm Water Drainage and Flooding: • The proposed subdivision is located northeast of the Right -of -Way (R/W) for State Route (SR) 99 between Wilson Landing Road on the south and Keefer Slough to the north. The site is upstream from the State R/W and storm water runoff flows toward the State R/W via a number of existing drainage swales, channels and via Keefer Slough. Nearly the entire site lies within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. • There is a significant history of flooding and highway over topping in this area that has caused hazards to the traveling public. Any factors that contribute towards future flooding would increase the risk of hazard. According to the IS/MND there will be construction within the flood lain. Elevated building pads would be constructed above the anticipated fl god elevation, as would all roads and pertinent facilities. By constructing elevated pads and roadways, floodwaters that historically occupied those areas would be displaced and forced to some other location. It is highly probable that the water would go to a downstream location, such as along the SR 99 R/W, ur_less adequate ,additional water storage is provided. Please see the comment below regarding the preparation of a Flood Plain Impact Study. Mitigation Measures #8 (Grading and Erosion Control Plan) and #9 (Storm Water Drainage Plan) . • Both of these mitigation measures refer to the preparation of plans but do not refer to conducting any type of Floodplain Impact Study that address pre -project versus post -project floodplain conditions. Please provide a Floodplain Impact Study with the environmental document for this subdivision. It can be sent directly to Mr. Mike DeWall, at the above address. Encroachment Permit required: An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work conducted in the State's Right -of -Way. To secure an application, please contact Caltrans District 3 Office of Permits, at (530) 741-4403. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Steve Troester, Associate Planner August 15, 2007 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Matt F-iedman, Local Development/Inter-Governmental Review Coordinator, at (530) 741-4004. Sincerely,* SUKHVINDER (SUE) TAKHAR, CHIEF Office of Transportation Planning -North ri "Caltrans improves mobility across California " l Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile . ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO:StuartEdell FROM: Steve Troester, Associate Planner (538-7153) SUBJECT: "Liptrap" CANC Findings Supporting Information DATE: February 1, 2007', Hi Stuart, Mr. Nicolaus, current applicant on the "Liptrap° LCA Cancellation, has submitted additional supporting documentation (copy here attached) towards meeting the statutory findings for a cancellation approval. In. particular, I would appreciate your evaluation of some of the infrastructural information that he cites, as to accuracy and validity of his reasoning. Please see especially pages 5 & 6 of Mr. Nicolaus' submittal. The only action we're on the Levy property was a pre -development review in. 2005. This application will be once again scheduled to be heard by the LCA Committee on March 19. My report to them will enumerate the final findings tat they may decide to recommend that the Board adopt. The specific govern code section finding that his rational and analysis applies to is: 51282. (b) (5) or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land. To be able to include your assessments in my report to the Committee, I need to have a staff report out the door by March 9, to do that I'd need to get your input at the latest (just meeting with you would be fine) by February 22 or so. Please let me know when you might be able to meet. Thanks much! Steve 1 rw f ATF QF CALIMRA A_4lUciri cc 1RANCPORTAT[ON AND ROUSING AGENCY ARNULD SCIIWARZENFGCikR Goveruar DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 703 B STREET P. 0. BOX 911 MARYSVILLE,CA 95901-0911 urpower! ene?�eJ�%[ent! PHONE (530)741-4025 Be ►eer 'FAX (530) 741-5346 TTY (530) 741-4509 August. 15, 2007 07BUT0040 03BUT99, PM 39.30 Liptrap/Nicolaus Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract CANC 04-02 Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/MND) SCH 2005042079 Mr. Steve Troester, Associate Planner Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Dr: ' Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Troester, Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Liptrap\Nicolaus project. The project proposal seeks the tentative cancellation of a Williamson Act contract for a 52.72 -acre parcel. While the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract by itself will have no impact, the planned creation of a 48 single-family lot subdivision will have impacts. The project is located in the vicinity of State Route (SR) 99. Our comments are as follows: TranEortation/Traffic Section 4.15 pg. 30 • Mitigation Measure #11, Traffic Impacts, item "A," identifies the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Kitty Hawk Drive and SR 99. The 2005 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) used for the MND does not demonstrate that signal warrants were met. Caltrans will not approve the construction of a signal if a signal warrant threshold is not met.- We recommend that a Peak Hour Warrant be used for analyzing this intersection. We further recommend that anticipated cumulative traffic volumes be used in the analysis. Please submit findings from any subsequent warrant analysis. e If subsequent signal warrant studies reveal that thresholds are not met we request that you propose other mitigations, such as a stop sign at Kitty Hawk Drive and SR 99, which would reduce the impacts to "less than significant." We recommend conducting an analysis of a stop sign with a median acceleration lane on SR 99. - Caltrans recently constructed a center two-way left turn lane in this location that could serve the purpose of the median acceleration lane. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Steve Troester, Associate Planner August 15, 2007 Page 2 • We further suggest that the construction of right tura lanes with sight wedgesbe analyzed. Please submit any additional proposed mitigation measures. Hydrology and Water Quality Section 4.8 pg.19 Storm Water Drainage and Flooding: • The proposed subdivision is located northeast of the Right -of -Way (FJW) for State Route (SR) 99 between Wilson Landing Road on the south and Keefer Slough to the north.. The site is upstream from the State R/W and storm water r moff flows toward the State R/W via a number of existing drainage swales, channels and via Keefer Slough. Nearly the entire site lies within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. • There is a significant history of flooding and highway over topping in this area that has caused hazards to the traveling public. Any factors that contribute towards future flooding would increase the risk of hazard. • According to the IS/MND there will. be construction within the floodplain. Elevated building pads would be constructed above the anticipated flood elevation, as would all roads and pertinent facilities. By constructing elevated pads and roadways, floodwaters that historically occupied those areas would be displaced and forced to some other location. It is highly probable that the water would go to a downstream location, such as along the SR 99 R/W, unless adequate additional water storage is provided. Please see the comment below regarding the preparation of a Flood Plain Impact Study. Mitigation Measures #8 (Grading and Erosion Control Plan) and #9 (Storm Water Drainage Plan) • Both of these mitigation measures refer to the preparation of plans but do not refer to conducting any type of Floodplain Impact Study that address pre -project versus post -project floodplain conditions. Please provide a Floodplain Impact Study with the environmental document for this subdivision. It can be sent directly to Mr. Mike DeWall, at'the above address. Encroachment Permit required: An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work conducted in the State's Right -of -Way. To secure an application, please contact Caltrans District 3 Office of Permits, at (530) 741-4403. "Caltrans improves mobility across Calfornia" Mr. Steve Troester, Associate Planner August 15, 2007 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Matt Friedman, Local Development/Inter-Governmental Review Coordinator, at (530) 741-4004. Sincerely, SUKHVINDER (SUE) TAKHAR, CHIEF Office of Transportation Planning -North "Caltrans Improves mobility across California" 1� •J Mr. Steve Troester, Associate Planner August 15, 2007 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Matt Friedman, Local Development/Inter-Governmental Review Coordinator, at (530) 741-4004. Sincerely, SUKHVINDER (SUE) TAKHAR, CHIEF Office of Transportation Planning -North "Caltrans Improves mobility across California" Breedon, Dan From: Richard Helman [richard_helman@dot.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:54 AM To: Breedon, Dan Subject: Review of MND for Williamson Act Ctontract Cancellation, Liptrap Hi Dan: ,We have reviewed the subject mitigated negative declaration and have."No Comment". Rick Helman Inter -governmental Review Coordinator CALTRANS-District 3, Office of Transportation Planning -North, P.O. Box 911, Marysville, CA 95901 Voice: 530-634-7612 or 8-457-7612 Fax: 530-741-5346 Breedon, Dan From: Bell, Dorothy Sent. Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:53 PM To: Breedon, Dari:_ Subject: Liptrap Hi Dan, the Asse1� s so s office has reached a stipulation with Evelyn Liptrap/George Nicolaus so that will be approved by the AppealsBoard-on`Wednesday, 12/8. Dorothy 1 f s S��IAII3. ' BUTTEli 7anuar 11205, '' �u d0'I 'O COUNTY y JAN 14 2005 5002 � Ndf �II�if14, ih:fj DEVELOPMENT Dan, g SERVICES I received a call from Pat Gatz of the DOC requesting the Liptrap valuation and cancellation fee certification. I am faxing her a copy of the certification that was written up on December 21, 2004 after the Appeals Board approval of a stipulated valuation. The original (copy enclosed) was sent out in either the December 21S` or 22nd courier to your office. I am sorry to hear that it has not made it to you by now. I hope the enclosed copy will suffice for.Board approval: Blake 4 He uouftAf rfr LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY KENNETH O. REIMERS ASSESSOR . ,' ° ` = • . ' December 21, 2004 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3382 To: Butte County Board of Supervisors Telephone: (E30) 538-7721 From~ Butte. County Assessor's Office Fax: (530: 538-7991. Re; Certification of Williamson Act Parcel Cancellation Valuation As provided for in Chapter 7; Article 5, Section 51283 of the Government Code, the Assessor's Office certifies the cancellation valuation for the following parcel: A.P.N. 047-260-199 Evelyn Liptrap Market Land Value $1,372,250 Market Structures NCV Market Growing NCV Total Market Value $1,372,250 Indicated State Cancellation Rate 12.5% = $171,530 Indicated County Cancellation Rate 12.5% = $171,530 Indicated Cancellation Fee V;41 nr)n This valuation is based on a value stipulation agreed to by the Assessor's Office and the applicant of appeal #04-020. The appeal was agreed to by the Butte County Appeals Board on December 8, 2004. This stipulated value has no further appeal rights p -.r Section 1605 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Respectfully Submitted, Ken Reimers, Assessor by Blake Bailey -J Senior -Appraiser . GEORGE R. NICGI,AUS Since 1951 May 5, 2005, Mr. Dan Breedon Principal Planner Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Dan: TSM 04-11; Kittyhawk Park Williamson Act Cancellation; Liptrap CANC 04-02 Effective April 8, 2005, Evelyn Liptrap, by her signature affixed below, assigns and conveys to George Nicolaus all rights, title and ownership interests in Butte County property identified as APN 047-260-197 and 047-260-199, the Kittyhawk Park TSM 04-11 and the Williamson Act Cancellation CANC 04-02. Further, as of April 8, 2005, Evelyn Liptrap acknowledges that her signature will no longer be required to process either of these applications. Respectfully yours, George R. Nicolaus Evelyn Liptrap Da 6.6 Marybill Ranch Road Chico, Calif-orni,a 95928-95;63 Phone 530--894-6171 Fax 530---345-9585 t a y i • ti �• it � ' 1 GEORGE R. NICOLAUS Since 1951 t�,,Mayf5 20 5 Mr. Dan Breedon Principal Planner '. Department -of Development Services 7 County, Center. Drive j - - Oroville,,CA, 95965 • Dear Dan: TSM 04=11; Kittyhawk Park Williamson Act Cancellation; Liptrap CANC 04-02 y , f Enclosed is the deed from Evelyn Liptrap to George and Connie Nicolaus. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter from Evelyn affirming tha., as of April 8, 2005; she relinquishes all authority and ownership interests as relates to the.TSM and Cancellation to me. If you require additional documentation, please advise me- at your convenience. . A recall that you jor Yvonne) mentioned at the Levy pre -development -� • meeting that we would be receiving written -comments from all agencies. y. .These written'comments need to be a part of our file as soon as possible. As always; thanks for working with us on these diverse and detailed plansl r Respectfully yours, George R: Nicolaus tV` 1':; 56 Marylbilll Ranch R-oad hico, Kalifornia 95928-9563 _ ` Phoh.e 530-894-6171• Fax 530-345-958 r Breedon, Dan From: Wannenmacher,Felix ---- -=,-., Sent: Tuesday? -February 15, 2005 4:5.:8 PM To: Breedon, `Dan 'Stephen -Streeter (sasplanning@sbcglobal.net)' Cc: Miller, Gloria . Subject: Liptrap Williamson Act Immediate Cancellation IS Hi Dan and Stephen, I have reviewed the IS and have'the following comments. You may not like them, but I need to tell you them because I believe they will make the IS better. Someone reading this IS will find it to be very" repetitious and uninformative. They will accuse you of segmenting or piecemealing. You often say the Cancellation does not lead to development, but a separate proposal does and development will be analyzed at that point. . In fact, getting out of the Act is a big obstacle to development. Without it, no development. The fact that something else is also required does not mean you can avoid doing some of the analysis now. It may be done later as well, but there may be a lesser degree of analysis then because it was done separately from the Cancellation. . The bigger picture in the law is whether the Cancellation and the development project together (ihe whole project) would require an EIR. If you can say now that it would not, you should do so. Even if it would not in this case, you should discuss what this Cancellation would lead to. Do not just say it will be discussed later. Everywhere you use such language, get rid of it. To some extent we create this problem by requiring Cancellation before we will process a development application, rather than processing it concurrently. However, we have some info on this dev prof and can discuss it and how the Cancellation leads to it. In some of the sections, you have some more detail; such as 4.2, 4.4, etc. However, you could still discuss how taking out the trees does/doesn't have an env impact. You could note that the land is not in a natural state, but is an orchard. There are things you could talk about. Give general info, then cover the things in the checklist you need to. 4.5 is a better example. They could discover artifacts when ripping out the trees just like they could find them with any digging activity. It seems like you need a Mit if they take out the trees, which is very likely given all the circumstances here. You already know that thisarea is listed as high for artifacts. This discussion is not exhaustive. You should review all the answers and not segment. You should give the info that is relevant and discuss the impacts. There may be some additional Mits required aside from 4.5. Sorry about the bad news. Felix CONFIDENTIAL --ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use'of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this email and any attachments, and (3) requested to immediately notify us by email that you mistakenly received this message. Thank you. _c..µ7, is [ � � � - �/� � `� v \ _ 4 • ' ..., � .�- �� �'\� � , • �' Ao LJ C4 I ;Ia& so� �7) r �7 - � � / .•\ 'r • r //•� �� ,fir ° r r '? � 'ut Dilk AL Q y �✓� i (9�2 l/l/ 2 �2' ✓ �C/G' r ot iVGf(�2rC9 r 1 T �i/ w36 .: � ' `//\ ; it ��' .F #•• ,. � e BOUNTY BOARD 62-70PERVISORS IECEMBER 13, 2005 5.00 PUBLIC. HEARINGS AND TIMED ITEMS 10:30 A.M. 5.01 * Public Hearing - Consideration of the Establishment of an Increased Annual Service Charge in County Service Area (CSA) No. 17 (Proposed Zone 2) That Would Include Alley Maintenance Services Within a Newly Created Zone of Benefit Known as Zone 2 - approval is requested for a resolution which would set an annual service charge in a newly created zone of CSA No. 17 (South Oroville/Las Plumas Park Lighting) action requested - (FROM 10-25-05 [3.291) - OPEN PUBLIC HEARING; ACCEPT PROPERTY OWNER PROTESTS; IF NO MAJORITY PROTEST EXISTS, ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING INCREASED SERVICES CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 AND FUTURE FISCAL YEARS, SUBJECT TO BALLOT PROCEEDING -BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 1.7, ZONE 2, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN; AND DIRECT A BALLOT PROCEEDING PUBLIC HEARING BE SET FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M. 10:35 A.M. 5.02 Continued Public Hearing - Petition for Immediate Wcance ofa Williamson Act AgrEement (Evelyn consideration of a petition to immediately Williamson Act agreement on a 52.72 acre parcel, located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner sane, and east of, and adjacent to, State Route 99, in the north Chico ared and identified as APN 047-260-199: In accordance pwith the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been prepared for this project and 1� the Planning Division •is recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration - action requested- PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION. 51282,. AND SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2005, APPROVE THE TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF THE WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT FOR EVELYN LIPTRAP, APN 047-260-199, INSTRUMENT NO. 0052839, RECORDED DECEMBER 22, 1999, SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE APPLICABLE CANCELLATION FEE; AND DIRECT THE RECORDING OF A CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION. (FROM 11-8-05 [5.02]) PAGE 22 DECEMBER 13, 2005 wx BOARD OF.SUPERVISORS ADMINISTRATION CENTER 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE CALIFORNIA 95965 TELEPHONE: (536) 538-7643, November I4, 2005; George Nicholaus 66 Marybill Ranch Road Chico, CA 95928 RE: Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract ' BILL CONNELLY First District JANE DOLAN Second District MARY ANNE HOUX Third District CURT JOSIASSEN Fourth District <IM YAMAGUCHI, Chair Fifth District BUTTE COUNTY NOV 1. 5.2005 DEVELOrMENT• SERVICES Dear Mr. Nicholaus: This letter is to inform you that the meeting of November 8, 2005, the Board of Supervisors continued..the, public hearing for the above -referenced matter to Tuesday, December 13, 2005, *at 10'35 a.m. The hearing will be"conducted in the Board'of Supervisors Chambers, County Administration Building, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville. Please note that if you plan to submit information during the course of your hearing, you will need to provide 8 copies of each item you are submitting.. Also, please be aware that any information. submitted during the course of the hearing, including photographs, maps, video tapes, audio tapes, or written material, ,will become part of the public record for that matter and will be retained by the Board. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 530-538-7643. Thank you. Since ly, arion Reeves Assistant Clerk of the Board ✓cc: Development Services December 14, 1999 Code' Section 25355, a donation of $500 from Chico Power Equipment was received for the purchase of -wo Husgvarna. Brush Cutters. This donation was made possible as a result of a donation of $500 worth of radio adverti3ing given to Chico Power Equipment by Robb Cheal, General Manager, KZAP Radio - action requested - ACCEPT DONATION AND AUTHORIZE LETTERS OF APPRECIATION TO BOTH CHICO POWER EQUIPMENT AND KZAP RADIO. 4. Public Health Donation - in accordance with Government Code Section 25355, a donation of $800 from Merck & Company has been received to help fund the annual immunization update program - action requested - ACCEPT DONATION AND AUTHORIZE A LETTER OF APPRECIATION; AND APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFER B-106 (4/5 vote required) ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE. r 5. County Service Area (CSA) Charges - Protest Hearing Ballot Proceeding Public Hearing - Board approval is requested by the Public Works Department to set a public hearing for February 8, 2000, at 10:30 a.m., pursuant tc Article 7 of Chapter 2.2 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the GDvernment Code (commencing with Section 25210.70), Article VI of Chapter 21 of the Butte County Code (commencing with Section 21-85), and Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution, to hear and consider all objections or protest regarding County Service Area Charges for CSA No. 100 (Holly Gardens) and CSA No. 119 (South Fork Estates) - action requested - ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-167 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN. 6. Durham Mosquito Abatement District - action requested - REAPPOINT SANDY ATTEBERRY TO A TERM TO END DEC3MBER 31, 2003. 7. Animal Control Advisory Board - action requested - ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF LOIS PANTEL, PUBLIC MEMBER, AND AUTHORIZE LETTER OF APPRECIATION; AND APPOINT BARBARA S^--. JOHN, PUBLIC MEMBER. 8. Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District - action requested - REAPPOINT BERNARD KNAPP, DISTRICT 5 REPRESENTATIVE, TO A TERM TO END DECEMBER 31. 2001. 9. Land Conservation Act Inclusions - the Land CDnservation Act Advisory Committee unanimously voted to recommend the following inclusions into Land Conservation Act Agreements: Evelyn C. Liptrap? 48.23 acres, APN 047-260-138; Robert and Cesarina Beale, 158.2 acres, APN 029-C30-019 and 020 (subject to receiving a current title ~eport showing ownership of the property); Robert and Bett- Storm, 146.88 acres, APN 029-220-071 AND 072; Gerald D. and Beverly D. Jones, 667 acres, APN 041-280-003, 0785, 0,:1-290-006, and 035; and Philip L. Wilson, 100 acres, APN 047-080-015 and 016 - action requested - APPROVE AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZE,THE CHAIR TO SIGN. . 99-403 10. County Library - Computer Equipment Purchase - Board approval is requested by the Director of Libraries to purchase a Page 408 December 14, 1999 `` 1 a • , y .._!- (2� �� �O It k3 . ~.t'y __ ..__. __ .-T-,-. --. -_---^ ---- ---- i , • 1, r-- . i A � J• is ... � . • � .. . r , 1 vi. Ago BUTTE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: 'Nicolaus/Liptrap Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson'Act.Contract DEPARTMENT: DDS DATE: 10/10/05 MEETINGVDATE.REQJESTED:11/8/054 REGULAR X CONSENT CONTACT: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner PHONE: 538-7629 DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code, 4 . Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. , --See Attached Agenda Report-- ACTION REQUESTED: Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn I,_iptrap (Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199, Instrument No. 0.052839, 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. r w 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 Budgetaryimpact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: ;Yes No X Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on Administrative Office -taff Contact back. Deadline is one business day prior.to normal agenda a � P r � � ` �� `71, h7 i b; . y r. t., 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: The applicant requests the immediate B. Application for Cancellation cancellation - of 'a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — . C. Liptrap Williamson act,Contract 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. ` D. Land Conservation Act Advisory APN: 047-260;199 Committee Minutws 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 Gamer 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 T5ntative 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 been received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn C. Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2. : This Williamson Act Contract was entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999 (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3. The contract covers a parcel of 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 ' ■ Page 1 of 11 ■ 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 (TS)M 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. 3. Additionally, notice of this hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition has been mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to this hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). 4. Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the County must forward a copy of the published notice of the decision to the Director of the Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Cancellations 1. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act contracts are not intended to be cancelled 'and in fact, cancellation is reserved for -unusual, "emergency" situations. Therefore, the nine-year, . nonrenewal process has been identified as the legally preferred method for terminating a Williamson Act contract. 2. The Supreme Court has stated that cancellation is not appropriate where the . objectives served.by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal, (See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 852-853). 3. The State of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that cancellation is impermissible "except upon extremely stringent conditions", (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, (1979). The Attorney General has also opined that nonrenewal is the preferred contract termination method: "If a landowner desires to change the use of his land under contract to uses other than agricultural production and compEtible uses, the proper procedure is to give notices of nonrenewal pursuant to section 5 "_245." (54 'Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 90, 92 (1971).) ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November :3, 2005. ■Page 2of11■ 4. Williamson Act Contracts may nevertheless be Immediately Cancelled in circumstances when Cancellation Findings can be made and a cancellation. fee is paid in accordance with the Williamson Act and as discussed in the following three sections. 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 consisten.�y 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 (GC 51282_ (a). the Board of Supervisor's must find: (1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the object_ves 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 development (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 adjzcent lands from agricultural use (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which Js consistent with the . applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. (4) That. cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. . (5) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted iand 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 chara-Aer of the' existing use may be considered only if there is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put (GC §51282(b)). ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report— Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 3, 2005 ■ Page 3 of 11 ■ - • 3. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the applicant's -equest for cancellation on June 30, 2004. . The Committee reviewed the above referenced findings and acted to recommend approval of .the Cancellation to the Board of . Supervisors with the required findings. Summary of Findings 1. The Department of Conservation comments in their attached letter - that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided that the Board of Supervisors may have sufficient supporting evidence to make the required fir -dings 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 tze4Liptrap Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1.999. 4.. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the implementation of agricultural land and Williamson Act Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. 5. Further, the Department of Conservation points out that the Williamson. Act was created to control and guide urban development as well -as to preserve agricultural land. 6. 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 landowner has now filed a Tentative Subdivision Map with the County -to divide this property into 48, 1 -acre parcels, a use that is -consistent with the Nath Chico. Specific Plana 8. It is important to note, however, that the North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future development in this area, and the 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 findings supporting cancellation based upon information contained within the record. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ - ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 0 Page 4 of 11 0 1 11'. The findings set forth by staff supporting the Cancellation are summarized below. (please refer to the complete. findings located under the Action for Consideration Section for more detailed infonnation): a. That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectiv-s of the Williamson Act. • . Conformance of the project with the North Chico Specific Plan, th? County's vision for development in this area. • The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North Chico Specific Plan is found to be in the general. public's interest. • Development of this area will result in the connection of SR -99 with Kittyhawk Drive, a major county arterialintended to serve the Plan area and. that will have a larger public benefit. b. That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both ava_lable and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted lznd would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns requi: ed 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 been 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 Specdic Plan, the General Plan's Greenline policy, and the Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback 'requirement greatly reduce the likeliho9d that cancellation of this property. would result in the removal of adjacent lend from agricultural use. • Infilling this area with residential development in accordance with the North Chico Specific Plan will promote a more regular urban pastern Of development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. e. That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 5of11 ■ • 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 tete General Plan. f. That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development • The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to eyisting and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. Cancellation Fee 1. The cancellation fee is payment made to cancel a Williamson Act contract . that provides a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(o)• 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 valuaiion' 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 #04-02J. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION The Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee and Development Services recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: I. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings: a. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Said study identified significant environmental effects and included mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant levels; a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)■ November 8. 2005 ■ Page 6 of 11 ■ j b. jhe Board`of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative FDeclaration, together with comments received during the review process. . c: �•~. On - the basis of the whole record before the Board of Supervisors, ' h ti including -the Initial Study and any comments received, :here is no , substantial evidence that the Immediate •Cancellation for George Nicolaus, • '. ' -Planning Division File No. Canc 04-02„would have a significF_nt effect on - - •,+ . the environment. . The custodian of the record is the Department of y; Development Services. The' location of the record is 7. Codinty' Center X Drive, Oroville CA 95965. d. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independerii judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. II. f --Tentatively Cancel the Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (Assessor's. Parcell 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 Del-ember 22, k :J 1999 upon review and approval " by the Board of Supervisors. This ' `.". :, _ approval was based 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 o: chards to ^ f�' ;,:- - .,;;continue operations. without interference or interruption 'by • ' , -x'•-' `.: development. However, since this property was desi€nated,.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 ,S 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 ' `,, •; , -.r •._, North Chico'Specific Plan's goals and SR-1 (Suburban Residential, 1- ' - - - `acre minimum parcel size) zoning: ,Although this property is developed f _ - • ' .� '�. . with aproducing. walnut orchard, and agricultural uses are allowed under one of the Plan's policies, the Plan more specifically in&cates r M ' ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ " , .. ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 November E, 2005 - ■ Page 7of11.■ - _ I ' that this area is intended for residential development a:! 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 as preserve agricultural land. The County's approval of the North Chico Specific Plan provides explicit direction on where residential development is desirable. The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the } 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 f_•nding this cancellation in the public's interest as follows:. The residential development as proposed by the Kittyhawk 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 by .the North ' Chico Specific Plan for area -wide circulation and will 5enefit 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 circulation to the Plan area as a result of subsequent development that would be allowed under. this Cancellation is also found to be in tae general public's interest. • Nuisances that are related to agricultural activity such. as harvesting, chemical spraying and application, dust, ash, smoke and ncise, would be minimized if the property . is developed with single family residences. The Cancellation would allow for the implementation of the residential development envisioned for this site by the North Chico Specific. Plan. The continued use of the property for agricultural activity is allowed by the North Chico Specific Plan, but chis site is more .specifically designated for residential development. The continued use of the propertyfor commercial agriculture wi.'l 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. In zlling 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 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(c)). ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ` ■ Page 8 of 11 ■ • 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 proje--t is either contemplated for future development. or is proposed by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject property is the only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The development of this parcel would. provide for more contiguous patterns of urban- development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates the Plan bound:zry as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico -Specific Plan and Greenline policy. b. Find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act as follows: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. • A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant in 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 o; the Butte County General Plan (Program 2.2) requires the maintenance of an agricultural setback on the subject property that will limit : esidential development from taking place within 300 feet of the agricultural lands west of SR -99. The setback would be applied to the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. SR -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenline at this location, which allows for u; -ban type development east of SR -99 and agricultural uses to the i -.)est. 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 (Cant 04-02)■ November o, 2005 ■ Page 9of11 0 r Specific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline policy, and the Agricultural Element's. 300 foot agricultural setback requirement greatly reduce the likelihood that cancellation of this property would result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. (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 (Kittyh.awk Park. Tentative Subdivision Map). Although this Map is still under review, the proposed 48, 1 -acre parcel sizes are consistent with the provisions of the North Chico Specific Plan's. SR -I (Suburban Residenrial, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zoning and the Agricultural Resideriti:l General Plan designation. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. • The development of this parcel. would provide for more ;contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for residential ures and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the ea.at (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivisicn). SR -99 to the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Bache County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate' in the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan knd.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 abricultural zoning. Much of the property in the vicinity of this project is either contemplated for future development or is proposed by development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject property is the only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The development of this parcel would provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November e, 2005 ■ Page 10 of 11 ■ 1 L J 0 �W- • �j PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (Submit Original and 4 Copics) To the Bow d of Supervisors of the County of Butte. The undersigned hereby petition(s). the Board of Supervisors Of the County of Butte to Cancel . theLand Conservation.Agreement executed between the County of Butte and -".\f i I �. p t. A (� on �a a �3 as it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve N' �of the County of Butte which is presently owned, by the undersigned. In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the I:ind covered by said agreement described as follows: f7 ` 04 r - aZ 00 - Cl' _000. eoU S! ST 111f 1 °C{ �� � H c2 E, 2. That CMIcellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act Govemment . Code '51200 et seq•) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that:* _ The u»dersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. Y Executed this day of i=/� /zY�� `f at hf ! G O Califonti3. A Petitioner(s) APPENDIX E : Date }riled: Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION l . Name and address of developer or project sponsor: (FV t=t'ynl l P T',2r3 i° 331 (,JA ST -' L' (+1C 17 r CA-" C� 4 w g � �fl'!Z� 3000' fJ, �� Wl"01V 2. Addressofproject-. �.%tST � f 2 o_�t�` Assessor's Block and Lot Numbcr: f ®`f 1 a& o -11m -coo 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this projcct: i (�P�IL11Ni. f�IJD" a2G £ 1� iC0LAt-vS (n� ✓Y�Jr2Y�3i[c )v r/ K, t7 t% o C A G S ti Com_ .4: Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivisi ) W l.Zl-Uf�i Sy iLJ �XG4�(tN'c�: �r2[�Ge.��'Vl_ .Cd s(-�£�P) �-.£.ri-'b7�NC "TTo S�f3•Dr�its/c3�i/ 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this Project., inclu 'ng those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: ( £.N i & t V' 5 v D i vi lsi v ry AIAP tri CCD O.L% : b. Existing zoning district: R — �f Y t't111 �UJZTii- !f iC o Sys c i�tc •PLAN 7 Proposed use of site: _ 1 �� S ? !v T 1 s� �✓r'� S i T- £ s PRQJ CT DESCRIPTION �. Site sire. 14Y� 9 Square footage of building(s). 10. Number of floors.o f construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach site development plan." , jg" !`—Tl-�� t- D 13. ' Proposed scheduling.P f2 / AJ. 14. Associated projects. l 5.. Anticipated incremental development. lG. If residential, 1. include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household size i xpccte r Z g_c ( `+C> r V 7 1 : � L_ � is i L A ! N & 1--. 071, S 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city, or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 13. if indislrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional; indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. if the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following ite=ms applicable to the project or its efEcct�? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets .as neceGsary) _YES NO. Change in.existing features of.any beaches, lakes, or' lteration of ground cou:ours. hills, or substantial a 22. Significant, change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. {� 23 - Si' ificantly change pattern, scale or character of general area of proj=ect. V 24. - Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust; ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. 26. Significant' change in -.lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or, alteration of existing drainage patters.. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicintiy. . V 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 34 percent or more. I 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as tox:jc substances, nammablcs or explosives. 34. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electrictiy; oil, natu-al gas, etc.) 32 Relationship to part of a larger project or series of projects. . FNVTRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including inform ion on topopaphy; soil stability, plants andanimals, and. any cultural, historical, or scenic. saspccts. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. . 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any, cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc:), and scale of intensity of land use (one -family, development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.). CFRTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached. exhibits . preSent the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability,. and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date /d r (Sitature) For Abcdev IWocumcnt\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) cancellatior. 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 addres Sed: (A)'Public Interest' will be covered first, followed by-(B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest Public interest will be served by cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Seraices, (2) Contiguous. Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services ; As growth and development continues within the area designated as the "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995" (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the. subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a). consistent with the existing zoning (SR-1), _ by. providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk DrivE as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Game_- Lane. 'This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Plan area by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehiclEs better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drive, 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. 1 . 'r Emergency personnel would gain access to rapidly growing ' residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much- more direct route fihan the existing drive;southto the Garner Lane intersection or < is t 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 F y *' Road, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing for the enhancement . of general traffic circulation.. As discretionary funds available to ,# . ' Butte County are very limited, the completion of and inherent' °_. co of Kittyhawk Drive may not -be realized , �. F anytime soon. Cancellation of. the Land Conservation Act on the } r ' sub ect P roperty-will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed, which in j. _ •' turn will provide for private funding for the construction of. Kittyhawk Drive. ` 2• Conti ousGrowth Pattern i . • ^ . Conservation -Agreement and { a).. The cancellation of the Lan , subsequent'application for the WAEEP contract will allow for •_ # press desire L growth within the Plan area. It is an ex r ' - contiguous gas - within ' • within Butte County to rovide for contiguous growth patterns 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. The subject.property is contiguous on the east border with an existing subdivision and contiguous on the south border with a -, propos 50 unit subdivision which was recently, submitted to ,< r Butte Coun planning staff. An older almond orchard contiguous=:' with and to the north of the subject property was cleared of all trees within the past year and, as too is zoned SR -1 and is located within the Plan area, will likely be the subject of development , • �: r ,r pressure in the near future. Additionally, an existng ved' almond ' of the recently remo 3 y. subdivision lies to the north , orchard. ` 3 A' ricultural Element Issues _ t '. x ' t yr l Element in 1995 the A + ' • " Butte County adopted gricultura While the Element's express purpose is to preserve agricultural n .* All t ,. 2 land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "Allow for the conversion of auricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence where land has been determined to be irretrievably lost to urbanization. These would likely be areas where urban development has surrounded or substantially encroached upon agricultural land and has limited its continued productive use." (Emphasis Added) 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 com�ert to - residential housing. That the subject property is rapidly being "surrounded" a_ -id "substantially encroached upon" is clearly the case at hand. Following extensive planning and research on the part of 3utte 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 and appears that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to the w south of the subject property. Granted, the Element allows for the 300 foot standard to be "adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Those "unusual circumstances", specifically, the legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural , practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation of the subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting multiple health and safety hazards at worst to neighboring residents. The following points are part of the Environmental Information Form Eiat „ accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review at this point as legitimate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an urban setting: 3 Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as . they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides).. Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. In summary, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue. of Contiguity for efficient . growth and development, and (3) conforms to the spirit and intent found within the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is the express purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. As an additional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exchange requires the California Department of Conservation to review this petition, to be in substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department canagree is acceptable and suitable for the exchange. 4 10 t In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found b be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to effect a WAEEP plan. If, however, the Petitioner can find no acceptable WAEEP. property for' an exchange within a reasonable time, it is the desire of the Petitioner to proceed with the cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement ' and to pay the cancellation penalty fees as determined by the Land Conservation ' Agreement recorded on December 22, 1999. 4 Five Findings Consistent with the 'Purposes of the Code Subsequent to the issues regarding Public Interest as described, Code Section , 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the, following findings, 1. Notice of non -renewal has been submitted in a timely manner 2. Cancellation / exchange will not result in adjacent lands being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands adjacent to • the subject property are located within the North 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 the west) which might be considered 'adjacent' is outside• of the North Chico Specific Plan's scope and may not be considered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the subjec _ property would therefore not be a substantive cause for any adjacent property to be removed from agricultural use. ' 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in'the subject property being used for, purposes expressly put forth in the North Chico Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a precise guideline fir growth ; and development over and above the General Plan, cancellation of , 4 ..the Land Conservation Agreement brings the subject property into conformity with the Specific Plan and its long-range goats.- 5 ' 4.; Cancellation / exchange will not result in discontiguous - development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous with existing residential development as well as land currently in the development review process with ButteCounty - 5. .-There is no proximate non -contracted land" which is both- "'available otr. .. " '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 property is, r 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 unsiutabL for urban development. The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons for cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property.. Petitioner Date t LCAE, changgeDraft103 " 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 vici- ity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout fie 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 neighborhooes, 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 iacreased fossil fuel consumption would be in accordance with and in compliance to thr 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 part of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result of the approved Plan. A "Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. . Item 33. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of. the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan), as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a-30 year old 93 +/- acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly on Garner Lane and westerly on SR -99. Two earlier phases of division (1999 and . 2000) on the easterly end created Autumn Park Subdivision, the divisions of which created 40 one acre home sites and a remainder of 52.72 acres. The remainder parcel is the project site. The site slopes uniformly from approximately 186' on the northeasterly boundary to approximately 181' on the southwesterly boundary. The soils are stable and are categorized as vina loam. There are no rare or endangered plants or animals on the property and no known cultural, historical or scenic features. There is one existing agricultural accessory structure (approximately 24'x 60') on Lot 39 which will remain. The structure is shown on the attached tentative map. (Please see attached photographs) Item 34. The properties to the west are primarily agricultural in nature. The property to the south, owned by Guernsey, has been submitted to Butte County for subdivision into 50 lots. Southeasterly and directly east of the project site are single family residential home sites ranging in various sizes and ages. The property to the north and northeast has been cleared of the remaining remnants of an old almond orchard. It has been vacant and continues to be vacant of any use other than two home sites. Within these immediate areas there are no known rare or endangered plant or animals, nor are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. Each proposed lot and home, when built, will meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department) (Please see attached photographs) KtyHwkLCA_CXL_102 1.4 GARNER - WESTERLY DOWN KITTYHAWK DRIVE SOUTHERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE NORTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. UNE SOUTHEAST PROP. UNE Tj ��_ . u.,s� .3r+.. � L✓-7'iof _ - - - - � 3 " i2 � , !+' 7�s #der.. t. �`�•f wir'Y ..1�...+e �4 t�°�•;f S ' •� EXISTING STORM EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND DRAINAGE POND �.-.fi.'�Itad+iii......ew.=a=..�»a.•-..;,,., ae+etr.,.. �,a ,., �rt,.,�. - VIEW OF PROPERTY SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTH FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. UNE NORTHEAST FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE •CK VIEW OF PROPER' .NORTH OF PROJE, ♦ �♦. � �:. \. / Illy oll �, s •.fps � a.�r+ '�? t .w VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 ` ON LOT 39 -" or 4 ly 16. BASIS OF BEARING THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2,�� \ 1SO'LEACH- AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL I \ FIELD FREE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14, TAKEN AS SETBACK LINE NORTH 89°37'19° EAST..FROM WELL 180 181 .. I.T7 IPS 1rt4 1P.5 IEC L/1N.13° \ \ /0.4436 AC \ \ \ LL) .. \ N89'37'18- 7743.37' LOT 8 1 \ \ ]z' LOT 30LOT 38 � 1.0641 AC � LOT 16 LOT 140.9860 AC 1 105AC (0.9112) LOT 31 LOTI pLOT 22 .08471 1.0062) AAA 1.0002 AC 7.0018 AC 0.9989 C 0.8985 ACLOT 3S 6.01 AC (0.8845) (0.8846) (0.9850) (0.9887)LOT 37 0.6641 AC (1.0188) 1nz2a Aq (0.7x46) A , ZONE X (1.0814) LOT70 8574 AC/ 1 `I LOT 34 LOT 5 \ 0.9460AC 08330 AC (0,8208) LOT 28 1` \ 1 - L = 164.10 \ \ 0.8522 AC LOT 24 \` LOT 21 - \LOT 16 ` LOT 13 / D = 15'1 740• \ - (0.84118) 0.8316 AC \ (/ 0.8315AC 444 8337 AC \ / 0.8337 AC 1 I/ SCALE: 1" = 100'-O" R=618.80 \ LOT 32 (0.7383) I I (0.7383) (0.7413) 1 I (0.7473) 1 1 30T 38189 AC ' \ 1(0 9522)C I I I 1 0.8838 AC (1.1082) \ \ (0.8035) I E pT SIr ET T T \ \ " ' I 10 0,01 AC\ LOT 211 LOT 26 LOT 20 LOT 77 LOT 12 (0 B18S) PROJECT \\ \ D/gS� AC Q gggggg$6 AAG I` I 4g966 AG D ggggBBB8 C 9gyy��ee (A� LOl SfJE 105 SAC \ I I (0.9508) (0.9(1114y �D.B012) (O.B612� I I D(6,8012)G � 088x8 Ac I I ^ 4 (0.8660) OyY I �-+y I I I I (0.8 5) ^ LOT 33 .. 'EL�t 1.3754 AC �n,' \ (0.8762) I _ I LOTS Y V- - . 0 0357AC . '. JL ( G R�Tj 1 \ I I I I I I I \ I I (0.6484)i 9%L ( 1 LOT 27 LOT 26 LOT t 8 LOT 18 LOT ,18 LOT 10 LOCATION MAP \ �54 s \ I I o.eeao nc o.99eo Ac I I \ os9eo nc o.eseo Ac I 0.9880 AC 09MAC 1 ( 1(0.7686) (0.7694) (0.7694) (0.7694) (0.7694) (07547) �OG \ \STREET LOT 7 LOT 40 LOT43 LEGEND: 1 1,11 Al I �- - - - .000tAc (0.8728) II (0.7859) (. LOT NUMBER LOT 100 FEMA X u• I 917 GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE \ kkyy� til LOT 44 \ LOT 45 LOT 46 LOT 47 LO 411 LOT 48 LOT 50 LOT 61 LOT 52 LOT 53 NET ACRES (0.8496) 'uAYu,Y"' \ 0.6888AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.8763 AC 0.87DiAC I 1 (0.6667) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.600➢) (0.6007) (0.8007) (0.6007) (0.6007) LOT °C° (0.8363 A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, \ a LOT LOT 42 I I ) 00 7 ) ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND1.0001 AC 0.9462 Ac m \ \ i LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE \ (1.0001> (0.8876) rt/ 1 41 CONSTRUCTED. \ EKIsnNGva_ I� , ExlsnNo PnooAYITTY1�AVCDRIV CSA 87 SO AREA % FIRE HYDRANT -- ---- 6 (TO BE MOVED) ♦ s9a 47Dtw 7167.Br . ZONE A ZONE X y � NOTA PART rr�j �, '�,, AP 047 260-188 • �, < \ \ GENERAL NOTES SUBDIVISION INFORMATION 7 ,wus, m211 un 12ft 8•nW�• 7n M-3 1. TNI& TENTMPA NAP NA6 B88N De610N60 AND I6 R-1 Z PROC1868D MPA WITH THE APP0.0V eD 6R •1 SONINa OWNER& \ AND OTHER PROV ISION6 OF THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN. { SUBDIVIDER: EVELYN UPTRAP so It 2. THE INTBRIOR SUBDIVISION STREETS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED 331 WALL STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL TYPE L•III OR TYPE L•V 01 THE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 R.OW. LOCAL TYPE L -V APPPLTO STREETS D, E. F, -G 8 H $9 oft 14n 14n BR 5n R.O.W. 4 LOCAL TYPE L -III j APPLIES TO STREETS A 8 8 C I-aa�en,n �18 �.. I- twee uw�oanrt� 80.008 R.O.W .,>. ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV APPLIES TO KRTYHAWK DRIVE ENGINEER: BOBFEENEY NORTH CHie O SPE. IC PLAN, YET SHALL PRIVATE f B TR e ET6 AND SMALL NOT BE OF f ER01 FOR De D ICATION TO THE 1260 EAST AVENUE, SUITE 10 COUNTY OF 11UTTl. THE EXTENSIGNITTYHA ORIVN r LAND USE: PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL SM Be Be CO NBT RUC TE AS AN ARTERIAL TYPE A -N IN I TE IAL TY I ACCORDANCE WITH TME NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN ANO •T . - ZONING: OFFER ED POR DEDICATION TO THe COUNTY OF BUTTE. UTILITIES: 3. THE PROPOSED LOT ARe AS SHOWN ARE GROSS LOT AREAS AND INCL LOSTHE PROPOSED PRNAT! RA EAND TME u■/�_ VESTING AR aMENTS SA 6e Ml NTSNET LOT �'R TNe TEAS IO TA L4)ARI AA rO Rl6 UB DN16e0N X C LIBBl 52.7269 - - SEWAGE:. INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK AC Rl S. ` AND LEACH FIELDS 4. THE Me 01 6eWA0e DIB PO SAI AND LOT AREAS TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP • . D M vR OPO BeD MEETS ALl Re O UIREMeNT6 OF APPENOIX V11 OF TNe BUTTE COUNT COD!. See END ME NO •601L6 WAIVER• _ - 6. ALL DRAINAGE RUNOFF SMALL BE RETAINED IN THE RETENTION i BASIN PR OVIO a D. 6' TY A DIVISION OF REMAINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF FORMlEDTOPROOVIDEDOMESTCIWATER SERVICETOTHELLOTS AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE II, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS or TME BUB DIVISION, INClU01Te PROVIDING TM! 000 OPM W ATeR RQ Q U1RL0 FOR nae PRO a TIO N. AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 -LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE EAST, M.D.B.& M. - BUTTECOUNTY,CALIFORNIA 7' TRENCHaSTeR WILL eE RETAINED ON-SITE 1N Ro4oelDe LeaeH. 6. THESUBDIVISION HAS AN AVERAGE LOT AREA Of 9940 ACRES, FOR AND THE DENSITY OF THE SUBDIVISION MAS BEEN BASED UPON TIGROSS AREA FOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE aR•1 ZONIN O. - 9. AB SHOWN, THE EXISTING SDR AREA WILL BEREMOVED AND _ EVELYN C. LIPTRAP WILL Be TRUCT80 ON THE OUeRN9 EY PR OJe CT TO THE SOUTH OrF THIS THIS PPROJECT, ' .10. IN LIEU OF LOT DIMBNSIONS ON EACH LOT,AS REQUIRED BY THE - - APPLICATION, WE HAVE PRO ID E GROSS AND NET LOT AREA - JANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1 - AND WILL PROVIDE LOT DIMENSIONS ON THE FINAL MAP. t 1 ENGINEER: BOBFEENEY 1260 EAST AVENUE, SUITE 10 CHICO, CALIFORNIA 96973 LAND USE: PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: SR -1 UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC TELEPMONE:SBC WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY SEWAGE:. INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK AND LEACH FIELDS APN: 047-260.197 AND 047.260.199 !JAYS e A_lw( ULT _5 ' 1701 /CRM1NNQCCUO ' xAT6603600A7FS CNC0,uF4PZe 19)0) BPF-0FFF 1.:v,�A IPYT1 Nl.ICt1i DM1�iAY5AhOLlAIES,CAM I 9 n .0 * 4 • LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _14thday of December L49�• by and between hereinafter referred. to as "Owner", and. the County of Butte, apolitical subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to.as "County WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain real property hereinafter described 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 of 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 WHEREAS, theplacement 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: I: This Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to. the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as amended (Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code of California commencing with Section 51200), including Article 3 of said Act entitled "Contracts". II: During the term of this Agreement, or any renewal thereof, the said propeity shall not be used for any purpose other than agricultural uses for producing agricultural commodities, for commercial purposes, and uses compatible with such purposes, which uses are set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. III: The Board of Supervisors may from time to time and during the term of the. Agreement or any extensions thereof, by resolution, add to those compatible uses authorized in. the resolution establishing the preserve within which the land is located; provided however, said Board shall not eliminate, without the written consent of Owner, a compatible use during the term of this Agreement or 'any renewals thereof. . The provisions of this Agreement and any resolution 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 land subject to this Agreement is "taken in an action in eminent domain or is acquired in lieu of eminent domain for a public =mprovement, this Agreement shall be null and void for the land or interest in the land actually taken, but shall remain -.2 01 2. in full force and effect as to the remainder of the land or interest in the land not so. taken or acquired. The date an action in eminent domain is filed shall be the date this Agreement is deemed null and 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 shall remain in effect fora period of ten (10) years therefrom. This Agreement 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 Section 51245 of the Government Code of California. VI: The Owner understands that he/she is not entitled to any public funds by reason of the execution of this Agreement or any renewal thereof although the use of said pro-3erty 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 Section 51282, finds: (a) that cancellation 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 in azcordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 51283 and Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 99-124 Said cancellation fee may not be waived except as provided in Government Code Section 51283 and shall be a lien upon the property described herein until paid. The amount of the fee shall be an amount equal to 25% of the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of he fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, ani one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124. 2-1 VIII: Owner agrees, during the term of this Agreement, to provide County, upon e to the income and expenses derived from and incurred in written request, with information relativ connection withthe use of the land subject to the Agreement for, agricultural and compatible uses. IX: (a) The Owner agrees that he/she, his/her successors, and assigns shall not divide by sale, gift, or financing; the property which is the sub'ect of this Agreement into a parcel . !7C �jOV - or parcels under separate ownership having less thane acres. However, if the division is for purposes of transfer to immediate family members, then the property may be divided into a parcel, or parcels under separate ownership having no less than acres, in accordance with the acreage standards in D-1, Column 1, of Resolution 99=124, provided that a Joint Management ?lac pursuant to Government Code Section 51230.1 is executed. (b) A parcel division may occur at less than.the minimum sizes specified in subsection (a) above if it is pursuant to a use permit for parcel segregation for agricultural processing and the remaining contracted lands conform to the above minimum sizes. (c) Partial cancellation of this 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 line 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 portion 'of the property not subject to the non -renewal, must each have not less than. 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. ; XI: In the event of forced sale of lands subject hereto for the'settlement of a tax lien,. . this Agreement isinull 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. •tlThis 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. L XIII: The property of the Owner hereinabove referred to and to which the provisions j of the Agreement apply is situated in the County of Butte, State of California and is particularly ^ a described as follows: .` r 7.7-x- •'� , see - LO 23-- 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 Subdivision Phase 1, which map was recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, S=ate of California, on August 1.2, 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 Phase -l"; 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 209.82 feet;. THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line, North 63019'53" East, a distance of 367.87 feet; THENCE North 26010'00" West,.a distance of 185..43 feet; THENCE South 62°16'40" West, a distance of 370.91 feet to a point on the easterly rig -it -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 34035'25" West, and a chord distance of 165.97 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line and northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 15°24'50", an arc distance of 166.47 feet; THENCE continuing along said easterly right-of-way line, North 42017'50" West, a distance of 216.97 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line and along the northerly line of said Rerraining Lands, North 89.°37'19"East, a distance of 2,743..37 feet; THENCE leaving said northerly line, South 00°17'59" East, a distance of 718.63 feet to the northeasterly corner of said Lot "A"; THENCE along the northerly line of said Lot "A", South 89"42'01 ",West, a distance 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 20100 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Lot "A" and the Point of Beginning; Containing 48.23 acres, more or less. o Qgpf ESSlA. p4, ••sem•• �/ Ai • No. 33381 Bruce A. Nash R.C.E. 33381 •': r Registration Expires 06!30102 24 w �l1r nab \�r0� XIV: If the Owner breaches the terms of this Agreement in a mariner which results in all or any portion of theproperty which is the subject of this Agreement not being used for the agricultural or open space uses contemplated by this Agreement, the parties agree ttr_at 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 notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal in accorc ance with this Agreement and the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 as to the property or portion -thereof affected by the breach, and no damages shall accrue pursuant to this section XIV upcn termination of this Agreement pursuant to said notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal. - IN WITNESS WHEREOF; the Owner and County have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. . CO .,OF BUTTE By - an Dolan , Chair Butte ounty Board of :supervisors ATTEST: JOHN BLACKLOCK, Chief Executive Officer and Clerk of the Board 25,. 6 - 1. CIN 1 -STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss. COUNTY.OFJ u } On 1 �+ �i ; before' me, personally appeared v✓�� L� C� < n�r'�g i , personally known" tc me. (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whc`se name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same M 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 person(s) acted, executed the instrument t WITNESS my hand: and official seal. Signature L 6`:�etitlf�-Yr j COP&M::.J1156507 ; '. in 001ARY pft6 c-CM.NRHIA (a . ' e COUNTY Of BUTTE w * v r' My Comm Es^�40cLt4.2001 r (This area for official notarial seal) ' Title of Document ' Date of Document No. of Pages Other signatures: not acknowledged . Z-7 3008 (1/94) (General) Fire American Title Insurance Company EXHIBIT "A.. COMPATIBLE USES The following uses are hereby determined to be compatible uses on all contracted lands, and all . other uses are prohibited: 1. Permitted Uses: a. One single family residence for each legal parcel within the contracted lands pursuant to minimum acreage standards in D1 - Column 2, of Resolution 997124, except for.` family members which may be pursuant to Column, 1. ACREAGE STANDARDS Column 1 Column 2 Type of Activity ' Incoming Contract Minimum Acres Building & Selling minimum acres Orchards (vineyards, -kiwi, fruit, and nut crops 20------------ 40 Field Crops` . 80 80 Irrigated Pasture/Riceland 80 80 Wetlands/Prime Hunting 80 80 Dry Land Grazing 160 320 Open Space 160, 320 . b. General farming, horticulture, commercial livestock production, commercial poultry production, and similar activities. c. Open space for: 1. Wildlife & biotic habitat. i 2. Scenic values. 3: Scenic highways and byways. d: Any other use determined by the Board of Supervisors to be a compatible use in all agricultural preserves._ e. Housing facilities (including trailers) to accommodate only agricultural employees' and their families who are employed by the owner or operator to work on, their contracted lands. f. The drilling for hydrocarbon, including the installation and use of suchequipment, - structures,'and facilities as are necessary.or convenient. 2: Accessory Useg: a. Warehousing and storage of agricultural products. b. • Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses including agricultural processing plants: C. A stand or a display for sale of agricultural commodities produced or. the premises including the incidental sale of agricultural products produced off -sit,.. d. Water storage reservoirs and irrigation areas. e: Hunting and hunting clubs. f. Private airport or aircraft landing facilities. ' g. , Public Utility services 3. Conditional Uses: a.. Public and. Quasi -Public uses, including structures, and buildings. r, b: .Veterinary hospitals and/or clinics: c. Sand and gravel mine, not including asphalt and'concrete batch plants. ` d. Mines,`mineral extraction, and quarries in. Agricultural Preserve Numbers 7, 8, and. 9 K,:\L.CA\AGUSES.AGR 17 .1'` • - ` .30. 9.1 t . . • 1 . J ■ 1 LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES — JUNE 3012004 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a. m. in the 3 A County Center Conference Room, #3 County Center Drive, and Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Yvonne Christopher, Development Services, Chairman Joe Connell, Farm Advisor David Skinner Clarence Daley Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Blake Bailey, Assessor's Office Lewis Johnson Also Present: Rob MacKenzie, Deputy County Counsel Fred Holland, Assessor's Office Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Yvonne Christopher introduced herself and explained why she is now the Chairman of this Committee and asked the public members to state their expertise and how long they have been on the Committee. Lewis Johnson said he was a farmer and has been on the Committee for some time now. Joe Connell said he was taking Bill Olsen's place from the Farm Advisory Agency. Clarence Daley said,he is a cattleman and has been on the Committee for 15 years. Dave Skinner said. he was a farmer and has been oil 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 oontract. He said he would like input from the Committee, before developing findings which could be handled by the Committee giving instruction on each firiding for staff to develop the findings and bring them back' to the Committee, or take the finding to the Board of Supervisors. t f 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 u Minutes ® June 30, 2004 a Page 1 ■ Mr.Lewis said it is hard for farmers to deal with.the intrusion of residential dwellings and their animals. Chairman Christopher said there is a 300 -foot agricultural buffer on the residential property. Mr. Lewis questioned the impact to the Highway. Mr. Breedon said that would be looked at in subsequent development actions. Mr. Skinner asked about Kitty Hawk Drive being completed to Highway 99: Chairman Christopher stated the`road is planned, but not built. Mr. Breedon said it is a proposed alignment and is supported by the NCSP. The discussion was opened to the public. George Nicholaus said the property is bounded on the east by residential. He said the property to the south is proposed for 50 residential units. He said to the north of the project site is �.pproximately 68 acres of what use to be an almond orchard and is now bare land. Mr. Price asked how long before farming stops on the Liptrap property. Mr. Nicholaus said the plan is to farm up to the time of development. He said he talked to,Mr. Levey about his orchard that is not being taken care of. Mr. Skinner asked where the 300 -foot buffer was applied. Chairman Christopher said the buffers are applied on the new development side. Mr. Lewis asked what was located on the west side. He noted that there is a dus= situation. Mr. Price said there are almonds. He said the -highway is wide and helps with the buffer. -Mr. Nicholaus said the, north boundary is SR -1. zoning. Mr. Lewis asked what is entailed with the trading of contract lands. Mr. Breedon explained that it is a very lengthy process. He said there is no application for trading lands at this time. Mr. Hays 'asked if the $625,000.+ figure was a penalty fee. He said it was his assessment that the $625,000 was the valuation of the 43 acres. Mr. Bailey said that the $625,000 is a 25% fee based on the current fair market value if unrestrictive. He said the memo submitted should read "fee" and not "value." 32 s Land Conservation Committee a Minutes a June 30, 2004 a PF-ge 2 Mr. Holland explained how to figure the penalty fees which are based on the fair. rr_arket value of land. Mr. Hays asked about .an appeal period. Mr. Bailey discussed appealing the Assessor's evaluation. Mr. Holland added that he would have to . check to see if this evaluation could be appealed. Mr. Hays said he wanted to be on record that he wants to appeal the fee amount and he did not know how to do that. Mr. Breedon went through the justification for making the findings submitted by the applicant. He read Part A - Public Interest, and Part B - Five Findings consistent with the purpose of the code. . Mr. Connell asked on the points made by the applicant, who responds to the yes or no questions. Mr. Breedon explained that the yes and no questions are from the environmental findings. He said he has to perform an environmental review of this project. Mr. Holland said it was important to note that all of the findings have to be made to approve this cancellation. He said all findings have to be made consistent with the Code. He= said the Public Interest findings have within them a mutual finding which is that there is no other proximate non-. contracted land available or suitable for development, or the cancellation would provide for more contiguous patterns of growth. He said within the framework of this contract, all of these findings must be made, not the least of which is the timely filing of a Notice of Non-Renewcl, which did not occur in this case. Mr. Breedon asked that the findings be taken separately in order. He said the first finding i s that this cancellation is in the public interest. Mr. Bailey said the pubic concern is arguable. He said prime agricultural land is being taken out of production. He said 4 `/z years ago in 1999, this Commission placed the property in the Williamson Act four years after the adoption of the NCSP. He said it is hard to say it was in the public's best interest 4'/z years ago to put this property into the Williamson Act and now say it is in the public's best interest to take the land out. He felt the proper way to cancel this contract was through the Notice of Non -Renewal process. Mr. Breedon pointed out that the NCSP allows for agricultural uses. Mr. Holland argued that an almond orchard was proposed in 1999 to be Under contract for a minimum of 10 years. He said the Committee has to balance out what was dome 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. Liptiap informed Mr. Reimers that she would not be able 33 ■ Land Conservation Committee a Minutes s June 30, 2004 ■ Page 3 s 01 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 advisability of this land going into a contract. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation commented in their letter stating "The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at that point in time was that this property would cease to be considered viable as agricultural property and would convert to residential housing. The Department notes that the County adopted the North Chico Specific Plan in 1995 and the County and the landowner entered into a Land Conservation Agreement in December 1999. Since the Liptrap property was clearly within a planning area identified for development, the initiation of the Land Conservation Agreement in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land. The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when'land designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restrictions, to agricultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to 'control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation believes the NCSP is a residential plan and that the area is designated for future residential use. Chairman Christopher noted also that the exchange proposal of land is not before the Committee today, only the cancellation process. Mr. Nicholaus said the Department of Conservation questions -the viability of this property going into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell said it states in the letter that one of the findings is that there is no other property - available to be developed in a similar manner. He said in looking at the map, this does not seem to be the case. He said the property is not surrounded by urban development; it is surrounded on the west by Highway 99, on the north by an open area, and is bounded on the south by an open area. Mr. Holland said one question iswoulddevelopment of this parcelprovide for a more contiguous pattern of development versus anything around it. He felt the answer was no. Mr. Hays said there is currently a map proposed to the south for 50 parcels. He said to the east there are two subdivisions. He said there are two subdivisions to the east and the south is already built out. Chairman Christopher asked if there was a feeling from the Committee on whether this property should stay in -the Williamson Act. a Land Conservation Committee a Minutes a June 30, 2004 a Page 4 34 Mr. Price said he understands that this property will be developed eventually. Chairman Christopher said the question is whether itis appropriate to cancel this con ract or should it go through the 10 -year non -renewal process. Mr. Skinner said at this time the laird is not contiguous and there are open areas both north and south of this property. He said until the southern developmentis approved the applicant is:in limbo here. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel to discuss what is considered contiguous. Mr. MacKenzie said there is no definition for contiguous. He said regarding the Second half of Finding 5; it does not seem that there is an argument that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, because there is a parcel on the north. and a parcel on the south. He said they, are looking at the question of whether the development of the contracted land would provide amore contiguous pattern of urban development. Mr. Hays said when the County first approved the. Specific Plan area, LAFCo and the County attempted to set up areas for urbanization. He said he had a problem with why thi3 property was allowed into the Act when there was a Specific Plan in place. Chairman Christopher said Mr. Hays makes a good point on development inside a plan. She reminded the Committee that why this property came into the Act is not the focus of this'hearing. She said they need to determine if it is in the best interest to release the property from its contract quickly or long term and if the Committee can meet the findings to release it quickly. There was a brief discussion regarding Finding #5 on contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Skinner said the Committee needs to decide if #5 is agreeable or not. Chairman Christopher said the key word in #5 for her is in the second part: "The contiguous patterns of urban development." She asked.if the Committee felt this needs to be a focus parcel to parcel or did the plan itself create continuity because it recognized urban development. Mr. Breedon added that the County entered into a M emorandum of Agreement (MOA) to insure the area was developed in cooperation with the City of Chico so that urban -type development standards were applied in this area. He said the vision for this area is urban. Mr. Lewis asked how much more LCA property is within the NCSP. Mr. Breedon said he thought that this property was the only one. He noted that thT NCSP allows existing orchards to continue without interference by development. It was moved by Mr. Skinner that the Land Conservation Act Advisory Committee to determine that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use and that the development of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard would provide a more contiguous pattern of development, seconded by Mr. Daley. 0 Land Conservation Committee n Minutes a June 30, 2004 n Page 11 35 • The discussion continued: C 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 cg,1sidered proximate ani are available and can be developed prior to this parcel being developed. Mr. Skinner said there were arguments that the whole area is proposed for development. Mr. Bailey said with significant SR land available, this property should not be taken out for emergency purposes; it should come out with a Notice of Non -Renewal that takes 10 years. Mr. MacKenzie said he did not think that the Committee could make the first half of; -he findings for 45. 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 hying compared to the parcels on either side and the Committee is making a finding that it would make a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other two parcels. He said the question is what would make this parcel more contiguous than another and the applicant has offered that this development would put Kittyhawk all the way through. Mr. Breedon said the State has commented on this project and they agree with the second half of the finding. Chairman Christopher concurred that this meets the second part of Finding #5. Mr. Skinner amended his motion to state that this meets the second half of Finding #5, seconded By Mr. Daley. Mr. Hays said that when you are talking about urbanization, the NCSP. itself urbar:ized 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 --iptrap 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 ■ Land Conservation Committee u Minutes s June 30, 2004 a Page 5 Mr. MacKenzie said there heeds to be facts in the motion that define why itis that this particular parcel would provide fora more contiguous pattern of urban development than the o her parcels on the north and south. Chairman Christopher asked Mr. Skinner, if this finding passes, would he be comfor=able with staff detailing out the reasons for a yes vote on the findings. Mr. Skinner said he would be comfoitable.with staff delineating out the reasons for. approval. AYES: Mr. Skinner, Mr. Daley, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Price NOES: Mt. Conriell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Discussion on #1 —'.'That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -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 Govenunent Code 51245 the Notice of Non -Renewal must Come at least 90 days prior to the adversity date of the contract, which meant it would have been required to be submitted September of 2003. Mr. Holland said that technically they do not have a timely filed Notice of Non -Renewal. He said the property was not in non -renewal for the 2004 assessment roll. 4 Mr. Breedon said' it is fot the 2005 assessment roll. Mr. Holland said it means that the contract does not terminate in 2012; it terminates in 2013; so the ` form is wrong. He said technically the Committee can not make this finding... - Chairman Christopher asked if the information and dates need to be changed and Mr. Holland said yes. She asked if the forms were corrected, could the finding be met. Brief discussion. Mr. Breedon said the finding is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has b. -.en 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 finding.; 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 e Land Conservation Committee ® Minutes a June 30, 2004 ® PaRc 7 Mr. Mackenzie read Government Code Section 51245. Brief discussion. Chairman Christopher asked if the local ordinance stated recorded or served. She asked if the Code, law, or Resolution tells her when to do this. Mr. MacKenzie said the statute says serve, does not say recorded. Mr. Johnson asked if the Committee can deal with this for 2005. Chairman Christopher said she will talk to Counsel whether this decision has to wait until after January 2005 or does it not matter and the Board can look at things in advance. Finding #2 "That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use." Chairman Christopher said they recognize that the NCSP goes up to Highway 99 and does not cross west of Highway 99. She said to the north they are General Plan designated and zoned for development, and to the south designated for urban development. The east is already developed in urban development.' She said the question is, "... would moving this property int.) development likely impact further removal of adjacent agricultural land." She said the only adjacent lands in agricultural use are the lands to the west across Highway 99. Mr. Johnson said that we need to go through the information submitted by the applicant for taking this property out of the Williamson Act, with public interest of spraying and dust, notice, etc. He discussed the effect on the property across the street. Chairman Christopher said a discussion should have occurred at the point the parcel was rezoned and re -designated in the NCSP area, and hence with the Agricultural Element they recognize that there will be urban interface issues with agricultural land use and, therefore, make it necessary to create a buffer of 300 feet. She said the County already made a decision that this land will eventually develop. It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Connell, and carried to find that whereas there is a 300 -foot setback, there is agricultural land to the west which would be protected Ly this 300 -foot setback, recognize that this cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Mr. Breedon reported back to the Committee that the letter requesting non -renewal of the Contract was dated September 7, 2003. He said the request was sent to the Board of Supervisors which the Board acknowledges and then the Notice is recorded. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes u June 30, 2004 s Paye 8 a 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-Re-newal 90 days prior to the contract's anniversary date. He said the department then prepares the Notice of Non Renewal which will be recorded, He said no later than 20 days after the department receives the Notice of Non -Renewal; the Clerk of the Board shall record with the County R"ecor&r a copy of the Notice of Non -Renewal. Mr. Holland said the 20 days did not occur in this case. He said the letter did not get to the Assessor's Office and since it did not get to the Assessor, they do not know whether to establish non- renewal calculations. Chairman Christopher asked if there was some law, State law, Goverrunent Code, etc., that tells us in black and white a procedure different than what the department has been following. Mr. MacKenzie said that in" the evidence code there is a section called "Service by Mail" which means that you are deemed, served.5 days after someone mails you a letter. Finding #1— voter Chairman Christopher recapped that a letter was received 9/7/0=, that was more than 90 days less than the contract date in December. It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to find that the cancellation, is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been served. AYES:. Mr.- Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Joh-nson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #3- vote It was moved by Mr. Cormell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to find that can-.ellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or County General Plan. AYES: Mr. Price,`Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Jolison 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 -1 ('n ar iaf;nn I nmrni"PP n Minntac v T„nP 10 ?nn4 ® Pau= 9 ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Findings under Public Interest. Finding #1 = Vote It was moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors find that other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley; Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #2. - Vote It was moved by Mr. Skim -ter, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to recommend that the Board of s Supervisors find that there is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or that development of the contracted land would provide rn.ore contiguous patters of urban development (GC §51282(c)) as above under 45. finding. ^ AYES: Mr. Price, Mr: Daley, Mr. Skinnier, 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 AssesEor's Office. He " said he did not want the applicant's representatives to leave this room today thin king that there is an appeal to that'decision.. He said there may not be an appeal process because this is a contractual situation. Mr. Lewis asked what the fees were based on, the 2012 or the 2013 dates as the final date. Mr. Holland explained that the difference in one year would not affect the evalua-ion. BREAK - 11:25 to :11:35 a.m. June 30. 2004 n Page 10 im • • 13 C�i DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION :010 K STREET SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814 PHONE 916/324-0850 FAX 916/327-3430 - .INTERNET consrv.Ca.gov GRAY DAVIS GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF COiVSERVATYOid" STATE OF CALIFORNIA APR 2 8 21104 DEWL, LOFY;,rNT April 26,'2004 ``�"�'o"` s Mr. Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Butte County Dept. of Developmental Services 7 County Center Drive .Oroville, CA 95965 , RE: Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Agreement; APN 047-260-109, Landowner: Evelyn Liptrap Dear Mr. Breedon: Thank you for submitting the notice to the Department of Conservation (Department) as required by Government Code §51284.1 fcr the above referenced matter. The petition proposes to cancel the Williamson Act contract on approximately 48.23 prime agricultural acres; currently planed with productive walnut trees, for the development of 53 residential building lots. The subject parcel was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) in 1995 with Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum zoning. The landowner - entered into the land'conservation agreement with Butte Ccunty on December 22, 1999. The subject site is located east of Hig;sway 99, north, of Wilson Landing Road in Butte County. Cancellation Findings The applicable Williamson Act contract (Section VII, page �) provides that tentative approval for cancellation may be granted only if the Board makes w . _ 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. r Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 2of4 In addition to the requirement that both findings be made by the Board, the contract (Section VII, page 3) also provides for a cancellation "fee in an amount equal to 25% of . the cancellation valuation of the property. One-half of the fee shall be payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code §51283, and one-half shall be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124." We request a copy of the Butte County Assessor's cancellation valuation for the proposed cancellation and a copy of the discussion of the Board's findings pursuant to Government Code §51282. The Department has reviewed the petition for cancellation and information provided and provides the following comments. Cancellation is(Cnsiste`nt with the Purposes of the Williamson Act For the cancellation to be consistent with"purposes of the Williamson Act, the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board) must make findings with respect to all of the following: 1) a notice of nonrenewal has been served, 2) removal of adjacent land from agricultural use is unlikely, 3) the.alternative use is consistent with the County's General Plan, 4) discontiguous patterns of urban development will not result, and 5) that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. A notice of nonrenewal was served by Evelyn C. Liptrap to Butte County on or about December 29, 2003. The expiration date for the contract will be December 31, 2012. The Attorney General has opined that nonrenewal is the preferred contract termination method: "If a landowner desires to change the use of his land under contract to uses other than agricultural production and compatible uses, the proper procedure is to give notices of nonrenewal pursuant to Government Code §51245." (54 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 90, 92 (1971).) The nonrenewal process continues to be the preferable method of contract termination for the Department. The subject parcel is contiguous to existing one acre rural ranchette development to the east on approximately 50 acres of land formerly owned by Ms. Liptrap. The Guernsey subdivision is proposed on 50 acres adjacent to the south. A request for a tentative map has been submitted for the Guernsey subdivision. The property north of the Liptrap contracted land was recently cleared of all almond trees in an older orchard. It . is speculated that this property is subject to development pressure from proposed and completed development in the Specific Plan area. Since agricultural lands lie west across Highway 99, outside the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan, it appears the requested contract cancellation is unlikely to result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. The proposed alternative use, fifty-three residential building lots, is consistent with the County's General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject parcel is zoned !yJ Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 Page 3of4 for residential use and contiguous to existing and planned development to the east and south. The.�Departmont agrees that development of the subject parcel woo not result in a discontiguous pattern of urban development. Evidence to substantiate a finding that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on the contracted land does not appear adequate. In reviewing the County's Williamson Act map and the North Chico Specific Plan there appears to be noncontracted land within the Plan available and zoned for residential use. These noncontracted lands are contiguous to existing urban development and lie to the north of the subject site and southeast of Mudd Creek. �Hovd vzr since the Liptrap property is adjacent to. similarly developed property to the east and southeast, and the Guernsey property to the south is scheduled for development in the near future,�it-does appear that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development tha-i development of proximate noncontracted land. Cancellation is in the(P_ublic,ln etet rest 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 consti-:utional muster, a restriction must be enforceable in the face of imminent urban development, and may not be terminable merely because such development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. (Lewis v. City of Hayward (1986), 177 Cal. App. 3d 103, 113) A clear showing on the record of the public interest benefits is necessary. The cancellation petition addresses the public interest finding in three areas; public safety and emergency services, contiguous growth pattern and agricultuaal element issues. It states that allowing contract cancellation serves the public interest because the developer offers Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Road thereby providing a more direct route for emergency vehicles. Any decision to cancel a land conservation contract based upon a finding that the continued restricted use, is contrary to the public interest must also investigate the Mr. Dan Breedon April 26, 2004 ` Page -4 of 4 criteria used for originally restricting a landowner's use of the land and allowing for a preferential tax assessment on behalf of the public interest. In enacting the Williamson Act, the Legislature deliberately required a landowner's long-term commitment to agriculture or other 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". —he 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 iin 1995 and the County and the landowner entered into a Land -Conservation Agreement in December 1999. Since the Liptrap property was clearly within a planningi area identified for development, the initiation of the land conservation agreement in 1999 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson. Act to preserve agricultural land The County should review its policies relating to implementation of Agricultural Land Conservation Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Restriction to agri-lultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed cancellation. After reviewing the documentation and information provided, it appears that the Board may have sufficient supporting evidence for making the required findings. Please provide our office with,a copy of the Notice of the Public Hearing on this matter ten (10) working days before,the hearing and a copy of the published notice of the Board's decision within 30 days of the tentative cancellation pursuant to section 51284. If ou 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 Butte County Department of Development Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR : 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * CIS * PLANNING Date: April 7, 2005 To: Responsible and Trustee Agencies Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT - To Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for an Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for Evelyn Liptrap (CANC 04-02) The Butte County Planning Division has completed an Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), of potential environmental consequences anticipated -in connection with the above-mentioned project; a copy of which is enclosed. This letter'serves as a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to .allow responsible and trustee agencies a 30 -day review period in accordance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Please review the enclosed Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. This review should focus on your agency's area of expertise and jurisdiction. Any comments must be sent to the above address on or prior to May 16, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed.environmental document, please contact Dan Breedon at 530-538-7629, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. =e Dan Breedon Principal Planner cc: IDR Committee Members (via email) City of Chico CalTrans . K:\Planning\PROJECTS\LCA\Iiptrap\Neg.Dec Cover Letter.doc 45, n r� U =o • +4 i tj �^ \` l l x �; 1 �, '. _.t Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY FOR Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION, A. Applicant/Owner: Evelyn Liptrap B. Staff Contact: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner, dbreedon a butte.county.net, 530-538-7629 C. Proiect Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation.of Williamson Act Contract D. Proiect Location: The property is located at the terminus of Kittyhawk Drive, approximately 2,100 feet west of Garner Lane, and east of and adjacent to SR -99 in the north Chico area. E. Type of Application: Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract F. Assessor's Parcel Number: 047-260-199 G. Proiect Site Size: 52.72 acres H. Current Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential,,) -acre parcels); OS (Open Space) I. General Plan Designation: AR (Agricultural Residential) J. Environmental Setting: The property is currently developed with a walnut orchard- There are no other improvements. The terrain is flat, with no defined drainage courses. The property is. located within the North Chico Specific Plan. The western portion of the property fronts on SR -99. A county designated arterial, Kittyhawk Drive, would be developed along the properties south boundary from Hicks Lane to SR -99. The property is, shown to be in a 100 year flood zone. K Surrounding Land Uses: The property's west boundary fronts on SR -99. A residential subdivision (Autumn Park) is located adjacent to the east. Other undeveloped lands lie to the north and souls. L. Proiect Description: The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a William -son Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. A Tentative. Subdivision Map (Kittyhawk Park) has been submitted concurrently proposing to create 48, 1 -acre, single family residential parcels. The Tentative Map application is currently considered incDmplete and is not being considered for approval at this time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts as ;ociated with the cancellation, but also discloses impacts that could be related to the approval of th-- 48 lot residential subdivision. Note: This project has been reviewed for consistency with the Adopted North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) goals and polices and will utilize the adopted Certified Environmental •Impact: Report (CEIR) prepared for the plan as the basic environmental document. The NCSP is a mixed-use. large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool fa_ larger developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. These documents were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March of 1995. Pursuant to Government Code Section 21083.3, if an EIR . has been certified for the adoption of a Specific Plan, the application of CEQA shall be limited to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 1 ■ . Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior CEIR. . M: Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Development Services Department, Butte County Environmental Health Department, Butte County Public Works Department, Butte County Eire Department, and Butte County Air Quality Management District. 2.0 DETERNHNATION [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the envijonment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by is agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment: and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ J I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attache3 sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the. e6-ects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Date Reviewed by: Stephen Streeter, Planning Manager Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ 'Page 2 ■ 'Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] 4.1 Aesthetics [ ] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4.3 Air Quality [ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [X] 4.5 Cultural Resources [X] 4.6 Geologic Processes [ ] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [X] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use [ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing. [ ] 4.13 Public Services [ J 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportat_on/Traffic [ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [XJ 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the prcject falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is -used on project -specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2). All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well a3 on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than s _gnificant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■ 49 41 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate, Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) . applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorpo-ated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared ' or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than signifiant. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 AESTHETIUVISUALRESOURCES: Impact Discussions The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivi::ion Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The project is not located in an area considered to be a scenic vista, scenic highway or other special scenic feature. Visual Resource impacts are discussed within the CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan indicates that project elements of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) mitigate impacts to visual resources. These . project elements include the provision of open space corridorsibuffers throughout the plan area and the inclusion of design standards in the Specific Plan that address issues of building size, mass,- design, ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ *Page 4 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than N. Reviewed, Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? k b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state'scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade -the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d.' Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views }_ in the area? Impact Discussions The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivi::ion Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). The project is not located in an area considered to be a scenic vista, scenic highway or other special scenic feature. Visual Resource impacts are discussed within the CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan indicates that project elements of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) mitigate impacts to visual resources. These . project elements include the provision of open space corridorsibuffers throughout the plan area and the inclusion of design standards in the Specific Plan that address issues of building size, mass,- design, ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ *Page 4 ■ Project Name:" Lipirap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: a. The Immediate Cancellation proposed would result in the conversion of farmland since the current walnut orchard would become available for the development of 1 -acre lots upon removal of the Williamson Act Contract, as proposed under the Yittyhawk Park Subdivision application. Eowever, the North Chico Specific Plan has designated this area for residential development at a 1 -acre density. This property is located in an area that has been designated by the County General Plan for uman uses. not agricultural uses. The CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the impact of the North Chico Specific Plan on agricultural land uses. The CEIR noted that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 475 acres of agricultural lands. However, because 213 acres of these soils are not considered prime agricultural *soils and because the remaining 262 acres are substantially in conflict with adjacent residential development, and are located on the urban side of the Greenline, this is considered a less -than -significant impact, The CEIR further explains that the County's existing Greenline Policy establishes SR -99 as the boundary between urban/suburban to the --ast and agricultural to the west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use, and no impact would•is anticipated. b. The approval of the Immediate Cancellation would remove the Williamson Act contract. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the findings required under the Government Code (Williamson Act) and has made a recommendation that the findings can be made in this instance. The Committee reviewed the impact of the Immediate Cancellation on sur-ounding Williamson Act Contracts and agricultural land and determined that the cancellation would not have a negative influence on these lands. C. See item a. above. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■ 52 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impac.: Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the X California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict.with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? X C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Impact Discussion: a. The Immediate Cancellation proposed would result in the conversion of farmland since the current walnut orchard would become available for the development of 1 -acre lots upon removal of the Williamson Act Contract, as proposed under the Yittyhawk Park Subdivision application. Eowever, the North Chico Specific Plan has designated this area for residential development at a 1 -acre density. This property is located in an area that has been designated by the County General Plan for uman uses. not agricultural uses. The CEIR for the North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the impact of the North Chico Specific Plan on agricultural land uses. The CEIR noted that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 475 acres of agricultural lands. However, because 213 acres of these soils are not considered prime agricultural *soils and because the remaining 262 acres are substantially in conflict with adjacent residential development, and are located on the urban side of the Greenline, this is considered a less -than -significant impact, The CEIR further explains that the County's existing Greenline Policy establishes SR -99 as the boundary between urban/suburban to the --ast and agricultural to the west. Therefore, the agricultural portions of the plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent agricultural use, and no impact would•is anticipated. b. The approval of the Immediate Cancellation would remove the Williamson Act contract. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the findings required under the Government Code (Williamson Act) and has made a recommendation that the findings can be made in this instance. The Committee reviewed the impact of the Immediate Cancellation on sur-ounding Williamson Act Contracts and agricultural land and determined that the cancellation would not have a negative influence on these lands. C. See item a. above. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■ 52 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Impact Discussion: Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have establ_shed air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment" if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem Butte Count -v and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PMto). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions. associated with the Wiliamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision vlap that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is :urrently incomplete. The Butte County Air Quality Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate ax quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the NCSP. These mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the No th Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street treeE must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the'Arterial Buffer Plan (pusuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October ! 1, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ 53 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact . Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air qualityplan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? Impact Discussion: Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have establ_shed air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated as being in "attainment" if these standards are met and in "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem Butte Count -v and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter (PMto). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions. associated with the Wiliamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision vlap that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is :urrently incomplete. The Butte County Air Quality Management District provides mitigation measures for these types of developments. The CEIR for the NCSP notes that project elements of the plan mitigate ax quality impacts but also includes mitigation for air quality impacts generated by the NCSP. These mitigations have been set forth below. Mitigation Measure #1—Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the No th Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements apply to all new development. Street treeE must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their ability to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the'Arterial Buffer Plan (pusuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October ! 1, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike path. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ 53 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02), 2. All other subdivision roads = Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaining. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map showing the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: . No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. Timing: The landscaping and street.tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final Map, whichever comes first. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavation and Construction Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measure #2): 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill material:, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create= a crust after each day's activities cease. 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and wienever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.". 4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number 'and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours: The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQIV_'D Rule 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). 5. Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity: a.. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land. clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte: County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8 ■ 54 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) i 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X X species in local or regional plans, policies, or. . regulations, or by the California Departmentof Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X X regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c.. Have.a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with'established native resident or migratory X X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources'such as a tree X X reservation policy ordinance? f. Conflict With the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? G A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, X -X threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, X X amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? L. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for X X foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident X X -or migratory fish or wildlife species? k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could X X hinder the normal activities of wildlife? Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) i 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restriction's associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map which has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is ;currently incomplete. The California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base was consulted with respect to the presence of sensitive plants and animals and their habitats. According to the Natural Diversity Data Base, the project is not located in an area considered to contain these resources. GIS land coverage data supplied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention shows that the project site is designated as "Agriculture", not as any viable habitat type. The CEIR of the NCSP was also consulted concerning this project area. Figure 6-1 of the CEIR for the NCSP shows that orchards are the predominant vegetation type in this area. As described in the Project Setting section of this Initial Study, walnut orchards continue to occupy the subject property. The CEIR indicates that orchards are of little direct value to native biological resources other than insect✓, because agricultural practices keep plant species diversity to a minimum, and little nesting or foraging habitat is available to wildlife. Some of the species that can take advantage of agricultural habitats provided in the Plan area are deleterious to productivity and are consequently discouraged and/or prevented fron foraging there. The CEIR also states that orchards can play a role in providing a lot -disturbance buffer between developed areas and biologically rich riparian habitat that is present in some locations of the Plain area.' In the case of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map there are no riparian resources present. The CEIR indicates that there are several areas of potential impacts to biological resources as a result of NCSP implementation, such as impacts to riparian resources, vernal pools and other ephemera: wetlands; disturbance to nesting areas of the black -shouldered kite and burrowing owl; California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern; loss of foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk, disturbance/removal of habitat used by the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle; and, disturbance to special status plants in the Plan area. The CEIR indicates that the NCSP contains many project elements that mitigate these impacts to levels of insignificance. There are impacts for which the CEIR recommends further mitigation, but the resources that these mitigations are for are not located on the subject property. Specifically, the CEIR requires Army Corps permits for impacts to wetlands. In the case of the subject property no Corps Permit is required because CEIR Figure 6.2 Wetland Resources does not identify any wetland resources in the project area. Pre - construction surveys are recommended for the presence of the black -shouldered kite. In the case of the subject property no pre -construction survey is recommended because CEIR Figure 6.1 shows that the property is not located near any trees known to be active black -shouldered kite habitat. Conprehensive rare plant surveys are recommended on all land designated for development. In the case of the subject property no rare plant surveys are recommended since this property is developed with ar orchard, a vegetation type and use that preclude the presence of rare plants, due to the amount of disturbance associated with this agricultural activity as explained above. The design of the proposed project will not cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and a -"de minimis" exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or the habitat is recommended. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 C.R 753.5, is not required at this time. The project site is not known to contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protectec wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; conflict with any local policies or ordinanc--s protecting biological resources; or, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page - 0 ■ 56 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02)-'-... 4.5 CuLTuRAL RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval' of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. The NCSP CEIR indicates that the highest sensitivity areas within the Plan area are lands located within 100 to 200 feet from stream courses. A majority of these areas are already afforded protection by the. 100 foot no -development setback required along Keefer Slough. The subject property is not located near any of these areas. Approval of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Immediate Cancellation would not result in an, impact to archaeological resources identified by the CEIR (CEIR Figure 7-1). However, this finding does not necessarily preclude the presence of archaeological resources that may be buried and would only be uncovered during construction work and laid clearing. For this reason, a mitigation measure has been set forth below that requires construction activity to cease if cultural resources are uncovered and that the area of the find be protected -from further disturtance until a professional archaeologist determines the significance of the find and makes recommendations for mitigation. Mitization Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistor-c or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools. or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of The find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encounter -,d, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage. Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utiliy installation, and building site development. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ 57 Potentially Less Than Less Than N3 Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Imract Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X X of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X X an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C." Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X X outside of formal cemeteries? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval' of a land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. The NCSP CEIR indicates that the highest sensitivity areas within the Plan area are lands located within 100 to 200 feet from stream courses. A majority of these areas are already afforded protection by the. 100 foot no -development setback required along Keefer Slough. The subject property is not located near any of these areas. Approval of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map and the proposed Immediate Cancellation would not result in an, impact to archaeological resources identified by the CEIR (CEIR Figure 7-1). However, this finding does not necessarily preclude the presence of archaeological resources that may be buried and would only be uncovered during construction work and laid clearing. For this reason, a mitigation measure has been set forth below that requires construction activity to cease if cultural resources are uncovered and that the area of the find be protected -from further disturtance until a professional archaeologist determines the significance of the find and makes recommendations for mitigation. Mitization Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistor-c or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools. or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of The find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encounter -,d, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage. Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utiliy installation, and building site development. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ 57 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES:. Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential ,development but. would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault, located. approximately 32 miles from the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975, resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill, approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. In the northwest comer of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to. v. Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ 59 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo - Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the X State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. ' Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, X and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or colla se? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately'supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal X system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential ,development but. would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault, located. approximately 32 miles from the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975, resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill, approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. In the northwest comer of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes 6 to. v. Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ 59 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 6.9 in the area in 1892. There is some speculation as to the exact location of the historic earthquake epicenters and some question if they actually occurred on the Midland-Sweitzer fault (Butte County- 1977). The Butte County GIS Fault Lines theme shows that a possible fault with activity unknown is 'located approximately 1.4 miles to the east of the project site. This fault is a part of the Foothill Shear Zone and has not experienced any known movement during historical times. No impacts are anticipated since no rupture of a known earthquake fault exists in the project area. Like most of central California, the site is expected to be subjected to seismic ground shaking at some future time. Accordingly, all buildings, pipes, light poles, roadways, and other improvements would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building requirements. Because the project appears to be located such that the probability of significant ground shaking is low, and because the structure; would be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code standards for the appropriate Seismic Hazard Zone, potential geologic impacts would be less than significant. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the sit✓ has a moderate potential for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. The Subsidence and Landslide Potem.ial Map also indicates that the property is located within an area of heavy groundwater withdrawal and is a Potential subsidence area. Although so designated, this designation is general in nature, and is applicable to -virtually all of the Central Valley area of Butte County. Although subsidence is a problem in all of the: Central Valley in California due to groundwater withdrawals for irrigation, there has not been any documented incident that indicates a specific problem at this location. No impact is anticipated. There is no soil erosion potential for this site, according to Butte County General Plan GIS data. The CEIR for the NCSP indicates that implementation of the NCSP will increase erosion and sediment transport into vicinity creeks and drainages, if proper erosion control measures are not implemented. The NCSP contains policies (Policy 7.2) concerning grading and erosion control. The requirements from this policy that are applicable to this project and is set forth below as a project Mitigation Measure. The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive soil designation. Standard construction practices as required under the Uniform Building Code address the impact of expansive soil on foundations and buildings. No impact is anticipated. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for tl-_e development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kityhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. Mitigation Measure #4 Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion accordin€ to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or otherwise ■ Butte County Department of Development Services N Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■: Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best.Management Piactices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan.. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5, 'All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of.less than 0.5 ft./second. b.. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requiPments,. for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. ' Timing: This measure 'and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■ 61 Project Name: Liplrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:. Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) and is not near any listed sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ 01111111 62' Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impset Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? i'. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including X where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) and is not near any listed sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The property is located within Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would have no impact on the Compatibility Zone or airport. The proposed Immediate Cancellation would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ 01111111 62' Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) Mitigation: None required. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Impact Discussion: ` The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act • concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. Although the applicant 'proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley aquifers at this. location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. ; ■ Butte County Department of Development Services in Planning Division in Page 17 in Potentially Less Than Less Than Na Reviewed Would theproposal'. Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially. with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production . X rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course X of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e: Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stone water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality? X g Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by Federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood X Insurance Rate.Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding; including flooding as X a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. , Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Impact Discussion: ` The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act • concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11), which is considered incomplete. Although the applicant 'proposes to provide water service from the California Water Service Company through an on-site production well, the project would not substantially deplete aquifer volumes. Valley aquifers at this. location are considered to contain abundant amounts of groundwater. ; ■ Butte County Department of Development Services in Planning Division in Page 17 in Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) This site is level and the soil type is not prone to erosion. The proposal could, nevertheless, affect surface water quality due to siltation resulting from erosion caused by land clearing, road construction. utility installation, and building site development. Mitigation concerning impacts from these deveropment activities has been set forth below. The Butte County Department of Public Works has commented that the project is located within tie 100 - year floodplain of Keefer Slough (FEMA Map 06007C0320D, dated April 20, 2000). The Department of Public Works comments that this area. has been known to flood more frequently. The project design of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map has the potential to alter the floodplain, subjecting future residents and adjacent property owners to increased flood hazards. The Department of Public Works indicates that the applicant has not provided detailed design information demonstrating that it is fusible to develop within the floodplain, while providing adequate ingress and egress during flood events, and providing suitable building pads above the flood levels, without adversely affecting surrounding properties (Source: Department of Public Works Comments on TSM 04-11, February 25, 2004). In a lett✓r dated December 10, 2004 the applicant indicates that drainage calculations will be provided to the Depar-ment of Public Works to address their concerns. No new information has been received at this time. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application also proposes to abandon an existing retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins to handle drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions. . Any new storm water retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed and made operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Butte County Environmental Health Divis-on, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a (complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to considering this item as complete. The Environmental Health Division has commented that Lots 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Map cannot be approved with the existing (Autumn Park Subdivision) storm drainage basin shown. No residential lots can be shown on this area until the alternative storm drainage basin is approved and functional, and the existing storm.drainage basin is abandoned and deemed suitable for resider tial uses. This item will remain incomplete until the Department of Public Works is satisfied with the drair_age plan and alternative drainage is provided for the Autumn Park Subdivision. As discussed within the Project Description section of this Initial Study the Kitty Hawk Park Tentative Map application is considered incomplete and is not being considered for approval at this, time. This Initial Study reviews the impacts associated with the cancellation but also discloses impacts that could be rela ,ed to the approval of the 48 lot residential subdivision. Mitigation for flooding and drainage concerning the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map is not provided at this time because the appl-cation is considered incomplete. The property is not located in an area prone to mudflows or other natural disasters. No impact wcauld occur with respect to these natural hazards. Mitigation Measure #4, Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submittec to Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following recuirements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): I The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public st-eet. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■ 64 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff "and erosion according' 7.o. Best Management Practices.. After completion. of grading, exposed slopes shall be planted, or ot=ierwise protected, to prevent erosion and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control measures: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing: ,This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The. Butte County Departments of Public Works and Development Services sha._I review compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division Page 19 ■ 65 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) . 4.9 LAND USE: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with impact Previous Mitigation Document ` Incorporated a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general X plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Impact Discussion: The proposal is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The NCSP is a mixed-use large scale development plan, which serves as a broad reaching site planning tool for larger residential, co=ercial and industrial developments in the unincorporated North Chico area. The concurrently submitted Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map contemplates development that is consistent with the SR -1 zoning implemented by the North Chico Specific Plan, and therefore does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. The project does not have the potential to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or reguh-tions of an agency with. jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Butte County Land Conservation Advisory Committee recommends to the County Board of Supervisors that the findings required by the Government Code for Immediate Cancellation of this Williamson Act Contract can be made in this instance. The County Board of Supervisors has not yet taken action on this request._ The Board will hear this request after circulation of this Initial Study and taking action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. The proposal will, not, conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■ 0 39 Project Name: Ciptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.10 MnvERAL RESOURCES: Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Potentially Would..the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impac; Under Impact with. Impact Previous Mitigation Document „ .. Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local = X general plan, specific plan,'or other land use plan? Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.11 NOISE: Impact Discussion: a. — d. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that aas been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is ;urrently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to the project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that an acceptable outside noise level of 65 decibels CNEL (per the Butte County General Plan) is achieved at a distance of 65 feet from SR -99. The proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any residential development in the area where higher noise levels, exceeding 65 decibels CNEL occur (>160 feet from SR -99). Residential develcpment is if.:' proposed to be setback from SR -99 a total distance of at least 300 feet. Therefore residential development within this development would not be subject to noise levels that exceed ca mnunity standards as provided for in the General Plan. Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. During construction, the highest noise levels would result from operation of power tools, which can be expected tc generate noise levels of between 80 to 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Co><struction activities that would be associated with residential development at the project site would be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ 68 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan X or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X ground borne vibration or ground bome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without theproject? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working X in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: a. — d. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create or be subject to noise impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that aas been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is ;urrently incomplete. Noise impacts in the project area primarily originate from SR -99 that is adjacent to the project's west boundary. Information presented within the CEIR for the NCSP (Table 11-3) shows that an acceptable outside noise level of 65 decibels CNEL (per the Butte County General Plan) is achieved at a distance of 65 feet from SR -99. The proposed Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any residential development in the area where higher noise levels, exceeding 65 decibels CNEL occur (>160 feet from SR -99). Residential develcpment is if.:' proposed to be setback from SR -99 a total distance of at least 300 feet. Therefore residential development within this development would not be subject to noise levels that exceed ca mnunity standards as provided for in the General Plan. Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. During construction, the highest noise levels would result from operation of power tools, which can be expected tc generate noise levels of between 80 to 85 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Co><struction activities that would be associated with residential development at the project site would be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ 68 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.12 HOUSING: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the W11iamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create housing impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently. submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is. currently incomplete. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or -1.1% per year. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create 48 parcels and thus has the potential to add an estimated 116 people to Butte County (48 units x 2.414 persons/unit — assuming all occupants are new residents to Butte County). This is not considered significant because this amount is consistent with what is planned by the North , Chico Specific Plan for this area. The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. ' Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 m - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under + Impact with Impact Previous 'Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating theconstruction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c. Displace -substantial numbers of people, necessitating X the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the W11iamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create housing impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of a land division that has been concurrently. submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). This application is. currently incomplete. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or -1.1% per year. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create 48 parcels and thus has the potential to add an estimated 116 people to Butte County (48 units x 2.414 persons/unit — assuming all occupants are new residents to Butte County). This is not considered significant because this amount is consistent with what is planned by the North , Chico Specific Plan for this area. The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. ' Mitigation Measure: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 m - Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cant 04-02) 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSIV- 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection servioes. The cumulative impact of, increased residential development in the County affects the ability of. the Sheriff s Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units plat -,d on the project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The proj :ct site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a nose on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as cf the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mit,gation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Bute County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, and drainage facilities from development as proposed under the Plan (County Service Area 87). —hese fees shall be collected at the time of application for building permits on the 48 individual parcels proposed by ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ 71. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which X could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fireprotection? X C. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X L Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development that would create public service impacts. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSIV- 04-11). This application is currently incomplete. The project is located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. Regulations pursuant to Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations) are recommended to be included as conditions of the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision Map. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection servioes. The cumulative impact of, increased residential development in the County affects the ability of. the Sheriff s Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Butte County Code requires that Sheriffs facilities fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units plat -,d on the project site, including second dwelling units. The payment of the fees would help reduce the costs of providing police protection services to the project site. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The proj :ct site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant will be required to place a nose on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as cf the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mit,gation by state legislation. Parcels located within the North Chico Specific Plan are subject to the collection of fees (Bute County Code Section 3-164) to mitigate impacts and to provide for roads and bridges, traffic, fire, recreation, trails, and drainage facilities from development as proposed under the Plan (County Service Area 87). —hese fees shall be collected at the time of application for building permits on the 48 individual parcels proposed by ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ 71. Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) the .Kittyhawk Park -Tentative Subdivision Map. These fees are intended to off -set impacts tc public . services from the residential development, anticipated by the North Chico Specific Plana Mitigation: None required. 4.14 RECREATION: Impact Discussion: ' a. - b. -'This project, is not large enough to. require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code. Impact Fees for recreation would be collected at that time of building permit issuance or each of the 48 individual residential lots within the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision. As a result of the size of'. the proposal and collection of impact fees no.impact to recreational uses is anticipated. Mitigation Measure: None required i MButte County. Department of Development Services ■ -Planning Division ■ Page 26 ■ , Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Wouldthe proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impacl Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such X that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur of be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the . environment? Impact Discussion: ' a. - b. -'This project, is not large enough to. require park land dedication pursuant to the County Code. Impact Fees for recreation would be collected at that time of building permit issuance or each of the 48 individual residential lots within the Kittyhawk Park Subdivision. As a result of the size of'. the proposal and collection of impact fees no.impact to recreational uses is anticipated. Mitigation Measure: None required i MButte County. Department of Development Services ■ -Planning Division ■ Page 26 ■ , Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TR.AFFIC: 0 Impact Discussion: a - g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional traffic form this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11): The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to connect the existing Kittyhawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Garner Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Chico Specific Plan and would have the potential to enhance circulation to the plan area and provide a needed additional access point to SR -99 for this area. The proposed extension of Kittyhawk Driv: would also benefit the proposed Guernsey Subdivision south of and adjacent to this project. The combined traffic impact (97 residential lots with 10 trips per day estimated, equaling 970 potential average,daily trips generated) of these subdivisions could nevertheless have impacts to area roads and SR -99. County staff and the California Department of Transportation therefore required the completion of a Traffic Impact Study concerning traffic impacts from these subdivisions, a -id from the proposed connection of Kittyhawk Drive with SR -99. This study is currently under review as a draft document and is not considered complete at this time. Further environmental rev.ew and analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map complete. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 27 ■ 73 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impac- Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e:g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X L Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: a - g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional traffic form this parcel. Further development would be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11): The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to connect the existing Kittyhawk Drive arterial with SR -99 and Garner Lane. This is a circulation component of the North Chico Specific Plan and would have the potential to enhance circulation to the plan area and provide a needed additional access point to SR -99 for this area. The proposed extension of Kittyhawk Driv: would also benefit the proposed Guernsey Subdivision south of and adjacent to this project. The combined traffic impact (97 residential lots with 10 trips per day estimated, equaling 970 potential average,daily trips generated) of these subdivisions could nevertheless have impacts to area roads and SR -99. County staff and the California Department of Transportation therefore required the completion of a Traffic Impact Study concerning traffic impacts from these subdivisions, a -id from the proposed connection of Kittyhawk Drive with SR -99. This study is currently under review as a draft document and is not considered complete at this time. Further environmental rev.ew and analysis will take place upon deeming the Tentative Subdivision Map complete. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 27 ■ 73 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Impact Discussion: 5 a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development .but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional unlity and service system impacts from this parcel. Further development would .be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Sewer service is currently not available at this location, and the applicant intends to provide individual on-site septic systems to handle sewage generated by the project. ' The Butto County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. As a result, wastewater treatment requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be required. The applicant proposes to provide water service to the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map from the California Water Service Company and no on-site community system or production wells are proposed. The County requires will serve letters guaranteeing service from the California Water Service Company prior to accepting the Subdivision Map as complete. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 28 ■ 74 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact. Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. 'Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and X regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: 5 a.- g. The proposed Williamson Act Cancellation would remove the restrictions associated with the Williamson Act concerning residential development .but would not, by itself, allow for development. The approval of the cancellation would not generate any additional unlity and service system impacts from this parcel. Further development would .be contingent upon the approval of the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map land division that has been concurrently submitted (Planning Division File #TSM 04-11). Sewer service is currently not available at this location, and the applicant intends to provide individual on-site septic systems to handle sewage generated by the project. ' The Butto County Environmental Health Division has determined that the property is suitable for the development of individual on-site septic systems for each of the 48, 1 -acre lots proposed by the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map. As a result, wastewater treatment requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be required. The applicant proposes to provide water service to the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map from the California Water Service Company and no on-site community system or production wells are proposed. The County requires will serve letters guaranteeing service from the California Water Service Company prior to accepting the Subdivision Map as complete. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 28 ■ 74 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) . The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map application proposes to abandon an existing retention basin that handles drainage for the adjacent Autumn Park Subdivision and build new retention basins to handle, drainage from both the Autumn Park and Kittyhawk Park subdivisions. Any new storm water retention basin benefiting the Autumn Park Subdivision must be constructed, and trade operational to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, Butte County. Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Department of Public Works has commented that a complete set of drainage calculations is necessary prior to accepting the Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map as complete. The Kittyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map would increase the stream of waste being., deposited in the. Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount. According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The projected capacity of the landfill anticipated the incremental growth represented by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 29 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02) 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, (SECTION 15065): a. The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of.this Initial Study. b. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures 1-4 as set forth in Section 5. of this Initial Study, the : project does not have 'the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c. The project does not have the potential to have. environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 30 ■ 76 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed. Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impa•a Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history orprehistory? b.. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of past projects, the effects of other. current projects and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings, either directly or indirectly? a. The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of.this Initial Study. b. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures 1-4 as set forth in Section 5. of this Initial Study, the : project does not have 'the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c. The project does not have the potential to have. environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 30 ■ 76 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure #1 —Street Tree Requirements The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be subject to the street tree planting requirements of the Nort_z Chico Specific Plan. Street trees and shading requirements. apply to all new development.. Street trees _must be planted within six months of the completion of streets. Trees shall be selected based upon their agility to grow well within the planning area and their ability to provide maximum pavement shading. Specific planting requirements are as follows: 1. New Arterial Street (Kitty Hawk Drive) — In conformance with the Arterial Buffer Plan (pursuant to the requirements of the North Chico Specific Plan Residential Policy #1) submitted by the applicant and shown on the Kittyhawk Tentative Subdivision Map as Section A -A, dated October 11, 2004, showing 20 feet of additional right of way, three strips of street trees and a bike Fath. 2. All other subdivision roads — Local tree species can be selected by the developer and property owners. Trees must have a spreading structure and be planted on 30 to 50 foot centers depending upon the species. The trees shall be maintained by the developer until they are self-sustaiming. Submit a street tree landscaping plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to recordation of final map showing -the location and species for all subdivision roads and Kitty Hawk Drive. Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the landscaping and street tree plan is submitted and approved. Timing: The landscaping and street tree plan shall be submitted prior to site development or recordation of the Final Map, whichever comes first. Monitoring: The Planning Division shall ensure compliance through routine inspection and review. Mitigation #2, -Measures to Reduce Particulate Emissions during Clearing, Excavatoon and Construction Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below (Mitigation Measu_e #2): 1. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materia=s, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to creat: a crust after each day's activities cease: 2. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this woulc include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. 3. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation." 4. The developer shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 200 and 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 31 ■ 77 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 5. Abide by the following additional measures during all subdivision construction activity:' a.. Use alternatives to. open burning of vegetative material during all subdivision clearing and construction. b. Use temporary traffic.control as appropriate during all phases of construction. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map and all building plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all land clearing, grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the Final Map'. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. Mitigation Measure #3 Cultural Resource Protection Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or.on an additional map sheet that states: "Should grading activities reveal the presence or prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or dapping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the End and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requiresimmediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine :hat the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participa-tion in determining the disposition of such remains." The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be r :corded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site development activities. Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. S -:ate law requires the reporting of any human remains. Mitigation Measure #4. Grading and Erosion Control Plan A Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and submitted tb Public Works for approval prior to any site disturbing activity. The Plan will incorporate the following requzements (pursuant to North Chico Specific Plan Policy 7.2): 1. The plan shall utilize accepted Best Management Practices to address grading and erosion control associated with all improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. 2. No building site shall be approved for construction which does not have provisions for conducting surface drainage from the site to a natural drainage course, a drainage channel, or a public street. Such drainage shall be in accordance with established engineering practices.. 3. All exposed slopes shall be protected from the effects of runoff and erosion according to Best Management Practices. After completion of grading, exposed slopes shall be ■ Butte County Department'of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 32 ■ Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Cane 04-02). planted, or otherwise protected, to prevent erosion .and sediment transport in accordance with Best Management Practices and with the design and landscaping standards of the North Chico, Specific Plan. 4. Grading and unprotected exposed surfaces shall be prohibited during a rain event. 5. All drainage swales shall be constructed with the following erosion control meastxes: a. Maintain earth -lined swales with velocities of less than 0.5 ft./second. b. Maintain erosion control grasses on swales with velocities of 0.5 to 5.0 ft./second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. c. Maintain grouted rip -rap cobbles for swales with velocities greater than 7 fL/second, in accordance with the Improvement Standards. d. Detention outfall structures shall be sized in order to' satisfy Public Works requirements, for no increase in peak runoff, prior to discharge into flood waters. Plan Requirements: Preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan acceptable to the Butte County. Department of Public Works, prior to construction of Subdivision improvements and prior to construction of onsite residential improvements, including buildings and service lines. Timing:. This measure and associated Plan shall be implemented during all site development activities (including land clearing, road construction,, utility installation, and building site development). Monitoring: The Butte County. Departments of Public Works and Development Services shall review . compliance through routine inspection, depending upon the facilities being constructed. c ■ Butte. County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 33 ■ 79 Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Association of Governments. Regional Travel Demand Model. Information extracted in personal correspondence with Chris Devine of the Butte County Association of Governments staff.. December 4, 2001. 2. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No.. 67- 178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity MaQ Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Mw_ Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. t 5. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County GIS Data. Oroville, CA: November 2001. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH214 Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Environmental Checklist Form, Evaluation of Environmental Impact. File Number 93-15. Oroville, CA: February 8, 1993. 8. Butte -County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. . 9. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 10. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 11. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977: 12. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 13. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways May V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 14. Butte County Planning Department. School District Man. Oroville, CA. 15.: Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 16: California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 2000 All Traffic Volu-motes on California State Highway System. tem 2001. 17. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division. 1998 Truck Volumes a)n California State Highway System 1998. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 34 ■ :8 0- Project Name: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (Canc 04-02) 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: - [X] Environmental Health [X] Public Works [XJ Building Manager [ ] BCAG [X] ALUC [XJ LAFCo [X] Assessor [X] Development Services [ ] Chico Unified School Distr. [X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [X] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs [ J 'City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ J Town of Paradise [ ] CA Department of Forestry [X] .- Caltrans (Traffic) [X] Central Reg. Water Quality ; [ ] Department of Conservation [ ] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol [ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] US Fish:& Wildlife Service [X] Agricultual Commissioner' [ ] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ } Oroville Union School Dist. [ ] Feather River Rec. Dist. [ ] El Medio Fire Dept. ( ] OWID [ ] LOAPUD [ ] PG&E [ ] Pacific Bell [ ] Palermo Union School Dist.' r ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 36 ■ '82 ti s � i o t BUTTE COUNTY' - CLERK OF THE BOARD USL ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ;. MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: Nicolaus/Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract r r� DEPARTMENT: •DDS DATE: 10/10/05 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 11/8/05 REGULAR.X . CiONSENT CONTACT: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner PHONE: 538-7629 DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: F The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280 — 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. --Se Attached Agenda Report -- ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends'that oard of Supervisors act to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Immediately Cancel the William Ac ntract for Evelyn Liptrap, with the findings required by the Government Code. x , • `yr 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 Cbntact back. (Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda r deadline).. 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T AGENDA REPORT — November 8, 2005 • Applicant:. George Nicolaus Supervisor District: 3 File #: Canc. 04-02 Attachments: A. General Plan and Zoning Map -Request: The applicant requests the immediate B. Application fon' Cancellation cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract . pursuant to Government. Code Section 51280 — C. Liptrap. Williarlson act Contract 51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel. D. Land Conservation Act Advisory APN: 047-260-199 Committee Minutes of June 30, 1. 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 E-ielyn Liptrap, with the findings required by the Government Code. ; ANALYSIS Project Description r . 1. A petition to Immediately Cancel a Williamson Act Contract has been received from George Nicolaus involving the Evelyn C. Liptrap Williamson Act Contract. 2. -This Williamson Act Contract was.entered into by Ms. Liptrap on December 22, 1999" (recorded under Instrument Number 0052839). 3. The contract'covers•a parcel of 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)0 November 8, 2005 ■ Page l of 11 ■ 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 i:TSM 04-11, Kittyhawk Park) to create 48 residential parcels of approximately 1 -acre each. in size, consistent with the SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zone. 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. 3. Additionally, notice of this hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition has been mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to this hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). 4. Within' 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the County must forward a copy' of the published notice of the decision to the Director of the Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Cancellations 1. A Williamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 13, section 8 of the California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act contracts are not intended to be cancelled and in fact, cancellation is reserved for -unusual, "emergency" situations. Therefore, the nine-year nonrenewal proce-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 appropria=e where the objectives served by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal, (See Sierra Club v. City.of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 852-853). 3. The State of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that cancellation is impermissible "except upon extremely stringent conditions", (62 Ops._Cal. Atty. Gen. 233, 240; (1979). The Attorney General has also opined that nonr newal 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 (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 • ■Page 2of11 ■ r 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 fo-lowing three sections. Williamson Act Cancellation Findings l . The Board of 'Supervisors may grant tentative 'approval'. for Cance--llation of a Williamson Act contract only if it makes either public interest or consist~ncy 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 i3 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 (CSC 51282- (a). the Board of Supervisors must find; (1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act; and,. (2) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and, suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (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 adjacent lands k from agricultural use (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consi;tent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. r (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. (5) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the 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 no --,.by itself be sufficient reason for cancellation of the contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be considered only if there is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put (GC §51282(b)). - ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report.— Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 3 of 11 0 3. The. Land Conservation Advisory Committee reviewed the' applicant' 3 request for cancellation on June 30, 2004. The Committee reviewed the above. referenced" findings and acted to recommend approval of the Cancellation to the Board of Supervisors with the required findings. Summary of Findings L 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 pound by the North Chico Specific Plan, which is a planning area identified by the Ge�neral•Plan for development. 3. The North Chico Specific, Plan was adopted by. the County in 1995, ar_d the Liptrap Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1999. 4. The Department indicates that the County should review its policies relating to the implementation of agricultural land and Williamson Act Contracts, especially when lands designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract consideration. 5. Further, the Department of Conservation points out that the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. 6. Staff agrees with, the Department of Conservation on this issue. Since this property was designated for residential development and not agricultural uses by the North Chico Specific Plan, the initiation of a Williamson Act Contract in 1995 was contrary to the expressed intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural land; and was contrary. to the intent of the North Chico Specific Plan to develop 'his area with suburban residential uses. 7. The landowner has now filed a Tentative Subdivision Map with the County to divide this property into 48, 1 -acre parcels, a use. that is consistent with, the North Chico Specific Plan., 8. It is important to ' note, however, that the North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision . for future development in this area, and the 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 findings supporting cancellation based upon information contained within the record. ■ Butte County Department Of.Development Services ■ 0 Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ■ Page 4 of 11 ■ . 11. The findings set forth by staff supporting the Cancellation are surnmErized below.. (please refer to the complete findings located. under the Action for Consideration Section for more detailed information): a. That other public I concerns substantially outweigh the objectives. of the. Williamson Act. • Conformance of the project with the North Chico Specific Plan, the County's . vision for development in this area. • The fulfillment of housing needs as expressed under the North Chico Specific Plan is found to be in the general public's interest. • Development of this area will result in the connection of SR -99 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 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)). • 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 haE been 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 Specific Plan, the General Plan's Greenline policy, and the Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback requirement greatly. reduce . the liA-elihood that cancellation of this property would result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. • 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. e. That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the:applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 0 Page 5 of 11 0 • 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 development • The property is zoned for residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). • The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. Cancellation Fee 1. The cancellation fee is payment made to cancel a Williamson Act contract that provides a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(0). 2. Prior to any action by the Board of Supervisors approving tentative cancellation 'of any contract, the county assessor must determine the current fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contractual restriction (GC §51283(a)). 3. According the Butte County Assessor the cancellation valuation for thus 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 #0020. 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 f -le California Environmental Quality Act. Said study identified significant environmental effects and included mitigation measure: that would mitigate such effects below significant levels; a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cane 04-02)0 November 8, 2005 ■Page 6of11 ■ r r b. The Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with comments received during the revi-,w 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 Geo.-ge Nicolaus, Planning Division File No. Canc 04-02, would have a significant effect on the environment. The custodian of the record is the D--partment of Development Services. The location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965. d. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. II. Immediately Cancel the Williamso ct C tract for Evelyn Liptra� (Assessor's . Parcel Number: 047-260-199, Inst t No. 0052839, recorded December 22, 1999) with the following findings suant overnment Code Section 51282: a. Find that the cancellation is in the public interest as follows: (1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. • The subject Williamson Act Contract was entered into on December 22, 1999 upon review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. This approval was based upon the viable agricultural use established on the property and the ability to continue agricultural operatio.zs within the North Chico Specific Plan, which allows all existing orchards to continue operations without , interference or interruption by development. However, since 'this. property was designated for. residential development and not agricultural uses by the North. Chico Specific Plan, the initiation *bf 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 specificclly indicates ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ Novemter 8, 2005 ■ Page 7of11 ■ • • ' . Vis.• • . . ,. , . . e �• . - _ : . that' this area is intended for residential development at a 1 -acre � • _ . minimum parcel size, as proposed for this site under the Ki,tyhawk Park Tentative Subdivision Map concurrently submitted. The Walianzson Act ` z ' was . enacted to guide urban development as well as preserve agricultural land. The County's approval of the North Chico Specific Y ' • ' ` `' Plan provides explicit direction on. where residential development is,,,. . desirable.' The fu f llment of housing needs as expressed under the N •' --� f North Chico Specific' Plan and as proposed under this Cancellation is 4* • .found to be in the general public's interest. • f.' - �..' The petitioner also set forth additional justification. for finding this 0. cancellation in the public's interest as follows: ' • : The residential development as proposed by the Kittyhawk 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 by the North ' Chico 'Specific. Plan for area -wide circulation and wi.l benefit the. • residents of the Plan area. The connection will also bene fit emergency vehicles -and response times as the connection will provide the Plan "~ ' " area with direct access to SR -99. The enhanced circt-lation to the - + area as a result of subsequent development that would be ' • t -allowed under this. Cancellation is also found to be ir..the general A r public's interest. , • "Nuisances that are related to agricultural activity such cs harvesting, ` chemical spraying and application, dust, ash, smoke and noise, would , .-be -minimized if. the property is L developed with single, family residences. The Cancellation would allow for, the implementation of , the residential. development envisioned for this site by the North, Chico r•'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 neighborin.; residential " properties to the north and'south as these properties develop, and to a : , `• 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 urbar. pattern of • • ' development that will not interfere with agricultural activity. .(2) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which. is Loth available and. suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land w• mould -provide more contiguous patterns" --of urban development (GC .§ 1282(c)). ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ `. ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Cant 04-02)■ Novenver 8, 2005 , ■ Page 8 of 11 ■ ". i • f n t *• 1. •' .. . - • n - - ' . • : Proximate available, land which is suitable for the proposed use is not' ` available in the vicinity. Lands lying west of SR -99 are're-stricted to a'. ` '.'20 or 40 -acre minimum parcel size under the applicable agricultural . ` zoning' Much of the property•in, the vicinity of this prcject is either w . contemplated for future development`or is proposed by development' pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. The subject property is the . only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a ' --Williamson Act Contract. The development of this parcel' would •. ^ provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as. set' ` • - forth under the North Chico Specific Plan.. The propert-� is zoned for , k. residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planner development :` to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey : t,. - {•' Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates the Plan boundary as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. The Chico ..::Y • - Area'Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate in the project • ' � ' area, and that agricultural, uses- are appropriate west of SR -99. The .. proposal would be in keeping with urban growth patterns required -by 3 : the North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. - , b. Find that the cancellation is consistent with;the purposes of the' Williamson � Act as follows: (1) That the- cancellation is for land,on which a notice of nonrenewal has been • served. M , r • A notice of non -renewal was provided by the applicant 'n -accordance,',' ;,' with the Government Code. (2) That, cancellation isnot likely to result in the removal'of 3.djacent lands from agricultural use. ' „ • : Lands adjacent to this parcel are located within the .North Chico t Specific Plan, which designates lands surrounding to th? north, south; 4 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 Elerne.zt of the Butte County.General Plan (Program 2.2) requires the mair_tenance'.of an b :J agricultural setback on the subject property that will limit residential. _. { - development from taking place within 300 feet of the agricultural lands west of SR -99. The setback would be applied to the. Kittyhawk , ; Park Tentative Subdivision Map. SR -99 also demarcates the Chico Area Greenline at this location, which allows a. urban e f development east of SR -99 and agricultural uses to he . west. ~ The pattern for development of this area identified, by, the North Chico.. -:r `} ' ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ , ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)0 November 8, 2005; ` ■Page 9of11 ■ 1 r Specific. Plan; .the General. Plan's Greenline policy, 'and the , ` • ^-> Agricultural Element's 300 foot agricultural setback requirement ` > �greatlyreduce the likelihood that cancellation of this pr-9perty.would 4::'result in the removal of adjacent land front agricultural use. (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the r 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'. (Kitxyhawk .Park •Tentative;Subdivision Map). Although this Map is still ;ruder review, a , the proposed 48, 1 -acre parcel sizes are consistent with the provisions ' of the North Chico Specific Plan -s SR -1 (Suburban Resids--ntial, I -acre ' minimum parcel size) zoning and the Agricultural Residential General- " Plan designation. • . (4) That, cancellation will not result in' discontiguous patte-ns of urban - development. - • . The development of this parcel would .pro'vide for mo; a contiguous L - Y patterns of urban development as set forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The property is zoned for residential uses ' and , is 4 • contiguous to existing and planned development to the east "(Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdii4sion).-'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 `• ,, f ,�` specifies that. urban uses are appropriate in the project,area, a'nd that agricultural uses are appropriate west of SR -99. The proposal would t be in keeping with urban growth patterns required by th 2 North Chico Specific Plan and Greenline policy. ' (5) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is botl_- available and J' . suitable foi the proposed use or that development of the contracted land -would •; �, "' r provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). f ` ~, • ' Pr. oximate 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 applicab.e agricultural - tonin Much o the property in the vicinity o this project is either. g• f P P ty ty f P J contemplated for future development or is proposed b-., development pursuant to the North Chico Specific Plan. ,The subject Property'is the • only property located within the North Chico Specific Plan subject to a ' tid Williamson Act Contract. . The development, of this,•parcel• would. ` provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development as set r forth under the North Chico Specific Plan. The proper -y is zoned for b ,� Y ,• �■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ ' ', ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc-04-02)0 November 8, 2005 - t r, "� ,..t ■ Page 10 of 11 0 - residential uses and is contiguous to existing and planned development to the east (Autumn Park Subdivision) and south (proposed Guernsey Subdivision). SR -99 to the west demarcates the Plan bbu.,, ry as well as the Butte County General Plan's Chico Area Greenline. -The Chico Area Greenline specifies that urban uses are appropriate �n the project area, and that agricultural uses are appropriate west o -" SR -99. The proposal would be in keeping with urban growth pattern3 required by the North Chico. Specific Plan and Greenline policy. h ` Z:\LCA\hptrap\Board Report.doc + ■ Butte County Department Of Development Services ■ 1 ■ Board of Supervisors Agenda Report — Liptrap Cancellation (Canc 04-02)■ November 8, 2005 ' ■ Page 11 of 11 ■'. aS/PD AR Breedon, Dan - • From: , Bailey, Blake Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 1:02 PM To: Breedon, Dan Subject: RE: Cancellation for Liptrap JV Dan, Upon review the Liptrap file, I see that a value revision was stipulated in December of 2004. A ropy of the valuation was sent to your office on December 21, 2004. It indicated a valuation of the Liptrap property @ $1 372,250 with a cancellation fee of.$171,530 to each the County and the State for a total of $343,060. . If you need a "replacement copy, of the valuation certification, please let me know. Blake -----Original Message-- From: essage--- From: Breedon, Dan , Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:29 AM ' ' To: Bailey, Blake Subject: Cancellation for,Liptrap . , ' Blake, t i I am sending a report to the Board on this Cancellation for November 8, 2005. The following is the information that will be provided in the report about the Cancellation fee. Please let me know if the cancellation fee`is still correct. Thanks. 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'bf the property (GC §51283(f)).o , - 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 -hough it were free of -the contractual restriction (GC §51283(a)). r • 3. According the Butte County Assessor the cancellation valuation for this property is $1,500,000.00 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 $375,000.00. 5. 'This amount was determined by the Assessor's Office under Appeal #04-020. f 1• Dan Breedon, AICP, Principal Planner , Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • 530-538-7629, FAX.: 530-538-7785 a 1 • Ept OF T .. o��pEOf�p/N • STATE OF CALIFORNIA �:: • Governor's Office of Planning and Research P, •�r4� C9k#F0 M .. - _ OF CAVIV State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit.. Sean Walsh Arnold Director Schwarzenegger Governor May 13,.2005 BUTTE COUNTY Dan Breedon MAY 17 2005.. Butte County Dept. of Development Services 7 County Center Drive DEVELOPMENT SERVICES .Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract SCH#: 2005042079 Dear Dan Breedon:, The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period, closed on May 12, 2005, and no state agencies submitted ccmments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental. Quality A� t. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any.questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, erry Rob s Director, ate Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3C44 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018. www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report • State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2005042079 Project Title Liptrap Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract Lead Agency Butte County Type Neg Negative Declaration Description The applicant requests the immediate cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Government Code Section 51280-51287, on a 52.72 acre parcel: Lead Agency Contact Name Dan Breedon Agency Butte County Dept. of Development Services Phone (530) 538-7629 Fax email Address 7 County Center Drive City Oroville State CA . Zip 95965 Project Location County Butte City Chico Region Cross Streets Kitty Hawk Drive / Garner Lane Parcel No. 047-260-199 Township 23N Range 1E Section 31, 32 Base MDBM Proximity to: Highways' SR 99 Airports Chico Municipal Airport Railways Waterways . Keefer Slough, Mud Creek Schools Shasta School Land Use Vacant / SR71 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) / Agricultural Residential Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; GeologidSeismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Servi--es; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; "lNlldlife Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5 (Redding); Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Health Services; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 2; Department of Water Resources; Department of Conservation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 3; Caltrans, Divisbn of Aeronautics; Department of Toxic Substances Control Date Received 04/13/2005 Start of Review 04/13/2005 End of Review 05/12.2005 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by leac agency. FRrIM : Nicolaus Nut Company PHONE NO. : 530 894 8708 Sender: Nicolaus Nut Company C/o George R. Nicolaus 66 Magbill Ranch Road Chico, CA 95928 Phone 530 / 894-6171 ,Fwx 530 / 345-9585 Jan. 20 2005 06:33AM Pi 0 4 To. ITN ;��,/t � �' t'�o�► 1• La emoro Message: RAIV KJ -r £_ TE 4-T i / o IV M L9ft k- S o N /Q Z £- MAK /IU G- x_07 s Pages Including this page: Nui:c.v.cNNC .. - FROM : Nicolaus Nut Company • PHONE NO. 530 894 0708 • Jan. 20 2005 06:33AM P2 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF. LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION CANCELLATION PROCESS FOR WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS* Decision to Terminate Williamson Act Contract Landowner decides to terminate a Williamson Act contract and files a notice of nonrenewal. Starting at the next contract anniversary date, the'contract-winds down over the remaining (usually nine-year) term. The Supreme Court has stated that cancellation is not appropriate where the objectives served by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal, (See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal:3d 840, 852-853). Cancellation is reserved for unusual, '•emergency" situations. Therefore, the nine-year nonrenewal process has been identified as the legally preferred method for terminating a Williamson Act contract. Petition to Cancel Contract Once the nonrenewal has been filed, the landowner may petition the city/county for cancellation of the contract .(Government Code Secti.on.51282). Only the landowner can petition for contract cancellation (Government Code Section 51281). The.petition must contain a proposal for a specified alternative use for the Property, and a list of all government agencies known to have permit authority related to the proposed use (Government Code Section 51282(d)). %Notification Requirements for _Hearing In order to'consider contract cancellation,.a county or city must give notice of, and hold a public hearing on the landowner's petition for cancellation. Notice must be 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. Notice to the -Director of the Department must be provided as follows: 1. When a board or council accepts a landowner's petition for tentative cancellation -as complete, a notice must be mailed to the Director immediately. The notice must include: 1) a -copy of the petition, 2) a copy of the contract, 3) a general description, in Q�( text or by diagram, of the'contracted.land; 4) a deadline for the PPP Director to submit comments. Any comments shall advise the board or council on the required findings. (Government'Code Section 51284.1) 2. Notice of the hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition must be mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to the hearing on tentative FROM Nicolaus Nut Company PHONE NO. 530 894 0708 Jan. 20 2005 06:34AM P3 Contract Cancellation Process Page 2 (/ cancellation (Government Code Section 51284). Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation of the contract, the city/county shall forward,a copy of the published notice of the decision to the Director of the Department of Conservation. Cancellation Fee rior to any action by the board/council approving tentative cancel tion oaf any contract, the county assessor must. determine the burr t'fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contra ual restriction. In addition, the county assessor must certify., to a board or council, the cancellation valuation of the land for the p ose of determining the cancellation fee (Government Code ection 51283(a)). Also, prior to g ing tentative approval to the cancellation of any contract, the bo /council must determine and certify to the county auditor the amo t of the cancellation fee which the landowner shall pay to the c m y treasurer upon cancellation. The cancellation fee is equal t 12.5 percent of the cancellation valuation of the property (Govern nt Code Section 512-8.3(b)). Cancellation Findings The board or council may grant*tentat've approval for cancellation f.a contract only if it makes a of the following findings: (1) That the cane lation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act; , (2) That cancellation is the public interest (Government Code Section 51282(a)). In order to find that the ca ellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, the oard/council mus_ also find: M' That the cancellation is for land which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result n the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use-whi is consistent with the applicable provisions of the ty or county general plan. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. 2 Butte County Department of Development Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center. Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538.7601 Telephone (530) 538.7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING April 4, 2005 Mr. George Nicolaus 66 Marybill Ranch Road Chico, CA 95028 Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Liptrap Immediate. Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract (File #CANC 04-02) Dear Mr.Nicolaus: Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3), an Initial Study has been prepared to determine if the above -referenced project would have significant adverse effects on the environment. The Initial Stud: determined that mitigation measures are necessary to prevent the project from causing significant impacts to the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. Please review the enclosed initial study and recommended mitigation measures, noting particularly any environmental problems which could be minimized or avoided by the care and manner in which the project is carried out. Section 15070(b)(1) of the Guidelines requires that the project applicant, of his or her agent, provide a written consent to the proposed mitigation measures prior to release of the proposed Mitigated Negative. Declaration and Initial Study for public. review. The recommended mitigation measures constitute a revision to the project. If you agree to the mitigation measures, please sign Section 8 of the Initial Study and return to the Planning Division. If you do not agree to the mitigation measures, please contact this office as, soon as possible to discuss possible alternatives. Should you have any further questions regarding this Mitigated Negative Declaration, pease contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at (530) 538-7629. c e , an- Sreedon ? 'Principal Planner Enclosure (Initial Study) cc: Evelyn Liptrap • �, f '1,��;'.. '• � 1 til � �S , �•'r�� GE,®RGE. R. •NICOLAUS °. • ./ ..- tip. .. t ' , ,: k� P ,; ^♦' Since 1951•;. ,N .a • •' F April 6,-2005 r Mr. Dari Breedon Principal • Planner f Butte County' eilopment Services ,.• '" 7 County Center •Drive Oroville;,CA.-95965 y , ' r Dear Mr'Breedon: , Re�,',` Williamson Act Cancellation (Liptrap, CANC 04-02) ,The Initial�Study and Proposed Negative Declaration has been signed and r. is attached I would like to point out three items for your con..ideration.. 1, Pg 17 .last sentence; California Water Service will likely -Kant to • ' ' .,,,-place a well onsite. We do not envision any private well-, for ' ' Iindividual lots, i `` .2.` S Pg 26, a. - b.;•47 lots are referenced. '."3._Pg 28, a. - g:, 2nd paragraph; 48'lots are referenced. r 4 My understanding is that you will now initiate the 30 day'public review ;period. When' this time has passed with follow up review of any. public - • 1 comment; I look forward to meeting with the Board! We expect to close =- " • ' escrow with Mrs. Liptrap on Friday, April 8. I will forward a copy of the r.deed to your office when it has been recorded. `F Until -then, ,thank you for your, ongoing efforts to work. through this cancellation` process. A,ell ' Respectfully yours, i George R. Nicolaus cc; Robert Feeney . • �.v' ' 66,'Marybi`ll Ranch Road ` ;shite,; C 9592.8-9563' : al"ifornia r P, ho ~5300-=-;8,94-617 1 Fax 530-�-345-'9585+" , Butte CountyDepad=nt ofDevelopment Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING March 1, 2004 Darryl W. Young, Director California Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Applications for Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Act Coitracts Dear Mr. Young: Transmitted to you herewith are the following applications for Immediate Cancellation of Williamson Contracts in accordance with 51280 of the Government Code: 1. Evelyn C. Liptrap 2. Mead Brothers (Assessor Parcel Number 39-260-059) 3. Mead Brothers (Assessor Parcel Number 39-260-060) Butte County requests the Department of Conservation's review and comment on these Immediate Cancellation requests. A copy of this letter and material has been provided to Patricia Gatz, Division of Land Resource Protection. Should you have any questions please contact me at 530-538-7629. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely— Dan Breedon, Principal Planner cc: Patricia Gatz, Department of Conservation Division'of Land Resource Protection PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (Submit Original and 4 Copies) To the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte. The undersigned hereby petition(s) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte to Cancel the Land Conservation Agreement executed between the County of Butte and �w L. `(lj l PT -011 i01 on as it relates to land in'Agr'cultural Preserve No. of the County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said agreement described as follows: La 091-7- a 6 0 - I � c -o OU , Cy k) S i' ST I JJ 6" 2 E S I-1- U, Q7-(•( !E R_ ' Pc SCi216�__D C)cv6�`z_ /► 1 T1-Vc1-tf 7 L:�-6,AL D,`SGv2(lamc /U/U `t 1 2. That Cancellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Willivnson Act (Government Code S 1200 ct se q.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that:* The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed this day of JAIVZ,11+-1-2-y ,o�00 `f at California. Petitioner() APPENDIX E , . Date Filed: Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Nae and addre.Ss of developer or project sponsor: �V£L7n! �. ! P 7'R/3 E' Name 331 WALL" ST , e ftic o i CA i s 5a& 2. Address of project: ZAsr- 14 W'r 9 q :Pjt< 3000' IV. 0 WiLSonJLND6- Assessor's Block and Lot Number: A?,:* 2 3" Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: tPP)_IC_ANT AIVb G E c� 2G I< "1 c.oLlt-uS (k&�Y1f� fZY/31Lc= P,,k /V " e D e til co C A a S `i 2- 8 4. Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivisign) - SO AJ �T f_A 5£ fn N T • LXG4�4(%NCyi- �RC9Ge�8M ��i�£�P ���DiNC•r `�o �.�Uf3"Di11tSfO�v S. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required :for this project, inclu 'ng those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: l : (�NT,/t iV 5v3 DiytS(v N (1'IAP� uTr �0^JT . • 6. �Existing zoning district: R - i ah tilt/ti► Iy orrrl+- t✓' wlcy SPS c t4=rc PUAN 7" :' Proposed use of site: £ S t a ig A/ T"i A C �ytnn E S t PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 . • 'S ` 3 ^Site sic. . 9 Square footage of building(s). 10. Number of floors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. . Attach site development plan.f }' I r"A,G l"t :i-. D 13. Proposed scheduling. P JZ / N G-- 14. Associated projects. • 15. Anticipated incremental development. • 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household sire expected. �-- cs j-5 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oniented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 18. if indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. if institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20.. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effect--? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO. features beaches, lakes, or 21. Change in existing of any hills:, or substantial alteration of ground coutouxs. / V 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 peoject. V 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. V 26. Significant change in lake, stream or ground water quality cr quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patters. 27. Substirntial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicin=iy. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 34 percent or more. 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, nammablcs or explosives. V 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. ' Substantially increase fossil fuel*consumption (electrictiy, oil, natural gas, etc.) • Z32: Relationship to part of a larger project or series of projects. • FNWRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on -opography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic saspects. Describe any existing structtres on the site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, ccmmercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, elle.), and scale of development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.). CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowl•--dge and belief. Date D d , f(Slg�nature) For • Abcdev I Wocumen6appendix.E.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) cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject property. Government Code Section 51282 requires two general areas to be addressed: (A) 'Public Interest' will be covered first, followed by (B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest • Public interest will be served by cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services, (2) Contiguous Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continues within the area designated as the "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995" (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a). consistent with the existing zoning (SR -1), b). providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Plan area by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehicles better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drive, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane and several additional smaller streets in the area east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire station located across • from the proposed Kittyhawk and Highway 99 intersection. 1 `Emergencypersonnel would gain access to rapidly g -owing • :�' °residential, areas east of Highway 99 by a much more direct route 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 F - _ "allows for additional, non -emergency routes to and from Keiffer Ft Road; Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing for the enhancement t4 'As discretionar of general traffic circulation.y funds available to ` t Butte County'are very limited, the completion of and inherent -. community benefits of Kittyhawk Drive may not be realized # . "anytime soon. ' Cancellation of the Land Conservation Act on the subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed, which in ' j turn will provide for private funding for the constrL.ction of ttyhawk,Drive. ~ 2 Contiguous Growth Pattern .a). ,- The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and t subsequent application for the WAEEP contract wiIl allow for F { contiguous growth within the Plan area. it is an express desire • '} within Butte County to provide for contiguous growth patterns as , 4 evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resulting orderly growth of residential neighborhoods allows for the cost +' Ifrom utilities effective addition of various support services, ranging to emergency services. c b)" The subject -property is contiguous on the east border with an ` existing subdivision and contiguous on the south border with a ro osed 50 unit subdivision which was recently p submitted to 1:. P 'Butte County planning staff. An older almond orchard contiguous with and to the north of the subject property was cleared 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 existing rsubdivision lies to the north of the recently, removed almond 1. orchard. - � a. y i • 3. ltural Element Issues a). =:, Butte County adopted the Agricultural Element in 1995. • ' ' ' `•' -' fr., IkWhile the Element's express purpose is to preserve agricultural Y' land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "Allow for the conversion of • agricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence where land has been determined to be irretrievablv 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 of Butte County with the aid of citizen input, this property was designated for residential development nearly 10 years ago. b). The issue of "limited continued productive use" as noted above is the result of several factors which are also pointed • out in the Agricultural Element. Under Goal 2, Policies, Programs, Item 2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot BUFFER BE ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES FROM INCOMPATIBLE USE CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already ' been waived on the east border of the subject property and appears. 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 J legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation of the subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting multiple health and safety hazards at worst to neighboring residents. The following points are part of the Environmental Information Form that accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review at this point as legitimate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an urban setting: 3 Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. - (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and. harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents : a in the area, (b): ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be., i. - " 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".:. ibration' .. is felt'in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest .due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butter - ' -,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 . ,. . • '#'c f'` 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 %M ` fungicide and pesticide sprays andtheir 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 .E. •- "' have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic'. r - substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore:' . R (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 a vicinity. In summary,cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the , .; t=�•' ° , Public Interest; 2 effectively addresses the issue of Contiguityfor efficient f . 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.' ' r - Asan additional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a r ' -ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easementin ;; ,� jj' ' ,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. J 4 K e� In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found to be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to effect a WAEEP plan. If, however, the Petitioner can find no acceptable WAEEP property for an exchange within a reasonable time,.it is the desire of the Petitioner to proceed with the cancellation of the Land Conservation _agreement and to pay the cancellation penalty fees as determined by the Land Conservation ` Agreement recorded on December 22, 1999. Part 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 follcwing • findings: L Notice of non -renewal has been submitted in a timely manner 2. Cancellation / exchange will not result in adjacent lands being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands adjacent to the subject property are located within. the North Chico :3pecific Plan's 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 the west) which might be considered 'adjacent' is outside of the North Chico Specific Plan's scope and may not be considered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the subject property would therefore not be a substantive cause for any adjacent property to be removed from agricultural use. 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject property being used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Chico Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a precise guideline for growth . and development overand 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. i 5 4. Cancellation / exchange will not result in discontiguous • development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous with existing residential development as well as land currently in the development review process with Butte County 5. There is no "proximate non -contracted land" which is hoth "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 propenty 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. The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons for cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. ' Petitioner Date • Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Inforrnation 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 prc•perty will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a): Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area,. (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as • they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than th- 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 fie intended uses of the area as defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. • Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundar.es of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is part of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result of the approved Plan. A "Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. Item 33. 1The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundar_-es 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 t immediate areas there are no known rare or endangered plant or animals, nor are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. Each proposed lot and home, when built, will meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the •.. attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department) '(Please see attached photographs) • �„ — 'i:�Y; .aro .,.. •. . ti'+.• 0 4 q'i r. x �.. ,=�"tiP.. a es' "" `f. • . � 'fit +. �A C} Y 5i ;£ � SY ��• � t rµ I't 11l� • i y.j, � y. ' 'a., f .t. r .x 1 �•L+Siw?,: t „-'h. ; It Zr N r .x 1 �•L+Siw?,: t „-'h. ; It VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 ON LOT 39 u PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (Submit Original and 4 Copies) To the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte. The undersigned hereby petition(s). the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte to Cancel the Land Conservation Agreement executed between the County of Butte and l� l P —I/) f,� on Ion od 6as it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve No. _-2-of the County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said acrectnent described as follows: )q P'4`04 r7 - (9 - q _0 00 , 00 Q S I �T IPJ 6 �{ �, a1 � C 2 E, S S iL- Sc2.I.3LD C�aI tt A 7`7-Ac, t-r�-.2 `L`E6AZ ("Sc.�"c.f'� 2. That Cancellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson A:t (Government Code 51200 et seq) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that. The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. >rrecuted this day of J�tN�'A /zY 06 at �f !C' Califontia. Petitioners) ie APPENDIX E Date Filed: 00 `7 Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: (EVELY J I. I P T -RA P 331 WAw— ST , eftico %CA 9S10,& r 14w`f 91 /IFPIZK 3000' At, A WIL oN LN 2. /\ddressofproject: i�ftsoG- Assessor's Block and Lot Number: A 7 # 0`f'7 - (a O -I'M - ©o e• 2 -D 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: j PPL-ICANT- Affb 026 Ir "IC0LtUS 6e(e /11f�2Y/3lLt� R IV �r FZ D e tz l e o 4. Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivisign) GJ So J) Y it /� nlr PRr9r lZ .AM ( LJA £�P L�� a��w<r `�o SU[3 DrV 1S1 ON S, List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, inclu 'ng those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: _ ( s✓Nri—ty 5✓3I>tVtIfa w MAP ���ury-r� Co�.v_�� • G. Existing zoning district: R "' I (,CJI -ti fiu Iv e)RTit C i- I c o .SPF c 14 tc RAN 7. Proposed use of site: �,29S t Dig /v T I -A c OVK £. S t T f:. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size.'�. moo- 3 !� r2 E S 9, Square footage of building(s). 10. Number of floors of construction. Ill. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach site development plan.}" T-T/4G l`t D 13. Proposed scheduling. P / tJ 6- 14. Associa(ed projects. 15. Anticipated incremental development. • 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household size expected. JT 3 2 5 l b i iV 7-1 13 iii L D! N G C) -r S 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area,,and loading facilities. 18. If indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effect;? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO../ features beaches, lakes, or 21. Change in existing of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground coutours. V 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas from existing resicenbal areas or public lands or roads. • �/ 23. Significantly change pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 1/ 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter_ 25. Change in dust, ash, sm,okc, fumes, or odors in vicinity. V26. Significant change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patters. V _ 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicirtiy. V 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more. 29; Use or disposal o("potentially hazardous materials, such as tococ substances, or explosives. /flammables V 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel'consumption (electrictiy, oil, natural gas, etc.) Z32 Relationship to part of a larger project or series of projects. • f-NVTRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic saspects. Describe any existing structures onthe site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals andany Cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, elc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.). CERTIFICATION: 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the -Ittached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowLdge and belief. Date Off/ q , (Signature) For K \\bcdev l \documerit\appendixE.doe 1 f. • 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) cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject property. Government Code Section 51282 requires two general areas to be addressed: (A) 'Public Interest' will be covered first, followed by (B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest Public interest will be served by cancellation of the Land Conservaticn • Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services, (2) Contiguous Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continues within the area designated as the. "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995" (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a).. consistent with the existing zoning (SR -1), b). providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Dr_ve as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Plan area by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehicles better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drive, 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. l • f , y r » f I �a access to rapidly growing • } ' Emergency. personnel would gain ' •` residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much more direct route ... - - 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 ;� , •s allows for additional, non -emergency routes to and from Keiffer ; for the enhancement ` Road, 'Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing .. ' .. of general traffic circulation. As discretionary funds available to 5 , k f , Butte,County are very' limited, the. completion of and inherent , t- benefits of Kittyhawk Drive may not be realized . { �• community _ anytime soon.. Cancellation of the Land Conservation Act on the , subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed, which in, turn will provide for private funding for the construction of a Kittyhawk Drive. 2. ; Contiguous Growth Pattern -: ... , . - ) • a - - ' 'The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreem int and .. subsequent application for the WAEEP contract wi=1 allow for ` f ; • contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an express desire • r .. ry� •, , within Butte County to provide for contiguous growth patterns as The resulting'orderly evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. residential neighborhoods allows for the cost , growth•of effective addition of various support services, ranging from utilities •, t b). to emergency services. ;'' The subject property is contiguous on the east border with an •' .. r., - ''existing subdivision and contiguous on the south border with�a ` '• was recently sub 50 :. unit subdivision which Y , "a ' '' `' , • proposed,50 Butte County planning staff. An older almond or. contiguous ` with and to the north of the subject property was cleared of all trees • ' `° r `� within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR -1 and is located ?° "' �� thePlan area, will likely be the subject of development' ' • . '; '` ' . pressure in the near future. Additionally, an exiting ';''' • '' remo� ed almond lies to the north of the recently , subdivision orchard'. ,' • : , ; ' ` 3 ' A ricultural Element Issues • . a Butte County adopted the Agricultural Element in 1995 { ' • d ' �' le the Element's express purpose is to preserve agricultural ' land; Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "Allow for the conversion of • . agricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence where land has been `' 1 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) f. , . ; q The subject property was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan 3; - (Plan) in 1995 with SR -1 zoning. By placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already ' 7, ' "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and T 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 "surrounde(f" and ` "substantially encroached upon" is clearly the- case at hand. ' s� A • . r, Following extensive planning and research on the part of Butte .• y 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,, 1 ' ;5 Item 2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot "BUFFER BE ' ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL `• DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES FROM INCOMPATIBLE USE '...,CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already ' been waived on the east border of the subject property ,and appears f that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to'the , l;', ` 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 ti,. • J K + - , '' legitimate encroachment of urban development onto thv cultural i practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation" of the subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting multiple'health and safety hazards at worst to neighboring , fr residents. The following points are part of the Environmental Information Form that accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review a= this point gas legituriate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an•urban setting: •¢ ` f - b • Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and'smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and -odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used • have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the r vicinity. In summary, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue of Contiguity for efficient growth and development, and (3) conforms to the spirit and intent found within, the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is the express „ y purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. As an additional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange,a ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exchange requires the California Department of Conservation to review this petition, to be in substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department can agree is acceptable and suitable for the exchange. 4 In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found to be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to 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. 3 Part B Five Findings Consistent with the Purposes of the Code Subsequent to the issues regarding Public Interest as described, Codi Section 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the following " • findings: 1. _ Notice of non -renewal has been submitted in a timely manner 2. Cancellation / exchange will not result in adjacent Ian -Is being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands adjacent to the subject property are located within the North Chic- Specific Plan's designated area for development and are not currently in r,b agricultural use or are already utilized as suburban residential. Any area to the west of the subject property (across Highway 99 to the west) which might be considered 'adjacent' is outs -de of the North Chico Specific Plan's scope and may not be considered for • . _ development under the Plan. Cancellation on the subject property, would therefore not be a substantive cause for any adj 3Lcent property, to be removed from agricultural use. 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject proF-erty being used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Ch -co 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 g::)als. 5 • 4. Cancellation / exchange will not result in discontiguous development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous with existing residential development as well as land currently in the development review process with Butte County 5. There is no "proximate non -contracted land" which is both "available and suitable", and even if land was. found w-uch could be considered "available and suitable", it would not pr,Dvide for a "more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land." The subject prope_ty 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. • • The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and -compelling reasons for cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. � o Petitioner Date k • Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Information Item 22. As seen from SR -99, the property has a minimal wire fence along the highway and the southerly boundary. When completed, residential 6' high decorative sound walls along SR -99 and Kittyhawk Drive and/or fences will be constructed surrounding the project. The orchard will still be seen from the highway as well as may rooftops of the homes, once constructed. Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as • they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the. intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. Items 30 & 31. Any substantial change in demand for municipal services or increased fossil fuel consumption would be in accordance with and in compliance to the intended uses of the area as defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. 0 Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of • the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is part of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result,of the approved Plan. A "Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. Item 33. The proposed Kittyhawk Park, project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan), as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a 30 year old 93 +/- acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly on Garner Lane and westerly on SR -99. Two earlier phases of division (1999 and 2000) on the easterly end created Autumn Park Subdivision, the divisions of which created 40 one acre home sites and a remainder of 52.72 acres. The remainder parcel is the project site. The site slopes uniformly from approximately 186' on the northeasterly boundary to approximately 181' on the southwesterly boundary. The soils are stable and are categorized as vina loam. There are no rare or endangered plants or animals on the property and no known cultural, historical or scenic features. There is one existing agricultural accessory structure (approximately 24'x 60') on Lot 39 which will remain. The structure is shown on the attached tentative map. • (Please see attached photographs) Item 34. . The properties to the west are primarily agricultural in nature. The property to the south, owned by Guernsey, has been submitted to Butte County for subdivision into 50 lots. Southeasterly and directly east of the project site are single family residential home sites ranging in various sizes and ages. The property to the north and northeast has been,cleared of the remaining remnants of an old almond orchard. It has been vacant and continues to be vacant of any use other than two home sites. Within these immediate areas there are no known rare or endangered plant or animals, nor are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. Each proposed lot and home, when built, will meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department) (Please see attached photographs) • KtyHwkLCA_CXL_102 � +r r� iai+s' ,! "•..9 y� k � a "fir P � r"", '�_ •R' w ,Ta "� � it 'H'F��1 a✓�._ i . 11 � Y ` t' 4 'j!� }"'^^�':3.7•t �. t rl :fes {: � tom... r 3�,°'i*'fSnrN. -•.'1 , 2a.. �j�w� .:yy-rr,((T��-y�D•'MIV ,!:Lu1 } i3 � r �,ys• rj ` +��� ti GARNER — WESTERLY DOWN NORTHWESTERLY i , s ~ Y �t.NS ..i+V 2a.. �j�w� .:yy-rr,((T��-y�D•'MIV ,!:Lu1 } i3 � r �,ys• rj ` +��� ti GARNER — WESTERLY DOWN NORTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHWESTERLY FROM KITTYHAWK DRIVE SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE r kr _... .. - - .. { .. , `.,. ' 7 a i- A- ` �•�- f' ` 3.+.sat AL A i , s ~ Y �t.NS ..i+V 2a.. �j�w� .:yy-rr,((T��-y�D•'MIV ,!:Lu1 } i3 � r �,ys• rj ` +��� ti SM Z VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ON LOT 39 • • NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 PETITION TO CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT .. (Submit Original and 4 Copies) • To the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte. The undersigned hereby petition(s) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte to Cancel the Land Conservation Agreement executed between the County of Butte and ,Z'U C - L y jJ lam- l P To" /� P on %Z ad j 2 as it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve No. �ofthe County of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said agreement described as follows: 092 - a6 0 - I j q -(IOU ; PIES C.2. I S ^vr 4t / 1 'T /tc U.D t E� &A L �D,5' ,S c ( P r i v itl 4 2. That Cancellation not inconsistent with the purpose ofthe Williamson Act (Government Code 51200 et seq.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that:* AT r / L P -L D The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed this day of al -V /z y ,�UO `f at 14 16 Calavnnia, 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: �'1i£L`j'I�J �. I P TRA '33i (A)AL-L ST , er+iCd SCA 4sj'a� 2. Address of project: X A S T 14 w `f 91 A V & - :3000' IJ: -1 Geri L -Suns L N o6 - Assessor's Block and Lot Number: fi F I O `1'7 - a 4? 0 - I 9 -000- 3. ©oa3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this Froject: _ PPJ-LCRNT" j�aD G F c, 2G Ir M 1 C OLf-vS (0& JY1f� 2Y/3i[-L PAn/Gbt P D , COICo • CA -t -`i 2F3 4. Type of project: (i.c., rezoning, subdivis) W' Sa qV )kcT Am,- iZ AM K' A££P Lr—bowel— To- SVa-DWiSidN 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: I iNT-&--Q v £, Sv3 DtytI/v nr /Yl AP • G. Existing zoning district: S R - I (A)I -t-(-4.1 Ai Iy URTtt C w t C o Spi c ( tc Pe -AN 7. Proposed use of site: <�ZV S t D !9 N T -I -A C £ S t ,r Jr 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION S. Site sire. 9 , Square footage of building(s). 10. Number of floors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. , Attach site development plan. t --E £. D 13. Proposed scheduling. p R / N 14. Associated projects. 4 j r • Anticipated incremental development. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type; of household sire expected. 2 i-,- iV T l A t_. ,Q U1 [.. D I V If, commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. If indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state this and indicate clearly wiry the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effect--? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) YES NO. features beaches, lakes, or /� 21. change in existing of any or substantial alteration of ground coutours. /hills, V 22.- Sigpificant change in scenic views or vistas from existing resicential 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_ 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. V 26. Significant change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patters. V — 27. Substitntial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicirtiy. V 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more. _ .29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, /flammablcs or explosives. V 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 3l. Substantially increase fossil fuel *consumption (electrictiy, oil, natural gas, etc.) Z32. Relationship to pan of a larger project or series of projects. • FNVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic saspeets. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals aitd any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -fancily, apartment houses, shops, department stores, e'c.), and scalc.of development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.). CERTIFICATION: 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the Ettached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my abZity, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowLdge and belief. Datc (Signature) • Abcdev 1\documcnt\appendixE.doc For • 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) cancella aon 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 Land Conservation • Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services, (2) Contiguous Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continues within the area designated as the "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995" (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a). consistent with the existing zoning (SR -1), b). providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Plan area by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehicles better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drive, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane and several additional smaller streets In the'area east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire station located across • from the proposed Kittyhawk and Highway 99 intersection. 1 • Emergency personnel would gain access to rapidly growing residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much more direct route 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 enhancement of general traffic circulation. As discretionary funds a•,-ailable to Butte County are very limited, the completion of and inherent community benefits of Kittyhawk Drive may not be realized anytime soon. Cancellation of the Land Conservation .Act on the subject property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to proceed, which in turn will provide for private funding for the construction of Kittyhawk Drive. 2. Contiguous Growth Pattern a). The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and subsequent application for the WAEEP contract will allow for • contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an express desire Butte County within to provide for contiguous growth patterns as evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resuBting 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 bordQ with a proposed 50 unit subdivision which was.recently submitted to Butte County planning staff. An -older almond orchard contiguous with and to the north of the subject property was cleared 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 existing subdivision lies to the north.of the recently removed almond orchard. 3. Akricultural Element Issues • a). Butte County adopted the Agricultural Element L11995. While the. Element's express purpose is to preserve agricultural 2 land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "Allow for the conversion of t • t' agricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of "Influence where land has been , determined to be irretrievably lost to urbanization. These wculd - likely be areas where urban development has surrounded or substantially , encroached upon agricultural land and has limited its contim3,ed 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 al •ready - "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. r ` ' That.the subject property is rapidly being "surrounded" and " "substantially encroached upon" is clearly the case at hand. .. Following extensive planning and research on the part of Butte ' w County with the aid of citizen input, this property was designated , ` ` ► r "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 3 _ � A' CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already' . ;• "; - ; been waived on the east border of the subject property*and appears ` r ? that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to the - ,i- south'of the subject property. Granted, the Element allows for the, 300 foot standard to be "adjusted to address unusual ,. } r circumstances. Those unusual circumstances", spec_fically, the } ' r legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural ` • �. " practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation , ,. ° 4 ' of the subject propertyas an orchard difficult at best and presentin401 g" - .. multiple health and safety hazards at worst to nei hbo_in g g =� , . r residents. • -The following points are part of the Environmental Information Form that, • �` '-' fi ' ' accompanies this Petition. The points made are inserted for review at this point t as legitimate concerns to an ongoing agricultural operation in an urban setting:' w. 3 • Item 25: The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this.-property will , result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. ' y (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 vibraticn 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 } •; .. j 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 • ;y , ' ' 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' f into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used'', I • have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic t 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 r " , residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in'the vicinity. ; In summary,, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1) serves the.. M. ' Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue of Contiguity fcr efficient growth and�development, and (3) conforms to the spirit and intent found within the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is Lie express . purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. , .4. As an additional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a• ' ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exch-inge 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. +;A m • In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found to be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locate an acceptable property within a reasonable period of time with which to effect a WAEEP plan. If, however, the Petitioner can find no acceptable WAEEP property for an exchange within a reasonable time,.it is the desire of _he 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, Coda Section 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the foL.owing • findings: 1. Notice of non -renewal has-been submitted in a timely manner 2. Cancellation / exchange will not result in adjacent Ian -Is being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lanes 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 the west) which might be considered 'adjacent' is outs --de of the North Chico Specific Plan's scope and may not be considered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the subject property would therefore not be a substantive cause for any adjacent property to be removed from agricultural use. 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject property being used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Chico Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a precise guideline for growth and development over and above the General Plan, cancellation of. the Land Conservation. Agreement brings the subject property into • conformity with the Specific Plan and its long-range goals. 5 4. Cancellation / exchange will not result in discontiguous development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous with existing residential development as well as land currently in the development review process with Butte County ' 5. There is no "proximate non -contracted land" which is both "available and suitable", and even if land was found which could , be considered "available and suitable", it would not provide for a "more contiguous pattern of urban development than development , of proximate non -contracted land." The subject property is currently surrounded on two of three possible sides by urban development. The fourth side is across Highway 99 and falls outside of the Specific Plan area and is therefore unsuitable for urban development. The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward in this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons for cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. Petitioner."Date LCAExchanggeDraft103 • 0. • Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Information Item 22. As seen from SR -99, the property has a minimal wire fence along the highway and the southerly boundary. When completed, residential 6' high decorative sound walls along SR -99 and Kittyhawk Drive and/or fences will be constructed surrounding the project. The orchard will still be seen from the highway as well as may rooftops of the homes, once constructed. Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as • they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used have "stenching agents" added in order to 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. 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. 0 r • Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is part of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result of the approved Plan. A "Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. Item 33. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan), as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a 30 year old 93 +/- acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly or, 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 o 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 18l' 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 a --,id area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department (Please see attached photographs) i KtyHwkLCA_CXL_102 GARNER - WESTERLY DOWN KITTYHAWK DRIVE SOUTHERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE NORTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE NORTHEAST FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE VIEW OF PROPERTY NORTH OF PROJECT `S.A�.?i� di _ k f VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ON LOT 39 NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 ` PETITION TO•CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION AGREEME 4'1' 1 ' (Submit Original and 4 Copies) To the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte. The undersigned hereby petition(s) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte to Cancel the Lana Conservation Agreement cxceuted betwocn the County of Butte and 'V '�_ t- �1J (2. L-- 1 PT -P, J P on ko ,d qas it relates to land in Agricultural Preserve No. �—lof the County'of Butte which is presently owned by the undersigned. In support of this petition, the undersigned alleges: That the undersigned presently owns the land covered by said , agrectnent described as follows: �] - (o Q - (� cl —o 0c) ; t C>v q4t-t:- A 1 �T�tc:trf � ` DUAL � sc�cP� �oAL' 2. That Cancellation not inconsistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (Government Code 51200 ct seq.) in that:* That cancellation is in the public interest in that.' -The undersigned declares the above to be true under penalty of perjury. `. Executed this day of at 14 iG 0 California. „ . Petitioners) i APPENDCX E Date -Filed: Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: (FVf-LYpJ I P TRA 3 31 U) -11-4- S 1- e H- l c d, CA 9 s 5 0I& 2. Address of project: L� /QST 14wY 9 9 Ar3000' A[< A tL-SOA) LNOG- Assessor's Block and Lot Number: R 7' O `('i - 9L ea 0 - l 4 i - 00 0 2 G-+- 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: PP)-ICANL Aa?) <9 E C 2G E- Ili 1 COLA -US (n(e /n, -t- R-Yr3lilt- IV CGbt D C &I c o A G. S� �i 2- 4. Type of project: (i.e., rezoning, subdivisign) W So to LXGik�Nv� �Rt9G2,Am G-)AE£P �>=�L��rvC `f -o SuQ�rUis�o�v 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this prcJect; inclu 'ng those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: (ANT A -QV C-- 'Sv3 DiVtSfo tV MAP; R wrr- • G. Existing zoning district: R i W0 14 -W IJ ozzEtt G I,( -"I c.y Sps c t4 tc P`iEI/V 7. Proposed use of site: £ Sy ig Al T"1.1k vw� S i T S' PROJECT DESCRIPTION S. Site size. '� � � `01- 3 9 Square footage of building(s). " 10.. Number of floors of construction. 1 l . Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach site development plan. ' i' -TA G l'f ? D 13. Proposed scheduling:, P R / u G- c^� Oo4f 14. Associated projects. t. l5. Anticipated incremental development. • 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household size expected. iZ 5 i 't> i; n! '-! A vi L b I tv eiT S 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 13. If indistrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application., state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effect--? 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. V/ 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas from existing resi-Jential areas or public lands or roads. • 23. Significantly change pattern, scale or character of general area of -3roject. V/ 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or li(ter. 25. Changc in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. 26. Significant change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity,, or alteration of existing drainage patters. V � — 27. Substiuttial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicintiy. V 2b. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more. 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as t•:)xie substances, flammables or explosives. V 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electrictiy, oil, natural gas, etc.) • } •Y// 32_ Relationship to part of a larger project or renes of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETT'1NG 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic saspects. Descnbe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, e:c.), and scale of development (height, frontage, sct-back, rear yard, etc.), CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ab.lity, and that the facts, statements, and information presented ate true and correct to the best ofmy knowiedge and belief. Date D (Signature) ; For • • 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) cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and (b) the subsequent application of the Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program (WAEEP) to the subject property. Government Code Section 51282 requires two general areas to be addressed: (A) 'Public Interest' will be covered first, followed by (B) Five 'Findings' which are to be consistent with the purposes of the Code. Part A Public Interest Public interest will be served by cancellation of the Land Conservation • ,Agreement in three general areas: (1). Public Safety and Emergency Services, (2) Contiguous Growth Pattern and (3) Agricultural Element Issues. 1. Public Safety and Emergency Services As growth and development continues within the area designated as the "North Chico Specific Plan of 1995" (Plan), cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement allows for development of the subject property, Kitty Park, into residential building lots as: a). consistent with the existing zoning (SR -1), "b). providing additional property for residential development in an already limited marketplace, and c). offering Butte County the completion of Kittyhawk Drive as an arterial roadway connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. This arterial connection will benefit residents within the Plan area by improving access to residential neighborhoods from Highway 99, which in turn will afford emergency vehicles better and faster access to neighborhoods on Kittyhawk Drive, Garner Lane, Hicks Lane and several additional smaller streets in the area east of Highway 99. There is an existing fire station located across from the proposed Kittyhawk and Highway 99 intersection. r' t ; Emergency personnel would gain access to rapidly growing more direct route • residential areas east of Highway 99 by a much " than the existing drive south to the Garner Lane intersection or ' } northlo the Keefer Road intersection. r. ..; . `? This road, as it is already shown on the Plan map, also t - allows. for additional, non -emergency routes to and from Keiffer t° Road, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane, allowing for the enhancement of general traffic circulation. As discretionary funds available to ' Butte County are very limited, the completion of and inherent community benefits of Kittyhawk Drive may not be realized ,. anytime soon. Cancellation of the Land Conservation Act on the „. - ect property will allow for Kittyhawk Park to p_oceed, which subjin • .. °' turn will provide for private funding for the construction of .. ,, Drive. Kittyhawk -.4 r 2. Contiguous Growth Pattern , Y `► , • _ "a)' The cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement and ; ,r -e y subsequent application for the WAEEP contract will allow for, contiguous growth within the Plan area. It is an eKpress desire s • within Butte County to,provide for contiguous growth patterns as • orderl y evidenced by the Plan put into effect in 1995. The resulting , growth of residential neighborhoods allows for the cost f effective addition of various support services, ran;;ing from utihhes b). to emergency services. The subject property is contiguous on the east border with an . ` a existing subdivision and contiguous on the south border with , ' ,. unit subdivision which was recently submitted to �° • proposed'50 - ff. An older almond orchard contiguous County planning sta v with and to the north of the subject property was cleared of all trees ' ` within the past year and, as it too is zoned SR -1 and is located 4 v • t.�u within the Plan area, will likely be the subject of'development=t pressure in the near future. Additionally, an exiting. , ., ' lies to the north of the recently removed almond �. subdivision i,:y • orchard.. • ' ”' 3, Agri ultural Element Issues a)'. 'Butte County adopted the Agricultural E=ement in 1995 ., While the Element's express purpose is to preserve agricultural,`" 2 3 t 1 - is ? ' + r` �•' ' - land, Goal 2, Policies, Item 2.7 seeks to "Allow for the conversion of agricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence where Nand has been t ' w 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 continL.ed productive u'se." (Emphasis Added) ' The sub ect property was placed in the North Chico Specific Plan y (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 of Butte County with the aid of citizen input, this property was designated. ;. for residential development nearly 10 years ago. b). The issue of "limited continued productive use' as r ' + noted above is the result of several factors which are al.3o pointed out in the Agricultural Element. Under Goal 2, Polici6, Programs, •y .,: Item 2.2, the Element requires a 300 foot "BUFFER BE ' ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL �'- ' , DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT EXISTING ` AGRICULTURAL USES FROM INCOMPATIBLE USE ' CONFLICTS" (Emphasis Added). This requirement has already* been waived on the east border of the subject property -and appears ` that it may be waived on the proposed 50 unit subdivision to the ' south of the subject property. Granted, the Element allows for the a ' �. x:..,300 foot standard to be "adjusted to address unusual circumstances." .Those "unusual circumstances", specifically, the legitimate encroachment of urban development onto the cultural _ - practices of an orchard operation, have made continued operation of the'subject property as an orchard difficult at best and presenting . .. ; multiple health and safety hazards -at worst to neighboring - ' residents. `- AThe 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:Y . ' '''-L ' e •, a _ ,. 1 it �;� _ .. 7! '' t :4' • Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within ythe vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in he immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time-sensiitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used • have "stenching agents" added in order.to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. In summary, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement (1 serves the Public Interest, (2) effectively addresses the issue of Contiguity for efficient growth and development, and (3) conforms to the spirit and inters_ found within the Agricultural Element. Foundational to these three points is the express purpose and long-range vision found within the North Chico Specific Plan. As an additional benefit beyond the points noted, the WAEEP would exchange a r ten-year conservation plan for an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity on a comparable property in Butte County. The exchange requires the California Department of Conservation to review this petition,. to be in substantial agreement with the reasons for cancellation, and the location of a property which the Petitioner and Department can agree is acceptable and • suitable for the exchange. 4 • In the event cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement is found to be warranted and acceptable, the Petitioner agrees to make every effort to locatean 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. r Part B Five Findings Consistent with the Purposes of the Code Subsequent to the issues regarding Public Interest as described, Code Section 51282 goes on to require that the board or council make all of the following findings: 1. ;' Notice of non -renewal has been submitted in a timely manner 2. Cancellation / exchange will not result in adjacent lands being removed from agricultural uses. On the contrary, lands adjacent to 4: the subject property are located within the North Chico Specific Plan's designated area for development and are not currently in agricultural use or are already utilized as suburban re!idential. Any area to the west of the subject property (across HiDhway 99 to the west) which might be considered 'adjacent' is outside of the North Chico Specific Plan's scope and may not be con-idered for development under the Plan. Cancellation on the sub_ ect property would therefore not be a substantive cause for any adjacent property to be removed from agricultural use. 3. Cancellation / exchange will result in the subject property being ., used for purposes expressly put forth in the North Chico Specific Plan of 1995. As the Specific Plan is a precise guideline for growth and development over and above the General Plan, cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement brings the subject property into conformity with the Specific Plan and its long-range goals. R 4. Cancellation / exchange will not result in discontiguous development patterns as the subject property is in fact contiguous with existing residential development as well as land currently in the development review process with Butte County 5. There is no "proximate non -contracted land" which is both "available and suitable", and even if land was found which could . be considered "available and suitable", it would not provide for a "more contiguous pattern of urban development than development of proximate non -contracted land." The subject property is currently surrounded on two of three possible sides by urban development. The fourth side is across Highway 99 anal falls outside of the Specific Plan area and is therefore unsuitable for urban development. The Petitioner respectfully requests that the points brought forward =n this document be given due consideration as valid and compelling reasons for cancellation of the Land Conservation Agreement currently in effect on this property. Petitioner Date Attachment to Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement Discussing Items `Checked' for Additional Information Item 22. -As seen from SR -99, the property has a minimal wire fence along the highway and the southerly boundary. When completed, residential 6' high decorative sound walls along SR -99 and Kittyhawk Drive and/or fences will be constructed surrounding the project. The orchard will still be seen from the highway as well as may rooftops of the homes, once constructed. Item 25. The requested cancellation of the Williamson Act on this property will result in significant reductions of dust, ash, smoke, fumes and odors in the vicinity. (a). Orchard, operations which create significant quantities of dust throughout the growing season from grass chopping and harvest activities will no longer be an issue to residents in the area, (b). ash and smoke as a result of ongoing burning from pruning will be eliminated and (c). fumes and odors from diverse agricultural pesticides used throughout the season will no longer be used on the site. Item 27. There will be a substantial reduction of noise and vibration levels within the vicinity of the site if ongoing agricultural operations cease. (a) Significant vibration is felt in the vicinity of any orchard during harvest due to the function of "shakers" as • they remove nuts from the trees. (b). Current regulations as enforced through the Butte County Agricultural Commissioners Office specify that pesticide sprays must only come into contact with the intended target. Contact with any object other than the intended target is a violation of the intended use for that pesticide. The timing of sprays will of necessity take into consideration the prevailing winds in the North Valley and the proximity to existing and currently proposed residential development in the immediate area (contiguous with this property on two sides). Due to the time -sensitive nature of fungicide and pesticide sprays and their proximity to residential neighborhoods, the most effective and least threatening time for application will be between dusk and dawn. The application of pesticide with a large, diesel engine -driven sprayer blowing chemicals 40' into the air after midnight is difficult to ignore. In addition, many of the pesticides used. have "stenching agents" added in order to warn anyone in the area that some sort of toxic substance is present and should be avoided. A stenching agent is also difficult to ignore. (c). Butte County Agricultural Commissioner.Richard Price receives dozens of com- plaints each year from county residents who are unhappy with the very issues described above. Conversion of this property from agriculture to its designated zoning for residential use will eliminate any excessive and untimely noise and vibration in the vicinity. Items 30 & 31. Any substantial change.in demand for municipal services or increased fossil fuel consumption would be in accordance with and in compliance to the intended uses of the area as defined in the North Chico Specific Plan. • Item 32. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan) area, and as such, is part of a larger project and/or series of projects which will occur as a result of the approved Plan. A "Master EIR" was prepared and adopted for the Plan. Item 33. The proposed Kittyhawk Park project lies within the boundaries of the North Chico Specific Plan (Plan), as adopted in 1995. Originally, the property was a 30 year old 93 +/- acre walnut orchard, bordering easterly on. Garner Lane and westerly on SR -99. Two earlier phases of division (1999 and 2000) on the easterly end created Autumn Park Subdivision, the divisions of which created 40 one acre home sites and a remainder of 52.72 acres. The remainder parcel is the project site. The site slopes uniformly from approximately 186' on the northeasterly boundary to approximately 181' on the southwesterly boundary. The soils are stable and are categorized as vina loam. There are no rare or endangered plants or animals on the property and no known cultural, historical or scenic features. There is one existing agricultural accessory structure (approximately 24'x 60') on Lot 39 which will remain. The structure is shown on the attached tentative map. • (Please see attached photographs) Item 34. The properties to the west are primarily agricultural in nature. The property to the south, owned by Guernsey, has been submitted to Butte County for subdivision into 50 lots. Southeasterly and directly east of the. project site are single family residential home sites ranging in various sizes and ages. The property to the north and northeast has been cleared of the remaining remnants of an old almond orchard. It has been vacant and continues to be vacant of any use other than two home sites. Within these immediate areas there are no known rare or endangered plant or animals, nor are there any known cultural, historical or scenic features. The Kittyhawk Park project is a subdivision of 52.72 acres into 53 home sites, with the overall density being one home site per .9948 acres. Each proposed lot and home, when built, will meet the frontage, set -back and area requirements of the SR -1 zoning in effect. The project, as proposed, meets the requirements of Appendix VII of the Butte County Code. (See the attached memo (Soils Waiver) from the Environmental Heath Department) (Please see attached photographs) KtyHwikLCA_CXL_102 I GARNER —WESTERLY DOWN KITTYHAWK DRIVE SOUTHERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE VIEW OF PROPERTY NORTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE 0 SOUTHWESTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE ;rrs�f�;' �i � `'ak ��k".` tai°�"-� �,s '- � 11 • 9� y ,� ,yW„ r •• Yom^ _ ,.M. t#-'1�• ,�i� * Al"i�t•.ii ... t h x'� v . a= EXISTING STORM EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE POND DRAINAGE POND SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE SOUTHEASTERLY FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE NORTHEAST FROM SOUTHWEST PROP. LINE SOUTH FROM SOUTHEAST PROP. LINE JIEW OF PROPERTY AORTH OF PROJECT VIEW OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ON LOT 39 C J • rlr NORTHERLY VIEW OF SR -99 4 '!BASIS OF BEARING _ f THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, J�� \' ISO' LEACH- . • AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL - _ FIELD FREE CK LINE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14; TAKEN AS n SEFBA I , 1e1 - NORTH B9°3T19" EAST. •.� 7 _ �,/ \ '• .� \ FROM WELL �. 1 ISO ' • IBz _ 't.. . les i . - ' 1ea 1851Bri SOB" /0.4436AC- r ., - N89.37'19' 2763.31' • 1 \ �... LOTS 1 •^ \ \� , ,i LOT 30 • I LOT 30 \ \.. L07 18 + LOT 16 \ ra+$`' 1.1090 AC \ 0.9880 AC _ 1 • •_ L 2?)j+ .LOT 22 • 0002 A 001 AC (1.Oea71 • - , •Ltt _ 0.9112) .1 , .- L0731 + ) r 0.09003C e ..� L0841 AC r 1(0976 'C T ' 1(0.9830) t(O.BB67 ( ', _ 1.00020.9889 C W 2 LOT 33 4. .(0.9646)' :. ) • - C' < , \ < - n �m LOT 37 0.8641 AC 1.0198 Z A ZONE X - '�. 1.1224 At. 1 (0.7846) •4 - , LOT 7 (1.0814) - ` s , ,, A. 1 0,8574 Ac - " . �. y - = t r •a: } r 1. 1 ? , ., r. i 1 (0.ertel -LOT 34 ... .. - \ 0.9480AC L33 5 r (0.8269) », SI \ n l o.e3wAc y LOT 29 LOT I \ LOT 13 / I/ • - • i 1 = 164.10 ! . \ \ 0.9522 AC ! 'LOT OL.316AC . 'f.' q.B337 AC \ / _ 0.8337 AC 'SCALE: 1" _ �Q� •�" 0= 15.11.40' \ .. h._ rr (0.8488)V 0.8318 AC `:.l _ / ' 0.7393 F w (0.7413) I I (0.7, 13) • , I .. ''� - (0.7383) ( ) >•, f -R=618.80 \ - L0T32 •d .-J .. �. . t LOT 38 - • 1.0388 'C . . 'r - ► 7.3189 AC (0.9522 ,N�\ • ( 03 5) •. (1.1082) . , , EI I I 1 4 Lore o.ee3e Ac s._ .. SVI- •(� -.. Lor a �. •.�...«T D� t EJ 'LOT I 0101 AC • - f L `_ �T eT u d, o.e -' 0.9183)\ LOT 28 _ LOT 2S LOT 20 1,0T t 7 LOT 12 • L . 0.6822 AC - 0.8966 AC 0.8968 AC 0.8968 A 0.8966 AC I I I I PROJECT '- \ LOT 39 D \ , I I (0.8509) '- -` (0.8012) ;. ( I (0.8012) (0.8012) I I (0.8012) LOTS SITE 1.ObB8 AC \ - O.S838 AC I /! •y '('a (0.9668) 31p81 I �. I I I + F m 10. 351 I • LOT 33 .. 1.37642) - •(o.676z) I I� LOT3 N� G I I I _ 0.9357AC 9 10.8464) LOT 27 _ F. LOT 26 LOT 19 LOT 18 LOT 118 LOCATION MAP 1y% b 1 \ I I i. LOT to J O.B980 AC :.e; 0.8980 AC 0.0980 AC 0.8980 AG I 0.9980 AC 0.9898 AC / > �O \ 5 \ I I(o.7ee4) (o.7ssa) \ (0.76e4) (D.76e4) (D.7s94)-(o.75ar) _ - - - - - - - STREET - - - - - - - LOT 2 LOT d0 ., LOT 43 eL.e 1.1350 AC 1 7 i LEGEND: 40 . 1.0001 AC I 1.0003 AC + • . 4 • (0.8729) (O.7B39)- « LOT NUMBER LOT 100 FEMA X IT GROSS ACRES 1.OS99 AC ZONE D \ LO7 44 -LOT 48 .-. ' LOT 40 LOT 47 • .. LOT4B LOT 40 LOT 80 LOT 61 I LOT 62 � LOT 63 I ^ NET ACRES (0.8496) L \ • O.BB89AC\ 0.6753 AC 0.8763 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6783 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.8763 AC .y 0.87O1AC I� -� I (0.0887) (0.8007) - (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) ,1 (0.6868) ` A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, I \ I 7 L \ •' LOT 41 LOT 42 \ 2 ) LOT "C" ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND 1,0001 AC 0.9462 Ac 00 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE . \ $ (1.0001) \ (0.9676) - - - CONSTRUCTED. \ - - - - � EXISTING PA �- _ IC I T T Y 1-I A \V IL D R I V � k� ROADWAY ED CONSTRUCTED. 'Y EXISTING PIL CSA 87 SD AREA ��], FIRE HYDRANT ` (TO BE MOVED) L�JJ ! \i / 369 a7o1w 2leaer ZONE A/ ZONE X • \ NOT/A'PART AP.047--260=199 �- � ,. h, '; • ' } *. ,. 7 ,a . �':T : L � t � 1 ,( dw r - , • 4 a♦. .. - - 7 i ' r •II. »;�, 1. a :.t (>\ 4 y �i.4� s 4:± - -,- _ '�L .. ,{i` _ 't.•� td . A,- .- .. j X - l.� .r waw•. _ • __ L + }, � - - OEN NERAL NOTES SUBDIVISION INFORMATION .. - ...� , \ i '.. •70 BR ^urt` urt ert 7M1 . . - - 1. THIS TENTATIVE TATNE MAP HAS BEEN OB BIO NCD AND IB Be1N0 PRO•' r• -' 4,_ \^ L -' CESYED -IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED .8.1 ZONING' -.•, +1 ,w _ OWNER B'. - ^' tL 1' 7 - A- • h ' .` - •.4'•�,t �_ " `� -AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE NORTH CMICO SPECIFIC PLAN. �•r'�` _ .1` SUBDIVIDER:'••*EVELYN LIPTRAP - `♦ - N + •�^•. 1' L, , '-'-" i101M10 �' "'-� Y\�•�•+T'+ •1 ':'.. B. THC INTERIOR SUBDIVISION BTRee TB SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED I 331 WALL STREET e• r'- Sort '••1•'•'.S- •' i.5 j • •' 'IN AC CO RDA NCC WITH LOCAL TYPe L•III OR TYPe l•V OF THC y0.� CHICO. CALIFORNIA 96926 •' ..�-_" `; _ Y• , , NO Re .C MICO BP eC111C PLAN, YET SMALL REMAIN PRIVATE • ,. L• , R.O.W. .- i'�, ':. ..t 'PAP, 7 ••'•. STREETS AND SHALL NOT BE OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO TME ENGINEER: .BOB FEENEY y - 1S[/ '' II ((AA__ll ISS/ ((AA ,5����••//�� 1S[/ �, UTTe. TMC EXTENSION OF KITTYMAWK DRIVE• .. - • ^I TI�\��/�^ r. r>t t�,� _ COUNTT OF B ( • y .. w ' ? 126 E TA NU SUIT • • ! w!SNA LL B8 CO NB TRUE 7ED AS AN ARTERIAL TTPE A•IV IN 0 AS VE E E 10 aE�LOCAL TYPE L -V , _ ,S •�' Ji. '1 ACCORDANCE WITH iH8 NORTH CNICO OPEC CIVIC PLAN AND CHI 0. CALIFORNIA 88973 r •, •'r APPLIES TO STREETS 0, E. F. G SM "• , •/+.. ,L) • . _. 9•• A '� OFFERED FOR DEDICATION 70 THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. L r • • ,,� �h Ti• fi• r , Yf - i t.. ( • a% - _ r<'y� LAND USE: PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL • , -(. , r, - •I . l i - • ( 7.'THE PROPOSED LOT AREAS KNOWN ARE GROSS LOT AReAB -FUTURE: LOWOENSIRTY ARESIDENTIAL r •,. R , - 1 • 1 -AND INCLUDE TMB PRO POB eD PRIV AT eABEME NTB AND TNe + 1. - - • -. , - .. T,� •,iY . -� - J'•`�NET LOT BARBA 11.89411 8%A MPL!) ARE E%C LUBIVB OP y,. --ZONING:. 6R-1 4 ^ - - • eA Be ME NT B. THE TOTAL AREA FOR BUB DIV IB ION IB 0Z.7ZiB «; VESTING t ACRES. • _ „ - . ,. ' y: , UTILITIES: ` . ELECTRICITY: .PACIFIC OAS a ELECTRIC i ' ��}.' �, .a. .I •� iy' d .•4. ' TELEPHONE:SBC TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION:MAP a' TME METHOD DP L REQUIREMENTS DIBPO 01 AND Loi ARTHE _ . T''• WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY , ••� 'PROPOSED BCD MEETS ALL Re OUIRE Me NTB OF APP.D..L VII OF THE, _ 5M1 oft tart - 1aIt BM1 Srt • n Y „ • -BUTTE COUNTY CODE. ,BEE EMD MEMO •SOILS WA R• i . SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK / 8. ALL DRAINAGE RUNOFF SMALL Be RETAINED IN THE Re T8N710N� ••(; . - AND LEACH FIELDS - 4 . T I ' ••MOIMu"wx+ol - • `•. •.. ... "'BASIN BIN PROVIDE EO. •J.• - - • yN `a • {�. y - ATN: 047.260187 AND 047.260.198, • r•oa• u•r• L- SOM1 -I '1M - ,t S.! A PRIMA TELY OWNED COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM BNA LL -BC 1 - R.O.W. _ 4 e+ ADIVISION OF REMAINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF IORMeo 70 PROVIDE Oo MESTIC WATER SBRVIDe To THE LOTS �- AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE II, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS or Tee YUBDIV1810N, INCLUOINO PROVIDING THE Boo ovM ; 4., • _ WATER Re G UIRED FOR IIRe PRO Te CT10 M. +LOCAL TYPE L -III ' o AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 - LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 7 9roAM WATER WILL Be RETAINED ON-SITe IN ROAOSIDe LEACH 9 t� APPLIES ro S7REETSA 8 o zNORTH, RANGE RANGE EAST, M.D.B. S M. - BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • TReNC NeB. f �i .i '• • _ - _ B. THE SUBDIVISION HAS AN AVERAGE LOT AREA OF 4840 ACRES, AND THE DENSITY OF THE SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN BAYED UPON - • ti y FOR \ THE OROSB ARCA FOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE 1 �. _ YR./ ZONING. - T +J + " 49. AB SHOWN. THE EXISTING BDA AREA WILL Be REMOVED AND i 7 w M .I { e A�7oQnTE 5 f j '-_�•,�'" _ '• + WILL BE F THIS PROJECT. ON THE OUeRNBeT PROJECT TO THE , `, �ji Y _ (� EVELYN. C: LIPTRAP ' SOUTH 01 THIS PR OJeC T. 1j NOIA201NN.com a 4M1 I ,. BmuvnM1 n.vnu+oaoM1� r • a 1s - .'<.{ - , ♦. _ y. 4r - - •, 10. IN LIEU OF LOT DIME NB I0 N6 ON EACH LO T. A9 AGO UIR ED BY THE NOT6'B ASSODATFS' CI'0. OFF ! , APPLICATION, WE HAVE PROVIDED GROSS AND NET LOT AREAS i HATS [ LPPG1 Bp9-0JfY • - ', BO.00M1 - - • AND W ILL PROVIDE LOT DIMENSIONS ON THE FINAL MAP. (j, ? B YJANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1 I DA70RAY5K6XIAM5.COM Y • • ,. - R.O.W. 4 . _ v , • ' - ..Y ~ , .., ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV a •� 7 APPLIES TO KITTYHAWK DRIVE ,i w L rr A - F • s `- .L i + 'BASIS OF BEARING t� •� f - ' • ' i _ • +L - THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2.. '�+ •' I y 150' LEACH• - • - + ' • 'r" AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL ). ° I: l� \ FIELD FREE 1 MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14; TAKEN AS '�4 \ SETBACK LINE ♦ NORTH 89°37'19" EAST. , CO "B" \ F L f • .F x ' } \ FROM WELL ,88 /0 38 - 180 i .: '.' 181 u ..782 .. - - 783 • - 184 185 t 0.4438 "- - I c. - \ • ... - .., � - f N88.37191 2743.37- T30 763.37' • .. t _ - � r � .. ., - � . � ' , A _ OT 8 00LOT 35 9 0 AC U. -'i��; .1 054134) 1 , + �.., I ,� u \ .LOT 15 • LOT 14 \ - 1(1080 .OB17�j' \' . \ \,. \ /• • • �•- Y • _ - z L� 0.8112 I - P w. LOT 31 . 1 1.0062) LOT 29 .. .� LOT 22 1.0002 AC ' , 1.D018 AC ,,,,a. . \ . ( ). '4 i l - ~. 0.988 C V 0,9985 AC. S (0.8650) ' ' > `i,' (0.8667)- LOT 37 ~ LOT 35 7 0974 Ac .. ? _ • (0.8645) (0.9845)'; . _ A �' . ,f• y + i - 0.8841 Ac (1.o1ee) , • "+ s ZONE X A 1.1224 AF _. .. <. , (0.7646) r , . T ♦• LOT 7 . v (1.os1a). , f . E o.6s7aAc - _ � L 9 , � •- �, � � C.n � - - - - ' + ' fd >I` - re ors •. � \ .Z A r ` y 0.8480AC _ 0.8330 A) _ " _i\ \ (0.9268) / / • - = \ - ... X LOT 28 1` \ LOT 13 }� F..- • L = 184.10 \ _ Il 0.9522 AC • LOT 2d \` 1 LOT 21. LOT 1 B.8337 J. l 0 = 16.1 T60• \ 8., c. (0.8488). ti , 0.8315 AC 1 //, `- 00 7393) (8337 'C _ \ 00.7413) I _ t *• ` . SCALE:.. �„ 0 100-0"^' i - R=818.80 • \ - 6 ., LOT 32 _ L . .. (0.7383) ,I I, (0.7393).- 0.7413 I ( ) • - _ .. - LOT 3: \,>' .- .»� 1.0398 AC' I I'• r) SAM AC 1 1.3189 AC \ (0.9522) - - _ 11 \ (0.8035) e • _ e. _ ?'« - '^ (1.1092)�T.1 . -1-, ' �T I - .. • • - - - + `JI' EEE 3 R T - SR ^BT •� r B I I I •- 1.0101 AC A \ LOT 28 LOT 26 I - I' ' LOT 20 LOT 17 I I LOT 12' (OL.B 83)\ 0.8522 AC 0.6966 AC, 0.8968 AC , 0.8988 A 0.8986 AC LOT 9 PROJECT • \ 7 1 0LOT 3. 5 9 AC D I I I (0.8608) , - (0.8012) I I + (0.8012) (0.8012) I I (0.8012) 0,030 AC SITE '(� - (0.9668) I \ I I _ . _ 10. 351 'SIp81 �, o \ LOT 33 j _ �Q\\ I •I. ... >Q 1 3754 AC I _ \ I Q . C .• 't1 7P LCT 3 (0.8762) - • ° . _ ..L = .. 9357 \ „ : • I I I 0.83574) "® N� � LO ' I I . • S % (0.6184) _ ' �� \ I LOT 27 r> LOT 26 LOT 19 LOT 16 LOT 119 ''♦ LOT 10 ` LOCATION MAP \ I 0.9980 AC 0.8980 AC I I 0.980 AC 0.8880 AC I 0.8980 AC 0.9888 AC I (0.7694) (0.7694) I \ (07684) (0.7694) I (0.7684) (0.7547) J C+G' STREET Loix • • - �, \ \ 1.1350 AC LOT40 LOT 43 .7. 7 - LEGEND: 1.000tAC' I 1.0003 AC • / c (0:8729) 11 (0.7859) - LOT NUMBER LOT 100 a FEMA X • \ �T i GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE x, LOT a4 LOT d6 LOT 66 LOT 47 ' LOT 48 LOT 48 LOT SO \ St LOT 52 LOT 53 NET ACRES (0.8496) \ - LOT 4" 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.8701AC , \ �y I (0.6887) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6009) (0.8007) (0.8007) (0.6007) (0.8007) (0.6868) I 2 A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, \ LOT 41 LOT 42 W 2 ) LOT "C" ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND 1.0001 Ac 0.9462 AC 1X1 I \ LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE �. • \ $ (1.0001) \ (0.6876) - - CONSTRUCTED. - - - - mn EXISTING P/L _ `._ _ 41 T T Y 11 A \V 4 DRIVE GL ROADWAY OM1 - EXISTING PA. CSA 87 SO AREA pl� FIRE HYDRANT ♦ \ - - - - - _ - (TO BE MOVED) LV/�-// \ '�` , Y./ - - _ - • se9•axrolw 21B2.er �.. . ZONE A ZONE X .> . ' - j BP:047T260=198 i . •' 5 i i _ �' - - 3 ) " /,�. \ • a -. + - + } .. _ . . r • =r\\ i / , - -a/ ' +.4\s, J'^ ,c`i ! \ ° _ �: •, - t y�.. • •4 _ •-1 1 • 4 ° • • 7 ° 1. ) �• 'v, // - - A ko .�Fy' TTSUBDIVISION INPORMATION GEN,ER-AL:NOTES J - DJ '.,txe' ert ]rt- s _ \ J aqL.r°r'` a +•,+•E+ !2 • ��_ I f -y y"1,' THIS 'TENTATIVE -MAP Tp TIVB MAP HAS BEEN DB BIO NeD AND IS.BEINO PRO - 128 ' •,4' .1. �•4 ��'� - ' Ce98e0 IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHEAPPROVED. SR -1 20NINO OWNERS + . _+,•.. ♦'Y' 'AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE NORTH CHICO SPE CII IG DLAN. , ' ..•. .. •-, - ' 9 SUBDIVIDER: + EVELYN LIPTRAP y _ �° • •\ 1f 7� • h '8.TMe INTERIOR BUBDIV IB ION BTR eE Te SMALL Be CO NB TRU)INS / 331 WALL 6TREET. {`. f•'` '�` L' S0M1 - . �• ,U .�.- ..;; .J y,'j.' x + - IN ACCORD Nte WITH LOCAL TYPE L•III OR TTPe L•V oI TME f )NICO. CALIFORNIA 95928 , x.xn...w c°ua°. _ YET SMALL RBMAIN PRwATe .. ,N ••Y• STREETS )NICO A LNIC PLAN. E R.O.W. -- -,, - y )j 1 , CNOU ET9 AND SNA NOT BE EXTENSION OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE ENGINEER' 'BOB FEENEY F + •M - 'r/ I I /w\ '.� � ., I 6OUNTr or Burie. ine ex TeAN A TE NIT iTIPa DRIVE y, 1250 EAST AVENUE, SUITE IO 7•• ^IT/"�\�� •Y ' SNALL Be CONBTRUC IS A8 AN APTEPIAL TTVE A•IV IN '/ • I CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 LOCAL TYPEL-V' + ACCOROANCe WITM TME NORTH OMICO SPECIFIC PLAN AND APPLIES TO STREETS D, E. F. G 8 H • - - - + . _ _ 1 •R�`• - ` ,4,! s(,i, OFFER ED TOR OB OICATION TO TMB COUNTY OP BUTTE. 1•) • LAND USE: -,PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL 4 1. '4 ,,r i - •-• B, •INO PROPOSED LOT AREAS BMOwN ARE :ROSS LOT AReAe j( • • FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL • y t r7, _ • •L ^ y ";,• - C 1 'y..L AND INCLUDE iME PROPOSED vRIVATe eASEME NTB AND He + + , - 4. - - + '1:L • ., A - NBT LOT AREAO 11.6334) 1X4 MPLa) 'ARE eXCLUBIVE 01 S ZONING: - SRA `VESTING y EASEMENTS., THE TOTAL AREA FOR SUBDIVISION IB 02.723: , J ACRE B. - , '•_ TRI _ ♦ - iM T ' • , '• {. + UTILITIES: + 4 ELECTRICITY: '• PACIFIC OAS 8 ELECTRIC , t` r , , '.... _�'w ° • ° • , 1. TELEPHONE:SBC - TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - TSB METHOD OP 8ewD DENTS I AND LOT AReAB ^ i 1 PROF.. PO SEO MeeTe ALL ROD McNTB OF APPS NDIx VII OF TMe _ WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 5rt Bn 1dM1 �_14ft BM1 5rt - . 7 ' 1 „ 19UITE COUNTY CODE. BEE EMD Me MO •BOILS WAIVER ?• - SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK - - k '+( T + • �S_ 8.' ALL DRAINAGE RUNOFF SMALL BE RETAINED IN THE RETe NTION AND LEACH FIELDS I 'F•""'""' "'"�""" ♦ (` _ "f `• i, �- , , BA BIN PR OV ID E D. _ '• •ri APN: •007.266197 AND 00T-280.198 -• ..°c" •nwartu. _. SOrt c°••a.• - 1.. r + d. A°PRIVA Te LY OW NeO CO MMUNITT WATER BYB TEM SMALL IS R.O.W. - , ADIVISIONOFREMAININGLANDS,ASSHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF FORMED TO PROVIDE DOMESTIC WATER SERVIe0 To TMe Lore y AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE II, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS Or THe QUIRE I810N, INCLUDING PROVIDING THE 60 ovM-, WATER Req ODIV /OR FIRE PROTECTION, S , ° LOCAL TYPE L -III o AT PAGE373THROUGH 75 •LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 I. STORM WATER WILL Be R:T�INED ON-SITE IN ROADSIDE LEACH C1• - • 0 APPLIES TO STREETSA,BBC • o • NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, M.D.B. & M. -.BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TRENCHES. Y •.,' fFB. THE SUBDIVISION HAS AN AVERAGE LOT AREA OF .0048 ACRES, 4 _ 7•' +' AND THE DENSITY OP TME SUBDIVISION MAS.BEEN BASED UPON - • w •, T . • 1 . A FOR 'L. + X - THE OR0So ARBA POR SUBDIVISION. OP TME PROPSR1 AN THB a _ - ERA ION'No. • - - wwr L' . , • •' �'. 0. WILL SHOWN, TME RU TIED SDR AREA WILL BE REMOVED AND "" ` P+ ta•S•SOC1tLT6.5 _ - 4 1 2 ' �, I _-� : - • , , •; 'J ^, ,- M1 •;S^ W ILL Be RECONSTRUCTED ON TXE GUERNSEY PROJECT TO THE i . - n -• EVELYN C. LIPTRAP .' ANP) W OF THIS PROJECT. T. _ y'._. Irol roerruuncaer .M _. .ev . • • 10: IN LIEU OF LAT DIMENSIONS ON EACH LOT. AS ReOUIREO BY THE L �L• _ ..'�°f°3° - ert en en BM1 a xATs80.S500RF3 s7o. elP ePw • 4n L �N>�, �> - y APPLICATION, WE HAVE PROVID90 BROSS AND NET LOT AREAS SAYSN• M.YFLOPMENT - a . , • - 'y r ��n y • + f, , y • .., • ;� � AND WIIL PROVIDE LOT DIMENSIONS ON,T NE FINAL MAP. - .y f - 1�,'A b/WOHAYSA�JOLU(ES.CAM * . 1. R.o.w.. r JANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1 ♦°i . « ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV APPLIES TO KITTYHAWK DRIVE .'" _ - - .•-^'•4 - + • • ' - - -BASIS OF BEARING a , x ` THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2 1 r 150' LEACH• 1 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 « _ '� \ r F FROM WELL NE a. - . - ,.i` • '..- „ ` , • �' ..� s -NORTH 89'37'19" EAST. - 18fi L�Bd \ \ 180 181... ' r • 182 , ; ' i` J 183 s4. 704 185 /0.4438 AC • \ • •� .. L/ •' - ! L+N89.3749` 2743.37' Ll) .. - • \ a(, _ .. • r a „ LOTSLOT LOT 38 .. y _ 1 OS673ACf . a ` • \'" .:. LOT 16~ LOT 14 \'r 'L I(1A8411 \ \ \ \ - f • - �., 0.8880 AC ti , . I ` • 4 r POT 36 --' 1.0062) : Y •LOT 2q y LOT 22 1,0002 AC 1.0019 AC - U / ' ',y - �L • (0.9112) . 4, • 0,9988 AAAC ' 0.9885 AC " 0.9880 ( ) - 0.8112 LOT 31 ( ) • 0.9667 • \ arm - L0737 - - ' 0.8841 AC t( 0798.0974 0 - (0.8863) • (0.8845) _ ` _ 1.1224 AQ � "N - (0.7848) - ) -1 ., ` `ti ~ T -� .. - :t LOT -.`' . Z A , ZONE X' o.6574AC y , • `+ V 7 FSn ..• , Ir ,\ ` T 5 LOT 34 ` '.. • .. _ . ..4 .. r' ', ~ - 0.83030 AC 0.9480AC (0.8288) * LOT 28 _ - '( . ] \ . - " r.- • •. - ' T - ' \ r 171/ 0.8522 AC LOT 24 LOT 21 . LOT 18 LOT 13 i L = 186.10 •' . \ t I' \; 0.831SAC L R.B337 AC 0.8337 AC ( t .. ..(0.8488) P 8316 d(0.7413) ' SCALE: 1" _ X00 �� h D=15.11'40' _ (0.7303) \ • T .. ' Ly -F t . 1.'.(0.7393)(0.7413) • p R=818.80' -\ 'LOT 32 I" I - �. I - ;f' . . •LO78 _ _ LOT 38 . _ '8838 AC . . ' .. • 1.3189 AC « E. I(0.982 )C 0� .803 c_ _...1082) g //` - y ^qT LOT" a , I ••9IT E � - ,. T I . J r. - � � � IT � EI t.oto, Ac ^ •-+ 1 \�_ - D \ , - - LOT 28 LOT 25 ! I I LOT 20 LOT 17\ I I LOT 0.0.8 ) 0.8968 AC 0.8888 AC 0.9988 AQ 0.8968 AC PROJECT • - LOT 38 I; ' (0.8509) . �• (0.8012) I I (0.8012)- (0.9012) \ I I (0.8012) LM AC 1.0588 AC 0•� ` SITE - '(Z (0.0668) I � \ � I I � - • (0. 51 } ' . ` r • �,N •9p91 $1 o \ LOT 33- • I BAD' 1.3.87 2 '. - .r - LOT - � (0.8782) / ar V1 7� LOT 27 LOT 26 •' `- LOT t9 ' LOT tB LOT»8 LOCATION MAP \ 0 \ I I I I Lono 1 0.8980 AC 0.9980 AC 0.8980 AC 0.9980 AC I 0.8980 AC 0.9BB8 AC �eq I \ \ (o.7eea) - (o.7e9a) I \. (o.7sea) (o.78ea) I (o.769a) (o.7s471 . • - I \.\ STREETLoi2 411 LOT 40 LOT 63 \ Y . -C- -. � � _ 1(11 2 ' LEGEND: , • 4D., a. , 1.0001 AC i I . .7.0003 AC I , (0.8729) 11 (0.7869) tj + LOT NUMBER • LOT 100 FEMA X \ If.". REIT. \ ! GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE LOT 44 LOT 45 LOT 66 - LOT 47 LOT48 LOT 49 LOT 60 , , LOT 61 LOT 52 y LOT 53 I ^ NET ACRES (0.8496) D w \ 0.8888AC 0.6753 AC , 0.8783 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.8753 AC 0.8701AG (0.6887)\ (0.6007) (0.8007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0,6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6565) Tj A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, \ I \ I� 2 LOT "C• '� LOT 41 LOT 42 ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND 1.0001 AC 0.0,81 Ac oo LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE , , \ $ (1.0007) \ (o.ee7s) - - - CONSTRUCTED. \ - - - � - - ICITTYIIA\V IC DRIVE - 80" rt ��,K, PA �A. ROADWAY EXISTING PIL CSA 87 SD AREA �j��7 FIRE HYDRANT (♦ -- ---- , (TO BE MOVED) \ _ - see•a2B1w newer ? ZONE A/ ZONE X X 4` P •3 f a n{ 4 \� fr• { t 1 VP t t • \,\�/ • A y ] .. �i=, Pry r .. P .! '.' - S � Y �- T r - r % i • .SUBDIVISION INFORMATION' k ac• 4 O EN ERAL NOTES - 7R BR. 12ft 12rt ' BR - 7R• • '�• \ . + _ .' t. THIS TENTATIVE MAP HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND 19 SeINO PRO - - �• - - - r ,.i • r` •• _ • - -� _ _r 1 - CeSSBY IN ACCORDA NCe WITH THE APPROVEO'SRA ZONING -•` - , • we. r - . - . - AND OTHeR PROVISIONS 01 TNe NOgTH CHICO SPC CIP it PLAN. SUBDIVIDER: ,. EVELYN LIPTRAP ! - t A ' .w.�t .xow n •1 +;:. \-. ♦ + +. .6 .-A - _ 331 WALL STREET ••v Wrt• • 1 f 2. .THE INTERIOR SUBDIVISION STREe TB SHALL BC CONSTRUCTED_ IN.AC C ORDA MC! WITH LOCAL TYPE L -III OR TYPE L•V OF THE - '+ CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95926 _ NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN, YeT SMALL REMAIN PRIVATE ",� ROW. t _ • ',,h STREETS AND SHALL NOT Be OPPEREO FOR DeD KATION TO THe' •ENGINEER: BOS FEENEY. ] ♦ « { _ �,.A' �I.` ��\` /� B JA1 / ' COUNTY O/ BUTTE. THE EXTENSION TE HITT THAWK DRIVE ' "` 12BO EAST AVENUE, SUITE To , . �'•- v r//11 Af1� SMALL Be CONSTRUCTED AS AN ARTERIAL TYPe•A-IV IN- ��. ✓ CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95973 v LOCAL TYPEL-V + N" ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN AND' Jam' 7- •� APPLIES TO STREETS D. E. F. G 8H • �• • , 'OFFER BD FOR DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTS. , ` �• yLAND USE:. PRESENT: AGRICULTUEiAL .. - . 1 P A• ]. THC vRovoeeo LOT AREA SHOWN ARE GROSS LOT ARlA9 :•�" •7 FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL t• -. •fir �. -ANO INC THB PRO POS BD PRIVATE EASEMENTS ANO THE r, - • - • ` 4 ~ -NET LOT AREAS ((.0]]I) EXAMPLE) ARE @%CLUBIV2 O/ 'ZONING , SR•1 '1 • • f' l' - NA S. NTS. 1THe TOTAL AREA FOR SUBDIVISION IS 0Z./]]8 •. • VESTING AC RES• i 1 UTILITIES. ELECTRICITY: ' PACIFIC GAS&ELECTRIC A` ~., ' �• rP _�r - • , '�. { ' • l - TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP' - •• _•••. ' THE Me TX00 OI SlWAOE DIS PD BAI AND LDT ARRAS jr^S K • • .- TELEPHONE:9BC - _ '• « PROPOBeD MEETS All Re QUIRE M ENT' OF AP PC HDI% V11 OP THe WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY• . ._ Srt eA _14Bµ -,N4 Rm.n art Butte COUNrr CGDE. See eHD Me MO •SOILS wArvB R: • :p - SEWAGE: a INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK - nvwrat ;• �'• `y 0 ALL DRAINAGE RUNOff SHALL Be RBTAINBO IN THBRETENTION', AND LEACH FIELDS 4 ' SAN a BASIN PR OVIO ED. r APN: 047-266197 AND 047-280-198 •�S » wcx ` • y - y„ 0_ A PRIVATELY' OWNBO COMMUNITY WATER BYBTeM 9HALL BE , • x .. 7. 'A DIVISION OF REMAINING LANDS, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF FORMED TO PROVIDB'DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE To THe LOTS • R.O.W. - - x'01 THE SUBDIVISION. INCLUDING PROVIDING THE 000 'GPM Al AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 11, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS.. WATER REQUIRED POR /IRE PRO Te CT1O N. ° LOCAL TYPE L -III 4 AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 - LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 7. STORM WATER WILL ee RETAINED oN•elTe 1H Ro4osloe LEACH - • APPLIES TOSTREETS A,S8C NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, M.D.B. & M. -BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TRENCHES. • - 0 0 x - - Z B. THE SUBDIVISION HAS AN AVERAGE LOT ARIA OP 0840 ACRE • r - �i ,, ;• AND TN! DENSITY OF THE SUBDIVIBION HAS BEIN BASeD UPON • .• • •l - - �. .`.• THE DROSS AREA FOR SUB D IV ie ION OP THE PROPeReTY AND THE i• •'� ' I^`�` , r - FOR 9R-1 ZONING. • - ; • / ; ,.1«. •{ - y ^ B• AS SHOWN. THE 'EXISTING SDR AREA WILL Be REMOVED AND r•'•' Fi vS_'7oMTG..S• 1- --�xw r - L • Y� •" WILL Be RBC ONBTRUCTeD ON THE GUERNSEY PROJECT TO THE EVELYN C-LIPTRAP` NoUTH OP THIS DIMENSIONS a HOwo.Y R 6 an S '1 - - s - i• 10. IN LIEU OF LOT OIMENBIO N9.VI SACH LO S A REQUIRED BD BY THE 04CO.GPc414 a� 4M1 r - •':• ` .APPLICATION. W E HAVE PROVIDED OR0fi9 AND NET LOT AREAS k G. 'NA7SB dS30DATE5' tsf0.0P9OAw AND WILL PROVIDE LOT DIMeNSIONS ON THE FINAL MAP. , •{ OFS:Gr:•UFY;LDPUEAT • , ''`• ux, w.w rt ' - i - �. ' • T ' -.c', �, 1 UMJOHAYSAYJOLUfES.CAM y JANUARY 2004 SHEET 1 OF 1-. 4 _ - R.O.W. • • - x - r<. . it, , ` r Z • , • - • ., ARTERIAL TYPE A -IV- - APPLIES TO KRTYHAWK DRIVE - 1 a - •. - 1 • �. - - l ,r BASIS OF BEARING THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, 160 LEACH- ' AS ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS A3 SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL 7 4? \ FIELD FREE „ + MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14, TAKEN A3 r v \ \ SETBACK LINE FROM WELL • �' NORTH 89"3T79" EAST. e5 ae L/)B° ` 180 181 . J . 182 _ 183 _ 1841 - * , /0.4438 AC \ \ \ f LL) 1 • , - r 'f n \ . ' _ � - N89•37'19' 2743.37' .(� LOT 30 - _ LOT 8 LOT 38 - -� _ •1.0541 AC t'e - 1 • - '\J 10T i8 - LOT 11 \""` 1.7080 /AZONE O.B880AG ! LOT 390+ LOT 27 �7) (0.9112p LOT 31 ' 1.0062) 6 O.B889 C0.9998 AC , 7.0002AC';�1.0019 ACLOT 35 1.0974 AC ` t '- (0.8848! {0.8866) . + (0.8850) ' (0.0887)FLOT 37 0.8641 AC (1,0198) _ �. ,, - -`� . Z A 1 r • (0. 048) _ - - _ _ . ` ' (5�7 74 AC LOT 34/ _ ) \ \ .•, - LOT s-- •.. 0.9480Ac ' - • r O.B930 AC - �\ \ (0.8268) . • LOT 29 >< - H _ [ • 1, • ,- L = 184.10 ' \ \ I - - 0.9522 AC Y l0T 24 \` - LOT 21' T ,8337 AC 0.8337 AC • r 4 , 1 // - • , SCALE' 1" _ -�" D = 15.11'40 \ \ `\'1 (0.848@) - } (0.738 JC `I (0.7383) t (0.7413) (0.74,3) - a I I r R-618.80 LOT 32 I p- I..� - `• • - LOT 38 ` 1.0388 AC I _ r , LOT S ` , _ , _ 1.3189 AC \ ' (0.9522) ` ` I I 0.8838 AC (1.1082) \ T ET SIS E J \ 1 (0.80351 3T E j3 "D T' "t3T.`; SR "eT ! LOT4 REI I I I,o,m AO " I' LOT 29 4'' - LOT 25 I " I LOT 20 y LOT 11 I I LOT 12 1 I „ ' I (0.0183)\ i \ LOT 38 D \ , -:egos) s) <; (0.862) 0.8966 AC 0.88862)0.8966 (0.8012) LOT PROJECT 1.0599 AC I I I (0.0809) ) (0.8012) I I (0.8012)' (O.B017)� I I (0.8012) p O.�BAC ' (0.9868) , \ I f (0. 5) LOT 33.3754A V• �•t}6W' \\ 1(0.976 )C I ` , I / LOT3 ,/ O.G357AC (D.8484) LOCATION MAP \ I LOT 27 LOT 28 I I LOT 19 LOT 19 I j99 , A LOT10 r 0.9880 AC (0.76 AC 0.9980 AD 0.98804) 0..76 4) 0.0.757) J I (0.71184) \ (0.71184) (aaeea) � (a.7eea) to.7sarl / \ STREET LOT 2 • . LOT 40 ^ LOT43 - - - 1.1150 AC RE LEGEND: 1.DDD,AC :. I 1,0003 AC .(0.9729) II. (0.7859) 1 LOT NUMBER LOT 100 FEMA X ELT " - ';' Elf( / 1 GROSS ACRES 1.0599 AC ZONE LOT 44 LOT 46 LOT 46 LOT 47 LOTl4B LOT 48 LOT 50 LOT S1 LOT S2 LOT 53 I " NET ACRES (0.8496) D - - 08888AC\ 0.8753 AC 0.6763 AC . 0.6763 AC 0.6753 AC 0.8783 AC 0.6783 AC 0.6753 AC 0.6763 AC 0.8701AC 1 �y (0.6887) (0.6007)' (0.6007) (0.8007) (0.6009) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6007) (0.6585) I 2 A PRIVATE EASEMENT, WITHIN WHICH, \ r LOT41 LOT42 I \ \ LOT "C" ALL ROAD, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND n o0 2 11 ,.0001 AC 0.9462 AC 00 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE } $ (,.0001) (0.61176) CONSTRUCTED. \ \ - _ _ _ _ F _ 3q EXISTING PA. �- _ IC I T T Y 11 A \V K DRIVE � � ROADWAY e0R '-"'F- EXISTING PA, CSA 87 SD AREA r FIRE HYDRANT (TO BE MOVED) ♦ \ 1 SSV4n"VV 2182.87' ! k�,�7J" / 2ONE A/ ZONE X .. .- - � .., .. - _. -• ' � \ / ± - [ P t * .. ..». F • \ - L T` , ' 4• yr - ' . -.. ..Y - - ,7f � V �/ ,.. r- y r: .. �f,-`, �. Y[V� .. �. r �. � �,^ ✓:. � � - e ^t. - .. -' �P - r. ,y . - �. \ .. ° - A • \ 1 , r • • `• '! •4 • - . •, •�4 1{:.r "i) 1F • ` Y L . f. ,} - L ' -4� r• .' 1 A ., • • r _ __ - 4`•• `rte T� - i,� -1�- GENERAL NOTES. r t ~I'17' 4 �' 49 UBDIVIVION INFORMATION sj . - - 7A BR " 12R -72n BR 711 + 1 ( 2 pp.'k� '. 7. THIS TENTATIVE MAP HAS BORN 0061014130 AND IB B@IND PRO- " - ,)' [ .f --� bT• r' 'CEee20 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVeD SR-7 EDWIN OW NER6 1. 4 - -7 Y� •"" - - .f + r, /->. i row - v+twu .::*'t .,A 'k1� - n �° - <IL . - .AND OTHER PROVISIONS O/.TM@ NORTH CHICO SPB CIP IC PLAN. I, • 'SUBDIVIDER: EVELYN LIPTRAP' ' I �. .•4•. { • + Y' - \ • 1 - * y. + " -- A Y.I 331 WALL STREET 7 _ _•�+. _ - - 2.' -TME INTERIOR SUBDIVISION STREe TB SMALL Be CONSTRUC TSO - . 50R •- T • t, .,I ' . � AN AC COROA NCe WITH LOCAL TYPO L•111 OR TTP! L•V OF THe. 4 CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 � � '• [ -• - r• -� _ _ NORTH CICO SPEC NO PLAN. YET POARILL DEDICATION IRIVTMe ~ - corriew 1 R.O.W. I 4 •. • • e ND BHAL T B! 0 0@TO . „ -•• ENGINEER: ., ,BOB FEENEY - '^.• •• _�'- COUNTY 01 BUTTE. TNe OX Te NOION OF NIT TTHAwK OR I ICITTY44 VIC PAP14 7i'.. SMALL Be CONST RUC TED AS AN ARTERML TYPE AIv IN 1260 EAST AVENUE, SUITE IO LOCAL TYPE L-V ) . YI ' AC CORDgNCe WNSI TNe W AS OMICo BPeeIIIe PLAN ANO +1 CHICO,CALIFORNIA86971 V Jn APPLIES TO STREETS D. E. F. GB H, 4 - , `. OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY 01 BUTTE. • L `• •. '! - _, d J•. _ ` '. LAND USE: y. , PRESENT: AGRICULTURAL ^� _ '•!�• yA • L • , • 1'' ✓ L TNe PROPOSED LOT ARIAS SHOWN ARE GROSS LOT AREAS . • FUTURE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 • C r • - -' , P' • T AND INCLUDE THe PROP OSeD PRIV ATB BABSMe NTS AND THE ''1 . . -J,- 'T ' + - `,'{ f • ¢ ° • • _ ,. + 3 NeT LOT ARIAS (1.0881) BXAMP LE) A.R. EXCLUSIVE OF V `ZONING: • BR•1 1 '' - j VESTING ACRe Me NT B, TN@ TOU TAL ARBA FOR BUB IVI8ION IB 02.1288 i - _�., - -� v�:.. - - _•} _ ` .,.T•-ACRee. .•t -,UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY: PACIFIC GAS A ELECTRIC + - •F �4. INS Me TM00 OF BEWAOe DIfl PO BAL AND LOT ARlAB TELEPMONE:SBC TENTATIVE -SUBDIVISION MAP PROP 0820 M0018 ALL ReOUIRE MONTB OF APPS NOIR VII OF TWO h WATER: MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 5n " +:�N4 Rµ, ��a Rµ eR sn - . • ALL f@ AINAGECOUNTUNOFODE. See BLD MBAID •Bone wArveR• pL¢kP - ; SEWAGE: ` �. INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK q _ .+O.N ALL DRAINAOe RUNOFF BNALL Be RBiA1NeD IN THE RETENTION• .1 AND LEACH FIELDS • ` L • BASIN PA0VID@0. .: EE $OQ 0. A PRIVA7@L7 OW N00 COMMUNITY WATER BYSTBM SMALL Be CPN: 047.260.187 AND 047.280./98 ' R.O.W.I ADIVISION OFREMAINING LANDS,ASSHOWN ONTHAT CERTAIN MAP OF , FORMED TO PROVIDE DOMBOTIC WATER SERVICE TO THE LOTS AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION, PHASE 11, RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS WATER R60UIReo FORR'ripe PROTaeT10N. Daa rhe $oo oPM • 0 o AT PAGES 73 THROUGH 75 - LOCATED IN SECTION 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 23 y ' LOCAL TYPE L-III .. � T. a7oRM WATER WILL Be aeTA1NeO oN.elre IN RogoelDe LEACH „. - r / 4 APPLIES TO STREETS A 9 B C o NORTH, RANGE EAST, M.D.B.BM.- BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA tRONC HES. _ • S. TNB SUBDIVISION MAB AN AVERA02 LOT AREA OP es4O ACROS. - • ., • 4 AND TN! DENSITY OF INS 6UBDIV I910N HAS OBeN BASED UPON 'A' A FOR TMB OR0Be ARBA FOR SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE 11 ff "LL .� • + r t ,A 1 ' , r A' SR.1 ZONING. ! 4•-IA T J • . 1 I • __�uww,• " B. AB ON OFF. THE BXISTIND BOR ARBA WILL 88 Re MOVED AND P• ASSOMT6.5 '`r ' •� • - ' - ! • 'WILL BOB RED ONB TRV CrBO ON TNe OUSRNBEY PROJECT TO THE r .{,• ,� _ , , 14 I -•'i• . SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT. + r HOI MwYNNSICOBT ` ` n -EVELYN C. LIPTRAP �,. OCO.GPFv14 - �BR�18 �NB��Brt� • - 1, , 1 10. IN LIEU OF Lor DIMENSIONS ON eACH LOT, AS O NOT eO BY THE - •SA1By0.55gOAIE81 /gO10vP•OPPF , IF---. '•1 +•'� Y ' y • , r �. _ - 1 APPLICATION, W D HAVE PROVID eD GROOS AND NST LOT AREAS OkSIGA•OF.h:IOPUEtT 60.00R , ANO WILL PROVIDE LOT DIMENSIONS ON THE FINAL MAP. . R.O.W. ,� a JANUARY 2004 , . . SHEET 1 OF 1 r ^ - DAVGIUYSAfi5O IAteS.COM ARTERIAL TYPE A-N •` r � � .- F .,,r. � 1 � r .. _ , `c, � '+ 4 , . .1 , • APPLIES TO KMYMAVVK DRIVE - [. • " rf ' " 1 ,y + a _ !'� r .. • .4 a r. � • �'a `, [ � _ - -28, 2005% De el V 6pmL&nt Se rvic'es PLANNING DlUiSION -,TVer-1.0,1-,;7X 4 ; Counter DDS Planning $2,200.60 Person :Cana (General Fund) ayment Date- 4/28 /2005. Public Works $0.00 I(Land Development) Receipt Number, 426360 Environmental H $0.00 Received From 'George or Connie Nicolaus CDF (Fire D $0.00 Applicant NOD NOE $0.00 I(Recording Fee) Aunt Minnie $0.00 Application Number lor 11CANC04102 $1, 500 or $2,000 In Reference To Planning Re $0.00 Parcel Number I'Kittyhawk permit/fees Fish/Game $0.00 Check Number /Cash 111732 ALUC $0.00 (Airport Land Use) Total Received 00 60. Non Sufficient $0.00 Funds ($ Tbtzil,Fees' P V -, - " 12-il,k -Ri xr V, ;. I ,,- -- � $2,200.60 1 Cell Tower $0.00 ($2500.00) Public Sales $0.00 Other: $0.00 : a - - eaCOUNTY' Of BUTTE 426'360 a y { r� r qt OFFICIAL,F� EIFT' r r OFFICE OR DE AR.T.MENT. I U G.,RECE PT r ,s Received from Q � /^' /�t� � I � _�S/ •r�t_1f./ � ^"o Y:" a .�.% .-;?' 1'.�`i I'�+' r '.^'3�.i� ,��y � 'I7>te. Sllm'.oT•V' ,�"�, A•,�'h ?< '1 For. Received: Received By CASH" o r r .Title' aJ • , {IR ,.. CHECK , • B., _ :3 y DAVCO BUSINESS FORMS • (530) 743-8511 Form 75702 -ba -• M, € > y- gr fvr i': -r "', ,✓':s °- qr ..•.se �d z , c •,r r.- ,s �> ,,arc,_', r }� , '& 3 K9;y. ��a;<l " t•i� fi.d�i{11'i '�r'Fp�.i''f',r,.`^ 4 SOON`, 17 312�M ;!G a�'B�i�°i•"k'f't�„ �L .ra`' .� . ';`" fy, v',rGIN a'''k."- sr 3. ,r-t31.f... r s C.IEhrTRI-COWNTIES�BANrt�,}�,sem x rt`....> ttr•tx903504/s12.�,O,PERATIONS�ACC...OUNT�=�`"n�`'.d'"- - !�b���hr;'� � M �r�^aq a.,.. :� s��-'x*� ,�t�.'�4�t 9 i' 5 ' , f.'�,: py3!:5 r�.�. s.a.. .;i s. ,•',`z`xM�; y ',°�!ltra_"s.t:;?7r, 66: MARYBILL RANCH ROAD-L� }�.'r ..Jcam��r :P„��:'' yz . tom. �•:[.°-,-_.> .-:4 f°>ti7 �1S>r•:cr 7i^.ga« ,Gt•: Y'. ',,9a-. ta^i,; .q'r a•4�r-a..'F Jsa?Y'Y�2G1�2��� ^GX •�.Ial`I'•S!,'•#` `a. , CHICOltt ` - 'e t�;. 2C�. �GAt95928 _ . ,, N��,,�� ,. t� �• •;i”' .i ?� '. � t!- . b. ;:s' � 3 ;,�+ •r� },�� _ '`"�b,a ,F. .'....,_.�•+,, i, V'S','�`' q ,.'r(�- s'::eihN; •aD,r�".;�rr :'{• '^Jr.�'v,>£- '. __� �a`;;" f. , • F. ' s-r+l" xR •c,r�a F A> i. !?Y:e S'l',aD ° . i" -w,'-, ' '-'r. .a. -. si'r»•.?W i (''� ,Y- st3a um //53U`894'61'71 `ttt''' r., a 7"4�xN /: n Y?: kv. '.Y��- '.^�^FS��=Y�'.� �y{�yy '.q. �1:ayy ^� ��".. i*,� f. �.•Y `f :LZ €.Y ..,t.g' i t� i xT'-.jj , j � p�.L� 'F"3:f.f�,.,,. .� r{>Y�...••fTl+9 � 'r,m �- .. - � r , ,scds�, ,��# _�'�-.. ge�.�"� r' ""�' ,•-.,� ��L, � aiy� � Yt- M _ �i�. � «JS '✓..� `C _ ter•, t +sS?• yK.. ;. -!•` ..K -3.' �•.,`' +i 'r�,... , yx, }( ;. +a' .Rp'-.,-„ir,�-r.s }, y”, .-r'±'�y.,�, rrt't V� aY.f� :4� � 1 "?a� G . kI"�'�G�� - { �� �S:- -ZY+IF '�;' .. •+J- n',Y.-. M1 �� � .�'/:ha V., S JO add' �.i,.��'`°-+`_:r a..'.�'""zrY. f' �'���•����aa�,fN ���°'` :•?e; ���.�v'��.. 'u L�'�a'-n_.�k_y.5+,`e2•YS:` !e"' ,'Cp.s�'• ,�..-^�.�.r ',�,: �,y. � 7.�; t�ti. u':T�;•- �,.z'?��;.n�r�G-• .pb�lS«SRx:a,.., Y.: ,•C,>�. sd .S`• '`.�R'��t^ .,��'`_. �... r 'n'�', :t'< .: .,s. tr'i��, ..## 3.� :x, � +..4•m 1'_ r' , �,y:,+.,..7... ,...+_..-�. „,, v"w .dl :�,:r v. µ•.t>,_' 4•c' a{ !'�_'•r tr,. a,}' .J.L'f• as Yra`�'.!%" §tv',•,al.,v'<Q„:rld �LR:�, 7'�r';3'::ki ... r... -",� '*” 5,Ml ' RDER:OF jt ntw• x a . _� r ' t , 4 + d v ii i as•, �k�' ?> F.,w1 V�r n �4 W � .w .s { t 0, t r a yv r U g s t: 3 S SY v,} it J J :?.}a}�r--a',:,.. J, ti*'•.. .,.,,,.. �,,.�. iF;. J.� .`°' 9ka-lsrt'A nrs:,tar?k.% k;'k�4r. ii, ,• ,f<",§v x,'3+N'a7JF �„v>4 •r,���..�,. - �� ,,x.•_�,.t, � „•r,,.,,. St,,`�,q.`.t*,. :•a.;,.,_a., ,.-asix*. �.:'4"',_.�., r - '�'.u.f. �r+;:>i�•�' -,. .,s . Tw.04ThousandTwo Hundred and;P60%100" r ;r R_ x .. t i Ce" r r . <_, .,1 .� ,:..' rc, n..?•q '4(�s iE:. -e _�� �r rb_� k`'�::..4,� �>±. web F.� '.'•x.- ,5i'e r9�,,.•,.:ftYY _Y-u:`, 'i '� .,,,k.4�•. &'. Vy!,.> ,;.5 i:". it`/t6,:i a f�T.tJ•a :,7"... s ..,.a 3G'..,°: , .... r','. .. ,• w3t,,. <r r„f,��r.. y'b., P.,; r��. ':• f 'stz 4..• r�'f+: ,f. �' ".3'Sht' rt- x. , �.� • . I� .. ! r'g.:. N.?^ t ,r ... , . 4 ,. ., 3 v-. ,p: 'r 3t'^. ,f• ,<rk, 5. . � .,. .. ,..X'@•. v� .3{ . . H., .a fl��r, - c°�:•t•� v,.. !. , � ' u-.-:. airr:. Y �, ,r x,. {>�^!Nc�•"3.,. �:.•,, a. ;,t., ,,:.$$.t. s �:C ,. ...-1 ,. 9vt� n t'e,a7 �x.;: x• 'c ^`�. v't"1�. `:i.: ,. r"Y-�. y'�G',•.:; .-, .::.,n::rc3 '%' .r^''M�"k..,. �''" , Wil: ¢'r.u.•,$:., 1.� .,..+!R ,`;, y,qy Yr rW.,� .!a, S. �,,.:.r, i� ir.• _E; +-}Jn k'i �� ,7 �i5r �,,r- .l._ ,-3Y.:. Sr '%IIa'.°,�a,f• w?_? A�} r ,^FY-...n: a :>3a ��-i .•R°�< :\:l..iy t.•. l,•.at.{{,� � �•"� :f::: c?.. 3 [',.s J•r �ttt`r-' y ,.. a a r: _ f ;BUtte COU11tV ii.'N"'44 rr c 2• yts,v�U°.r $k F >r-�•,�sj r .. 5 r t. '. . x r,3tav .r>;'+;x[s ..ar:r.m,„r.�..• i,. Yr n y. ;, .;gd•,fi 9r- Y.tF?;; t"baebs'R'1 '^, Kr"'� .;.:t,�. ,,r. 3: ,.� - -•Y j;wr,^r.. :� `„•. .tfY, 1{,. a•? �,• .^!. ; yt„ti""Y! ;,,t II)- fRNR"ty.-mac ehc. _ a.. ,2. •'a r. ff r :-t i:Y .. . - }., t�..,. '1M+ r, tri•. va u tr �' ''LS Ec.. _` ii .y a..:: D'e1�to€zDeelO ment-Sucs �, K—g-- :.a;•£�^;xa [ ;rr y ...f; •-. , y;-e.. s>> p:...r�,•sr f, f f f r'➢`K— +r, ,mss -Sir: h,•?tah. >r':: �:m..,>�fi rk:.v`;''. 'l F r`C';i'ut fna,5, �'r'sT ,'`'6n::,r +'< ..,r-:a•,i s- t til' w aF tv.n' e- r:?:h i Y :;a�'; it, $ r 'y...c it a� ' } ._t `<,�. ''t`K, : r .t. '-''t`-r ,r 4eei .t:.,.�.;. :+a r •S!_ 'c r . u., > : ar Center Dn�e - E;:<.,, -r4 :�� : r ., r; ;:.Y. _.<.: x-• n �.r - 'l<. tr-u, .• t ..>e . 't:+. a";+t/r ,.. - _t� "r?-.p,, W!"' ti- ,rh•.: •r,A:�*�v'�,.r= ,i.; ...,. „'C•' "israi .v.., .r r .: h ::✓'aP ,•,d.. n•e..'a`''. ?' 'A:.i d-� ':} .$,-r -♦ t . Ar_ ..,1 riY• v ..J.,{a, a. f.. r. +,,. �. ,� •�•. r ,. :.te°.-.3::._;+.; +7_ •. ea.�;�r,.. t-?• �_.r.'T,,. .:+k ?. �J•.:,.' { _r,-. r •.,7� - ''Y,; 2;�1.'"•h:a+.:y a,>. c * •_:h».; tv,.. ,,._•'3 1,.. ;r -r ^^,'(-'4{ ,�'4"`r -Y?: .''f•"IF'-t,T+y=:= _ h t.: r..,.. ., 3Y•, S�=. y'Yt '•m » Oroullle•.vCA 95,965 s �, 'CM ..,. r:.0 i*•r ...,. sem_„ _.. ..,.Div., ...n.: s ..,„,dna 3 >;: -"", ,^r!. t'♦, x._T, ,, ..r; Y. r[5 J. tli T`GI . yt`;��.. .r �.<” ...,i 7s x: ..�i.; .r 9' �} 1 �Ia• "rr'�.�` Sr, n'. ':� 1 i='` l � ,•k li+.,,� : �t. ' f,tr �'•' , ?"'r„ t.Z� �-i-,:aG t � 1 !1'm 17 ',1 � .4 1c - �+ . }''' L."t>'�i`v, 0.?�''-E- ,//,,'�'..'}' yy'1�, ,:J{Ji+• ;,I.tle Sir "`�'� 5'�aytyyI.�0.1-:rtia y,,wlf[:TY'S-url e .+.tom, .•:-"f4i'3.},.`'>L:•.'.� a.. 1. ..r.^ .s. .s.,N. i' '•k:., .�i LZ'V 4l 1t y... .,I_ l�.).$9 -Sti• ♦ Vr.:f. ��CC (({{ p .1'i<f.?,"+ li, n';G�� -�' i h. %i6 " ,i:J 3a,S;;-r. -.:y! ,- S.� ..a, a�;,». ;iv„�,�rr:. w:'.d.``_°•?•:.:^.:-G. ra ?.r, ��.�er't ,-.•�;`',. A,. -,.? `-k :•ti: :..L,, x n F. 'a'v ,',L„ �s %•7: a....,"✓,i. 'Y.v: :�-:,i i' �n .i?., •� '.,y,r +,q8t..� s,: L. -.? �,` _ - J •!" aa,r :. `Y.:4" : t .•�n..7.. ,, . .3..a : •:%.::.°':'v� '? .,ir.,.. "'_t.;.i-�' ,..% a ri::,,"t.•�- 9 t.. -. ' a- S` 77�,r . s :t,..:t : �' ,��•�r'.�=-,:,..,, x:4'9. y. .. .. ... .. .. ,..f ... �.?� .•,.4 .1.. r+ei�a'• '�;�?".,�y,. F. irk h' - r� y 4 '^'r � F<Y-' W ; N .i a� N�.S: _�� <•i. z Fitt lia�vk ennit/fecs,. ��� ,.,•tt,k. :c:y�. .. .... �e. �sr . 5�,�T?''i r:,�.4{•,. - °t?f�;:'w'rd"J��'�,;h+, r. '.,'i;- ,!s ,.,.rf w, T� .,W'... ::,,�,t3--,;>,e .. .erf x":rs`..., 7-' ^•:.Z�. -i ^Rr: 's; :�r ;v�RIZEDSIGNATGRE c, .n'.:� ',.• � t` `a .,�Y;e.� .:e.,.. f : tii ..5 �v: t'.;'.,.. +:r- J_ .•r' > :vs.,, r [`,7;, •,1:,� i. s; 3T.."ya- �Tx F�✓*u=':v Kr. e.: _ x. ir. ,e., ,if.. CE>. ••eie.•^_r. A i•:i'ei .,...�' -'rk �,+�'t- 5� ?,`,'.. .4. •,+�•_J+ .C•.,, _t.. ,k. ,'a }. ._..?'i.r.. 1:r .yr^:-iy�:?R �•. �' .?."-i.-->i^'Sr: r�, .�• _ :i: �,`A:�.:� Tr b �{• ,.. �i ■:>• .X '• •r; 6t - '1+ .} f17..,"Y y . e ;.,' t c .r.: } y.. .-,y:!,: "„a2 s., �.. •. •. Li.,,,:. i?C l:d* ”. 1i... ;'.. :: it' 7.. _ .-"1' , J'~• .h_rJ 3 t r n.•4' F} {.. . E u _� :.... -�- :..... 7r�3..2...r, i _ tr. •+. ,a'.1 . r.. ;%i : o<.J' F 'Mtr''+-, 4 , F.a:. u: 4:=� > -�^ h'Y5: : r' F ..4 ay„ ,, a.._ . „f'4:- ,..;,. ,. Y .:, ,Y ...,.. .,.,.: .; ,, r.{. .w4; .+... , .. .,, x'1 w.. ,: tiS`. .7 a.., -•':Y: f. ..r7"S!,t^ i:, it s.,,;a� a..r--, ,.,° 1. ,./". R t''lf.^+e '•r•. c a=y:ya : r.,�,r x_."' P'+. ;tr 's," . f,'r�ri r'-.L it �... .s, ... s -t '' r..<' r.y r" `y} r .. - �.:'�' r • t', v, _ . •^. i COUNTY OF BUTTE AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AND TREASURER'S RECEIPT OROViLLE, CA r r ATR NO 8421 f RECEIVED PROM PLANNING BAG X396 DATE 4.12912006 PUIVDFUND . DEPT ACCT GAS I I DESCRIPTION TION TITLE CODE CODE CODE CODE AMOUNT DEPOSIT DATE: 4129 RECEIPTS: 426360-426364 � PL�W4VC APPL FETES GEIl1L 0010 44dDW1 4210900 101001 2,200.60 ^_ Project Number Amount of, Pee (.Apiij..047 28Q:'i—@�-GECRGE NICO! Al1S-CANC :04-U— D 04-Q2 `D0CUM, ENTifC0PYI=SALES GENL.. C61v — 1 '4711910— --1011301 9,69. FOR FUNDS REC- 4MI05 TOTAL. $ 2,202.20 APPROVED BY: 'RECEIVED 3Y: AUDITOR --CONTROLLER . TRE�tSI9RER By - white ---treasurer pink=7auditor canary --depositor golden rod= ilz L,: BUTTE COUNTY - LCA CHECK LIST LAND CONSERVATION APPLICATIONS Name: 'Y1�T C, LI s Address: 331 WALL STREET, CHICO, CA 95928 X Application Date: 1/10/04 f. x Preliminary Title Reports (2) Date: 1/3-0/04 Agreements (2) Date: - o Fee Date: 1�`nini, X Fee Receipt Number: 381173 COMMENTS: Zoning: General Plan Ag. Preserve # c 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. Mr. Lewis said it is hard for farmers to deal with the intrusion of residential dwellings and their animals. Chainnan 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. G -50 700 + 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. Skinner asked where the 300 -foot buffer was applied. Chairman Christopher said the buffers are applied on the new development side. Mr. Lewis asked what was located on the west side. He noted that there is a dust situation. Mr. Price said there are almonds. He said the highway is wide and helps with the buffer. Mr. Nicholaus said the north boundary is SR -1 zoning. Mr. Lewis asked what is entailed with the trading of contract lands. Mr. Breedon explained that it is a very lengthy process. He said there is no application for trading lands at this time. Mr. Hays asked if the $625,000+ figure was a penalty fee. He said it was his assessment that the $625,000 was the valuation of the 43 acres. Mr. Bailey said that the $625,000 is a 25% fee based on the current fair market value if unrestrictive. He said the memo submitted should read "fee" and not "value." Mr. Holland explained how to figure the penalty fees which are based on the fair market value of land. Mr. Hays asked about an appeal period. Mr. Bailey discussed appealing the Assessor's evaluation. Mr. Holland added that he would have to check to see if this evaluation could be appealed. Mr. Hays said he wanted to be on record that he wants to appeal the fee amount and he did not know how to do that. Mr. Breedon went through the justification for making the findings submitted by the applicant. He read Part A — Public Interest, and Part B — Five Findings consistent with the purpose of the code. Mr. Connell asked on the points made by the applicant, who responds to the ye:. or no questions. Mr. Breedon explained that the yes and no questions are from the environmental findings. He said he has to perform an environmental review of this project. Mr. Holland said it was important to note that all of the findings have to be made to approve this cancellation. He said all findings have to be made consistent with the Code. He said the Public Interest findings have within them a mutual finding which is that there is no other proximate non - contracted land available or suitable for development, or the cancellation woule provide for more contiguous patterns of growth. He said within the framework of this contract, all of these findings must be made, not the least of which is the timely filing of a Notice of Non -Renewal, which did not occur in this case. Mr. Breedon asked that the findings be taken separately in order. He said the first finding is that this cancellation is in the public interest. Mr. Bailey said the pubic concern is arguable. He said prime agricultural land is being taken out of production. He said 4 %i years ago in 1999, this Commission placed the propertyin 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 %z years ago to put this property into the Williamson Act and now say it is in the public's best interest to take the land out. He felt the proper way to cancel this contract was through the Notice of Non -Renewal process. Mr. Breedon pointed out that the NCSP allows for agricultural uses. Mr. Holland argued that an almond orchard was proposed in 1999 to be under contract for a minimum of 10 years. He said the Committee has to balance out what was drone 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 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 shou:d be bound by the contract she signed. Mr. Nicholaus discussed the letter from the Department of Conservation as to the advisability of this land going into a contract. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation commented in their letter stating "The petition states that by placing this property within the Plan area, Butte County clearly determined that it was already "irretrievably lost to urbanization". The express purpose and intent at tha= 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 lznd designated for urban uses in general or specific plans are proposed for contract considerations. Restrictions to agricultural use provided for in the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Breedon said the Department of Conservation believes the NCSP is a residential plan and that the area is designated for future residential use. Chairman Christopher noted also that the exchange proposal of land is not before the Committee today, only the cancellation process. Mr. Nicholaus said the Department of Conservation questions the viability of this property going into the Williamson Act. Mr. Connell said it states in the letter that one of the findings is that there is no other property available to be developed in a similar manner. He said in looking at the map, this does not seem to be the case. He said the property is not surrounded by urban development; it is surrounded on the west by Highway 99, on the north by an open area, and is bounded on the south by an open area. Mr. Holland said one question is would development of this parcel provide for a more contiguous pattern of development versus anything around it. He felt the answer was no. Mr. Hays said there is currently a map proposed to the south for 50 parcels. He said to the east there are two subdivisions. He said there are two subdivisions to the east and the south is already built out. Chairman Christopher asked if there was a feeling from the Committee on whether this property should stay in the Williamson Act. Mr. Price said he understands that this property will be developed eventually. Chairman Christopher said the question is whether it is appropriate to cancel this contract or should it go through the 10 -year non -renewal process. Mr. Skinner said at this time the land is not contiguous and there are open areas both north and south of this property. He said until the southern development is approved the applicant is in limbo here. Chairman Christopher asked Counsel to discuss what is considered contiguous. Mr. MacKenzie said there is no definition for contiguous. He said regarding the second half of Tnding 5;4f does not seem that there is an argument that there is no proximate no -i -contracted land whichis both available and suitable for the proposed use, because there is a parcel :)n the north and a parcel on the south. He said they are looking at the question of whether the development of the contracted land would provide a more contiguous pattern of urban development. Mr. Hays said when the County first approved the Specific Plan area, LAFCo and the County attempted to set up areas for urbanization. He said he had a problem with why this property was allowed into the Act when there was a Specific Plan in place. Chairman Christopher said Mr. Hays makes a good point on development inside a plan. She reminded the Committee that why this property came into the Act 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 quicltly. 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 Q1IOA) to insure the area was developed in cooperation with the City of Chico so that urban -type deve''opment standards were applied in this area. He said the vision for this area is urban. Mr. Lewis asked how much more LCA property is within the NCSP. Mr. Breedon said he thought that this property was the only one. He noted that the NCSP allows existing orchards to continue without interference by development. It was moved by Mr. Skinner that the Land Conservation Act Advisory Committe ,- to determine that there is no proximate non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use and that the development of the Evelyn Liptrap orchard would provide a more corttiguous pattern of development, seconded by Mr. Daley. The discussion continued: Mr. Skinner said he feels the applicant has satisfied the requirements and addres Sed the issues. Mr. Bailey said he would disagree, that the NCSP has been in effect for 10 yeas and in those 10 years very little of the land designated SR -1 has been developed off of Highway 99. He added that there are two properties surrounding this property that are considered proximate and are available and can be developed prior to this parcel being developed. Mr. Skinner said there were arguments that the whole area is proposed for development. Mr. Bailey said with significant SR land available, this property should not oe taken out for emergency purposes; it should come out with a Notice of Non -Renewal that takes 10 years. Mr. MacKenzie said he did not think that the Committee could make the first half of the findings for #5. He said, however, on the second part of the finding, "development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous pattern of urban development" it sounds like this parcel is being compared to the parcels on either side and the Committee is making a finding that it would make a more contiguous pattern of urban development than the other two parcels. He said the question is what would make this parcel more contiguous than another and the applicant has offered that this development would put Kittyhawk all the way through. Mr. Breedon said the State has commented on this project and they agree with the s.-cond 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. m- Land Conservation Committee m Minutes ■ June 30,_2004 ■ Page 6 U _ Mr. Nicholaus asked if the 300 -foot buffer would make the development non-contiguous. Brief discussion. Motion on the floor and a second, vote as to Finding #5, that the development of the Liptrap orchard would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development. Mr. Connell discussed surrounding development. Mr. Breedon asked if they wanted to add to the motion that there is the NCSP, and that there is a MOA with the City of Chico. Mr. MacKenzie said there needs to be facts in the motion that define why it is that this particular parcel would provide for a more contiguous pattern of urban development than tr_e other parcels on the north and south. Chairman Christopher asked Mr. Skinner, if this finding passes, would he be comfortable with staff detailing out the reasons for a yes vote on the findings. Mr. Skinner said he would be comfortable with staff delineating out the reasons for approval. AYES: Mr. Skinner, Mr. Daley, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Price NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Discuss on_o� n # -�"That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has been Mr. Bailey said that the Contract is dated 12/22/99; the Notice of Non -Renewal was recorded 5/28/04. He said per Government Code 51245 the Notice of Non -Renewal must come at least 90 days prior to the adversity date of the contract, which meant it would have been required to be submitted September of 2003. Mr. Holland said that technically they do not have a timely filed Notice of Non -Renewal. He said the property was not in non -renewal for the 2004 assessment roll. Mr. Breedon said it is for the 2005 assessment roll. Mr. Holland said it means that the contract does not terminate in 2012; it terminates in 2013, so the form is wrong. He said technically the Committee can not make this finding... Chairman Christopher asked if the information and dates need to be changed and Mr. Holland said yes. She asked if the forms were corrected, could the finding be met. Brief discussion. Mr. Breedon said the finding is for land on which a Notice of Non -Renewal has teen served. n Land Conservation -Committee rMmutes-'■.June�30; 2004 ■Page 7; 0 � � 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. Mr. Mackenzie read Government Code Section 51245. Brief discussion. Chairman Christopher asked if the local ordinance stated recorded or served. She: asked if the Code, law, or Resolution tells her when to do this. Mr. MacKenzie said the statute says serve, does not say recorded. Mr. Johnson asked if the Committee can deal with this for 2005. Chairman Christopher said she will talk to Counsel whether this decision has to wait until after January 2005 or does it not matter and the Board can look at things in advance. Finn i g #2 `That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. - Chairman Christopher said they recognize that the NCSP goes up to Highway 99 F-nd does not cross west of Highway 99. She said to the north they are General Plan designated and zoned for development, and to the south designated for urban development. The east is already developed in urban development. She said the question is, "... would moving this property into development likely impact further removal of adjacent agricultural land." She said the only adjacent lands in agricultural use are the lands to the west across Highway 99. Mr. Johnson said that we need to go through the information submitted by the ap-)licant for taking this property out of the Williamson Act, with public interest of spraying and dus-, notice, etc. He discussed the effect on the property across the street. Chairman Christopher said a discussion should have occurred at the point the parce= was rezoned and re -designated in the NCSP area, and hence with the Agricultural Element they recognize that there will be urban interface issues with agricultural land use and, therefore, make it necessary to create a buffer of 300 feet. She said the County already made a decision that this land will eventually develop. It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Connell, and carried to find that whereas there is a 300 -foot setback, there is agricultural land to the west which would be protected by this 300 -foot .,' S � l .. ''-� }LL �. -4- r• •• • .T� f l` ` • i.. i } y' 4., y- •- .. ♦, •� •} r Thi 'r.. av• ,; jT - ! ` ' r r F'r. .rr `. .• ' • . setback, recognize that this cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. :.AYES: ;Mr. Price,.Mf.`Bailey, Mr.'Connell, Mr. Daley,`Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson . . NOES: No one ABSENT:. No one r ABSTAINED: ",Chairman Christopher Mr.?Breedon reported back to the Committee that the letter requesting non -renewal of the Contract -was da d!S' Member, 7-- 4 p ' "" `ter � ' p , 2043. He said the request was sent to the Board of Supervisors which the Boar&acknow.,1edgesandrthen the Notice is recorded. Chairman Christopher, asked how a non -renewal was handled in the past. Mr. Breedon said that basically a member of the public provides a Notice of Non -Renewal 90 days • prior to the contract's anniversary 'date. He said the department then prepares fle Notice of Non- , �* Renewal'which will be recorded. He said no later than 20 days after the department receives the' Notice ofNon-Renewal; the Clerk of the Board shall record with the County Recorder a copy of the, r- ^ Notice of Noxi -Renewal. Mr. Holland said the 20 days did not occur in this case. He said the letter did not get to the �. 'Assessor's Office and since it did not get to the Assessor, they do not know whether to establish non renewal calculations. r, Chairman Christopher asked if there was some law, State law, Government Code, etc.; that tells us in black -and white a procedure different than what the department has been following. Mr. MacKenzie -said that in the'evidence code there is a section called "Serviciby 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 -1 e s than the contract date'in December.'"~ ' It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to find that the Dancellation 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 W, A.', -NOES -,-- No one,,, 4 +' ' - ABSENT: ,No' one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher r '■' � Tei j= --Finding #3- vote : , - �- - L a M + It was moved by Mr.. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to find that cancellation is for ani ' alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or County General Plan. } . .■ Land.,Conserva h C e to ■- - _ . 0712 - ho � ommitte ■� Mmu s�■ rune 3 004�i�Page 9 „���•y � �•� .�._++trlra_ .rte a � '� .` • i • �•�. ' err P n. . AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher It was moved by Price, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried 'to find that cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED:. Chairman Christopher Findings under Public Interest. � Finding,#1 —Vote-, It was moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to recommend that the Board of .Supervisors find that, other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Jo-mson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher Finding #2 - Vote; It was moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Price, and carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors find that there is no proximate, non -contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patters of urban development (GC §51282(c)) as above under #5 finding. AYES: Mr. Price, Mr. Daley, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Johnson NOES: Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Christopher It was also moved by Mr. Skinner, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and carried tha- the Committee recognize September 7, 2003, as the application date. Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee discussed the fair market value by the Assessor's Office. He said he did not want the applicant's representatives to leave this room today thinking that there is an Butte -CountyDepartment ofBievelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-760.1 Telephone O LJ CANC-Williamson Act- Immediate Applicant: Evelyn Liptrap 331 Wall Street Chico. CA 95928. File: CANC 04-02 a3N: 047-260-199 Date: April'8, 2005 e N V 0 1 C E CANC 04.92 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program: There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all chages are entered and billed, you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following payments have been applied to your application: Deposit Disbursement: Deposit Date: ,JanuaN 30, 2004 Environmental Healti $ - Receipt: 381173 Land Development - Total Payment $1'000.00CDF/Fire Departmert - NOD/NOE Filing FeE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING DEPOSIT 1,000.00 Total Paid $ $ 1,000.00 DEV SERVICES - PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 1:000.00 The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: a Professional Planner $ 2j191.85, Mapping Clerical 8.75 . Publishing TOTAL CHARGES: $ 2,200.60 r Total Charges to Date $ 2,200.60 Less Planning Deposit -1,000.00 Current Charges Due . $ -1,200.60 Deposit Replenishment Due $ 1,000.00 Total Due $ 2,200.60. Butte County Code 3-44 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposts sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, or a lesser amount as determined -by the Director of Development Services. In"the evedthe applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE"AND PAYABLE $ 2,200.60 Apri122; 2005". Biller: GL8 C:\Documents and Settings\gbenedict\Desktop\master invoice\2005 invoicesUptrap.CANC 04-02.xls June 25, 2004 Evelyn C. Liptrap 331 Wall Street Chico, CA 95928 utte Count LAND OF NATURAL. WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Re: LCA Cancellation, AP #047-260-199 . Dear Ms. Liptrap: This is to notify you that the Land Conservation Act Committee will be meeting on June 30, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in the 3A County Center Conference Room, #3 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, to consider your application. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Dan Breedon at 7629 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant j:\wpdocs\pelts\Ica 1. m rg R -r• a. t Ir tit 15, _JYI/F AP . ` 4 4 p O h emorandum , • . int . - ----r------- �.-•••--.... — - - - -- .1 U IN TO: ° r ..Land Conservation Advisory Committee FROM: , f,. {Dan Breedon; Principal Planner SUBJECT: %.. Evelyn Liptrap Williamson Act Cancellation G DATE: ` ' June 24, 2004 ' . �. ; Department of Development Services A "' -•. ` . Planning Division i Attached you will find an application request for an immediate cancellation of Williamson Act. Contract from Evelyn Liptrap for Assessor's Parcel Number: 47-260-199. This application ; 'includes the following information: L. Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Agreement'. s 2." Appendix E Environmental Information Form 3 Atta,lk,' t to P t't' t C 1T d C t' A t n e i ion o ance an onserva ion greemen 4.. Exhibit Map showing cancellation area and Future Subdivision Map ' 2-` 5. • Notice of Nonrenewal — Land Conservation Act Agreement F . -6.- April 26,,2004 Letter from Department of Conservation Regarding Cancellation Request:] ._ 7. C.L.C.A Property Valuation and Calculation of Cancellation fees for Liptrap Property. This applicant shall be participating in Williamson Act Easement Exchange P170'gram (WAEEP).'` - This program 'allows qualifying properties to be removed from the Williamson Act without `payment of the' cancellation fee normally required to cancel the contract in exchange for the' dedication of an -agricultural conservation easement on other land. The value of the agricultural - conservation' easement gricultural-conservation'easement must be equal to or greater than the fee required to cancel the Williamson, _ ,'Act Contract. T. The applicant has, not provided information on the easement that would be eligible under the = WAEEP program at this time. However, the Land Conservation Advisory Committee can still act upon'the cancellation portion of this request. This will require the Committee to' make. recommendations .to the Board of Supervisors on the Findings under the government' code' necessary.to caiicel'the Williamson Act Contract. r .` A Williamson.Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article 135 section 8 of the ' California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act contracts are not intended to be cancelled and in fact, cancellation is reserved for unusual, in "emergency" situations. Theref)re, the ne=year nonrenewal -process has. been identified as the legally preferred method fDr terminating a', Williamson Act contract} ' • . • • � .. k ' . - . S. x«31 The Supreme Court has stated that cancellation is not appropriate where the objectives served by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal, (See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 852-853). 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).) What are the required findings for contract cancellation? 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: That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act; or, That cancellation is in the public interest (GC 51282 (a). In order to find that the cancellation is consistent,with the purposes of the Williamson Act, the board/council must also find: (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use (3) That cancellation is for analternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. (5) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)). In order to find that the cancellation is in the public interest, the board/council must find: (1) that other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act; and, (2) that there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(c)). The uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason for cancellation of the contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be considered only if there is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put (GC §51282(b)). The specific notification requirements set forth in GC §51284 must be submitted to the Director of the Department of Conservation, the Director shall review the proposed cancellation and shall advise the board or council on the findings required in GC §51282. Before talang action on the proposed cancellation, the board/council shall consider the Director's comments (GC §51284.1(b)). What is the cancellation fee? The cancellation fee is payment made to cancel a Williamson Act contract that provides a private benefit that tends to increase the value of the property (GC §51283(f)). Prior to ' any action by the board/council 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)). According the Butte Couniy Assessor the cancellation veln-e for this property is $625, 000.00 AFCE The landowner shall pay to the county treasurer upon cancellation the cancellation fee that is equal to 12.5 percent of the cancellation valuation of the property for Williamson Act contracted property and 25 percent of the cancellation valuation for Farmland Security Zone contracted property. (GC §§51283(b) and 51297(c)). Cancellation fees that are not paid within one year of the recording of the certificate of tentative cancellation will be recomputed as of the date of notice (GC §51283.4(a) and (b)). Future Board of Supervisors' Hearing In order to consider contract cancellation, a county or city must give notice of, and hold a public hearing on the landowner's petition for cancellation. Notice must be 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. Additionally, notice of the hearing and a copy of the landowner's petition must be mailed to the Director of the Department of Conservation at least ten (10) working days prior to the hearing on tentative cancellation (GC §51284). Within 30 days of the tentative cancellation. of the contract, the city/county shall forward a copy of the published notice of the decision to the. Director of the Department of Conservation. ANALYSIS In making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this Cancellation, the Committee must carefully review the required findings under the Government Code against the suggested findings provided by the applicant in the Cancellation Petition. The comments provided by the Department of Conservation must likewise receive careful consideration. The Department of Conservation comments in their attached letter that, after reviewing the documentation and information provided, it appears that the Board of Supe visors may have sufficient supporting evidence to make the required findings. 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. The North Chico Specific Plan was adopted by the County in 1995, and the Liptrap Williamson Act Contract was approved in 1999. The Department goes on to indicate 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 s'oecific plans are proposed for contract consideration. Further, the Department points out that the Williamson Act was created to control and guide urban development as well as to preserve agricultural land. Staff generally agrees with the Department of Conservation on this issue. The inclusion of this property within the Williamson Act -in 1999 'was based upon a qualified request from the landowner. This property was, and is, developed with a commercial walnut orchard. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors approved the contract based upon the fact that the land use qualified for a Williamson Act Contract as a viable commercial walnut orchard. The points concerning the North Chico Specific Plan made by the Department of Conservation should be considered in determining whether this contract should be cancelled. -The North Chico Specific Plan represents the County's vision for future development in this ar,a. The Liptrap property is designated under this Plan for Suburban Residential development at a 1 -acre minimum parcel size. The landowner has filed a Tentative Subdivision Map with the County to divide this property into 53 parcels. The landowner no longer wishes to maintain the agricultural use of this property: It is important to note, however, that the County's General Plan, as implemented under the North Chico Specific Plan, supports a non-agricultuiral use such as development with 1 -acre residential parcels as currently proposed by the applicant. The applicant has provided suggested findings within the Cancellation Petition. The Land Conservation Advisory Committee should know that the County must use its independent judgment in making the requried findings. The Committee is free to agree or disagree with the provided information in making recommendations for findings supporting, or not supporting, cancellation to the Board of Supervisors. The applicant makes reference to the WAEEP program within their findings. It should be noted that the stated benefits of the WAEEP program should not be used as justification for cancellation, or for the inclusion in findings for cancellation. If the applicant choses to instead pay the cancellation fee and not to participate in the WAEEP program such states benefits would not be realized. The Committee should consider this cancellation petition separate from a WAEEP proposal because such a proposal has not been submitted. LANDrC-ONSER-V_ATION COMMITTEE �M UTES== NOVEMBER 91999— The meeting was called to order at 8:00 a.m. in the Development Services Conference Room, #7 County Center Drive, Oroville. I. ROLL CALL Present: Tom Parilo, Director Development Services Richard Price, Agriculture Commi3sioner Fred Holland, Assessor's Office Clarence Daley Bill Olson - Lewis Johnson Also Present: Dan Breedon, Senior Planner Evelyn Liptrap II. DISCUSSION ITEM: None III. APPLICATIONS FOR INCLUSION: A. Evelyn Liptrap, APN 047-260-138, application for inclusion iri`o the Williamson Act for 48.23 acres. Dan Breedon said this parcel is within the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) area. He said the parcel is in walnuts. He said there is a policy to allow. agricultural uses in the NSP. He said this inclusion would be consistent with the NCSP policy. He said this is for a portion of the parcel. The other potion of the parcel is being developed. Mr. Parilo said the northeast portion has been recorded. He said the portion in b,-tween that parcel and this one is for Phase 2 of the development. He said Phase 2 has not been ccmpleted. Mr. McCabe questioned Item 9 of the Title Report regarding the sale of parcels. Mr. Parilo said this refers to the lots that have been subdivided. Mr. Lewis discussed the need fora buffer from the residential to the agricultura:.. -Mr. Price said the buffer will be considered when Phase 2 comes to the Development Review Committee for the parcel map approval. Mr. Parilo explained how an LCA contract works to Ms. Liptrap. ■ Land Conservation Committee 0 Minutes ■ November 9, 1999 ■ Fage 1 ■ Evelyn Liptrap said the walnut trees are diseased and will be removed. She said they will be replaced with almond trees. She said the taxes are so high that she needs to come into the Williamson Act. Mr. Parilo explained the flooding problems in this area. Mr. Johnson said by putting this parcel under contract, the orchard would be mare cost effective. Mr. Holland said the first figure on Page 4 of the Agreement needs to be changed from "20" to "40.. It was moved by Mr. Price, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and unanimously carried to recommend inclusion of this application with the numbers in Paragraph 9 being 40, 20, and .20. Mr. Parilo said the County is currently working on a transfer of development credits program to implement the 1995 Agricultural Element. He said they have retained a consultant to prepare a feasibility study. He said there will be a public workshop meeting on December 1, 1999, at the Masonic Lodge in Chico at 5:00 p.m. He said there is information available on their web page. Mr. Holland said that Jim Paiva has shown an interest in the Williamson Act. He asked how the Committee would feel about hearing another project for hundreds more acres of prime farmlands coming in. He said he would like to fast-track this application. The Committee agreed it would be good to have this property included and agreed to meet to accomplish this. Mr. Parilo said the Committee is set to meet on December 2, to revise the Resorution among other things. He said they could hear Mr. Paiva's application at that time if not before. Mr. Parilo said that Dave Skinner will be the new Committee member. IV. , ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 a.m. Thomas A. Parilo, Chairman Land Conservation Act Committee j Awpdocs\agendas\lca 0 Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes 0 November 9, 1999 ■ :Page 2 ■ GEORGE RU NIICC L AUS Since X1951 December 8, 2003 County of Butte Department of Development Service 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Subject: Evelyn Liptrap Property A To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this letter prepared by George Nicolaus, which bears my signature, as my authorization for Mr. Nicolaus to act as my agent For all matters related to the division of a 52.72 acre parcel of land located between State Route 99 and Kittyhawk Road, in north Chico and known as A.P.# 047-260-199 and v 047-260-197. He will be submitting a plan for the division of the property, together with an application for its removal from the Williamson Act. , , Where required, he may fill in and/or sign, any applications, supplementary applications, environmental information and/or any other documents or forms required to begin these processes for this project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please telephone me at my z office at 342-9100 Best regards, Evelyn Liptrap George R. Nicolaus r. Uptrap_113 i66 MarrybiII Ranr ch R0aal Chi:c`,o., CaIi�fornia 9592�6--9563 Ph,'one 530---X94-6171 Fax 5 30-345-9585 r1. Received from 7%e Sum, of For.// Received: CASH ❑ 4 -CHECK _O BUSINESS FORMS • (530) 743.8511 Forth 75 COUNTY OF BUTTE OFFICIAL,:RECEIPT FICE OR DEPARTMEN,TJS UING RECEIPT i Received�By Title(,/ By 381113 bo