HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-260-199 (15)MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IMMEDIATE CANCELLATION
OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT (Liptrap A.P. No. 047-260-199)
TO: Land Conservation Advisory Committee Members
FROM: Timothy D. Ferris, Attorney for George Nicholaus - Petitioner
SUBJECT: Request for Immediate Cancellation
Evelyn C. Liptrap (George Nicholaus) A.P. No. 047-260-199
IF
Committee Members:
With respect to the above entitled petition for immediate cancellation of the
existing Williamson Act contract encumbering the above described Parcel,
please consider the following additional specific facts and information. It is
my understanding that the Committee (LCA), County Counsel, and ,
Planning Staff have expressed concerns that the administrative record in _
the matter, may lack adequate information to support the necessary
findings to cancel the contract. This office has reviewed the Agenda Report
to the Board of Supervisors, dated November 5, 2005 and the January 3,
2006 Staff Report to the LCA Committee and the proposed findings
contained therein pursuant to Government Code Section 51282. Although, .
it is the opinion of this office that the findings, as proposed, are adequate to x
-support immediate cancellation, please consider the following additional
information for the committees consideration in support of the -carious
findings not as a replacement but rather as an adjunct to those facts and
findings already contained in that Agenda Report and Staff Report.
A.) Government Code Section 51282.
(a) The landowner may petition the board or council for cancellation of any
contract as to all or any part of the subject land. The board or council may
grant tentative approval for cancellation of a contract only if it makes one of
the following findings: _
(1) That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes,of this chapter; or
(2) That cancellation is in the public interest.
As noted in the Staff Reports other public concerns addressed by
Fa
petitioners proposed use substantially outweigh the objectives of the
Williamson Act in that the proposed cancellation and dEvelopment
implements many of the goals and policies specifically outlined and
enumerated in the North Chico Specific Plan, all of whicn have been
studied and been subject to public hearing and determined to be in
the public interest.
1.) With Specific Reference to the'North Chico Specific Plan:
a.) Page 2.2 Table 2.1 .Circulation: lack of an east/west
connector.
Petitioners proposed use contemplates the construction of such a
connector.
b.) Page 2.3 Paragraph 5 .Circulation: route would
become a new east/west route through the plar arear
would provide for improved internal circulatiorr as well as
alternative access routes into the plan area.
Petitioner$ proposed use contemplates the construction of a new
east/west route as well the internal construction of roadways that
would link future residential construction of contiguous parcels in the
immediate area as well as the North Chico area at large.
c.) Page 2.6 Table 2.3 Items 4, 5 and 9
Petitioners proposed use contemplates the development and
construction that meet the specific policy criteria outlined.
d.) Page 2.8 Item 8 .enhanced street entries shall be
required at the following location. (a)., the new arterial / .
Highway 99 intersection.
County Planning Staff has indicated that currently no fuA-7ds have
been generated or are available under the North Chico Specific Plan
for such a project. Petitioner$ proposed use contemplatas the
advance funding and construction of such an arterial.
e.) . Page 2.9 Fire, Item 1; Fire station placement
Petitioners proposed use contemplates the construction of a new
east/west route which will benefit the entire North Chico area with
respect to adequate and timely access to the existing fire station on
Highway 99, thus improving public safety and response time for the
entire area.
f.) Page 3.4 Paragraph 4 .Open space lands throughout
the Plan areas are intended to protect natural and cultural
2
resources*
Petitioners proposed use contemplates designated -open space
areas on the contracted land.
g.) Page 4.2 Paragraph 2 ArThe plan provides for the safe
and efficient movement of vehicles, et alw•
Petitioners proposed use contemplates the construction and
implementation of roadways within the project including the east/west
arterial as well as internal connectors to adjacent land in the near
future.
h.) Page 4.3 Paragraph 1 .Arterial streets are at the top of
the street hierarchy system.
Paragraph 3 ArThe major new circulation feature within
the NCPO area will be the new arterial street originating at
Hicks Laner extending westerly over Mud Creek to SR99"
Petitioner$ proposed use contemplates and requires the construction
of the new east/west arterial(the new Kittyhawk Drive).
i.) Page 5.7 Item 2 mDesign stormwater facilities,
including detention basins, to ensure public safetyrAF
Petitioners proposed use contemplates and requires the construction
of stormwater facilities and detention basins.
j.) Page 6.1 Paragraph 5
Petitioners proposed use contemplates the initiation of California
Water Service for the proposed development which will, by taking the
lead and initiative benefit the North Chico area at large. Petitioner
has received correspondence from the Water Service indicating its
intent to initiate water service in the area
2.) Additionally, as stated in the BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
POLICIES, Circulation, Appendix A-8:
a.) 5.1.1 .All road systems shall provide for the safe
evacuation of residents and adequate access for fire and
other emergency services by providing at least two means
of emergency access to an interconnected collector
system. •
It appears that the existing Autumn Park subdivision, immediately to
the east of the subject property with existing 45 homes was approved
and exists today with a single point of ingress/egress at Kittyhawk
Drive and Garner Lane in with what appears to be a violation of
3
general plan policies and will remain so until such time K ittyhawk
Drive is completed and connected to SR99.
.Petitioner*s proposed use contemplates and requires the construction
of the east/west arterial which will immediately address the current
unsafe condition existing with Autumn Park and the other residences
in the North Chico area and provide a more contiguous patterns of
urban development than the prior or earlier developmen� of proximate
noncontracted lands.
3.) Policies statements of public benefit and interest with respect to
the NCSP as contained in the Resolution(95-47) of the Butte
County Board of Supervisors are as follows :
a.) Page 3 Paragraph 2AFThe NCSP has been modified to
require the County to work with CalTrans on the installation
of traffic signals at SR99 and the new arterial..
Petitioners proposed use has necessitated the completion of a traffic
study. Traffic study concludes and calls for an intersection at SR99
and the continuation of the east/west arterial (Kittyhawk Drive).
Intersection to be signalized with separate turn lanes. Completion of
the signalized intersection is consistent with and meet the goals and
policies of the North Chico Specific Planning area. Petiticnerc
proposed project will necessarily require the advance funding and
construction of the signalized intersection due to inadequate funding
presently for that specific purpose.
b.) Page 3, Paragraph 3 .Chico General,P/an identifies this
land as a future growth area and constrains growth in other
areasr. • Growth is further constrained in other areas
through ag-preservation policies, zoning, green!ine, and
environmental constraints such as wetlands and
meadowfoam.
Page 4, Paragraph. 3 .Chico General Plan requires the
infilling and increased densities to create a more compact
urban form. Thus, development within the NCSP area is
necessary to accommodate future growth..
Petitioner4s request for immediate cancellation for his proposed use
promotes County policies of agricultural land preservation in more
appropriate areas.
4
3.) In the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Chico and
Butte County regarding Cooperative Planning, specifically the
NCSP, it was agreed that:
a.) Page 3, Paragraph 7.Such needed public faciFties will
include new streets.
Petitioner4s proposed use contemplates and requires the construction
of new collector and arterials within the project to county standards
and in anticipation 'of further residential development of adjacent and
contiguous parcels.
b.) Page 4, Paragraph 5 &desirable to foster and encourage
orderly development in the NCSP area.
Petitioner -s proposed use is consistent and necessary for such
orderly development.
c.) Page 4, Paragraph 6.Gov Code Sections 6535+ and 65352
contemplate that the public interest beyond individual
city/county boundaries shall be considered.
' Petitioner.6 proposed development provides for a buffer and open
space along State Highway 99, as well as improved access and
widening of the State Highway, along with the increased supply of
housing benefitting the State at large.
4.) Outside of petitioners proposed residential development and its
conformance to the North Chico Plan and the stated goals and
policies within the Plan, immediate cancellation shall provide for
public benefit and be in the public interest on a broader and
larger scale than just on a local basis. Petitioners proposed
project allows local government to meet the statement and goals
laid out under Government Code Section 65580 which reads:
The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance,
and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a
priority of the highest order.
(b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative
participation of government and the private sector in an effort to
expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing
needs of Californians of all economic levels.
5
1
4
• (c) The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate -
income households requires the cooperation of all levels of
government. ,
• 4
(d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the
,. powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement.and
development of housing to make adequate provision for the
housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
(e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this
responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility '
to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and
community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate
with other local governments and the state in addressing
regional housing needs.
. a,) The public -benefit of providing for the development of adequate
housing is of public interest statewide as well as locally. The
' Department of Housing and Community Developmentas report
_ - entitled .California*s Deepening Housing Crisis. (February 15,
.2006), (copy enclosed), states that the average annual'
statewide need for housing units is approximately 420,000.
'Since 1999 less than 170,000 residential new construction
c permits have been issued on an annual basis. Median prices
have increased due to increased costs and supply and demand
t a issues. The affordability of homes as measured against income
has fallen. Additionally, according to the Housing and 4 ;
Community Development mHousing Policy Development*,
Chapter 2 California Housing Production Needs 1997 -2020,
' (copy enclosed), the Northern California Non Metropolitan '
Region will have 2.1 % of the states projected population growth ' .
with 75% of that growth in the Butte/Shasta counties area: See
h' • = - also the Butte County Association of Governments Regional
Housing Needs Plan, adopted January 2003 (copy attached).
Petitioners proposed use and residential development of the land will'
assist in providing. and meeting the housing and employment needs
of those in the area now. Cancellation of the existing contract and
allowing immediate development of the petitioner$ parcel not only . .
- meets the local needs of the Urban area of the City of Chfco, and a
' "Butte County, it assists Butte County in meeting its regional planning
needs as well as assisting in the overall housing crisis existing in the
State of California, thus meeting the goals of Government Code
Section 65580 and the public interest provisions of Government Code
Section 51282 with respect to the cancellation.
b.) Additionally, it is the duty and obviously the intent of the County,
through its approval of by the General and Specific Plans, as
.implemented, to comply with Government Code Section 65581,
which reads:
It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article.
(a) To assure that counties and cities recognize their
responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the
state housing goal.
(b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and
implement housing elements which, along with federal and
state programs, will move toward attainment of the state-
housing goal.
(c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of
determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to
the attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a
determination is compatible with the state housing goal
and regional housing needs. .
(d) To ensure that each local government cooperates with
other local governments in order to address regional
housing needs.
Granting immediate cancellation so that Petitioner4s proposed
development may move forward allows the County to further
acknowledge its responsibility and allow efficient and timely
implementation of the Housing Element, a portion of which is
encompassed in the North Chico Plan, showing and demonstrating
good faith compliance.
4.) Government Code Section 51282. (continued)
(b) For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) cancellation of.a
contract shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter only if
the board or council makes all of the following findings:
a1.) (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of
nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245.
7
rl
Such a notice has been served. r '
b.)._ .(2) That cancellation,is not likely to result in the removal of _
}adjacent lands from agricultural use.,
,. As noted in staff reports adjacent lands are either developed as • :` ,
- _ residential or have been zoned for residential development pursuant
f • to the North Chico Specific Plan, ,which as part of the .overall plan,
,, protects agricultural -lands. The Environmental Impact Report
prepared.for the'North Chico Specific Plan reviewed the "impact on ag
land uses in the planning area. The"report noted that implementation .
of the specific plan. would result I the conversion of 475 acres of 'F
- ' w agricultural lands. Because 213 acres of those land were not
- considered prime.agricultural land and because.the remaining 213
acres are substantially in conflict with adjacent residential
'development and are located on the urban side of the Greenline the ..",
v .
u impact was considered less than significant. -The report further
explained the SR99 was established as the boundary between • ?
` 'urban/suburban development to the east and agricultural to the west
under the County Greenline policy. Therefore the agricultural portion,,%
Y of the plan, including petitioner -s parcel. are not located in an area
►. � ;;. ' identified for agricultural use with no impact anticipated by
w development as urban/suburban residential.
;. c.): ,`(3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent
t with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan: --,L: 4
As noted in staff reports, petitioners alternative use is a 48 lot, 1 acres .
' subdivision, consistent with the General Plan and North Chico .
:. Specific Plan.,
d.) '(4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of '
r" urban development. r
An noted in the staff report, the subject parcel is'zoned for residential,'
>. use and is. contiguous. to existing and planned development to the ' '
•�- •noith,:,east and south. The cancellation will in fact allow,and,.
" encourage contiguous patterns of urban development, including,'but ,
.. not limited to the public interest and benefit of improved circulation , ' ti
and public safety.
(5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
t l t7 • .
4 w available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the
w contracted land be put, or, that development of the ilcontracied
-` eland would provide more contiguous patterns of urban
development than, development of proximate noncontracted
land.
In addition to those facts noted in the staff report, without the
cancellation and prior or concurrent development of the petitioners .
land and adjacent lands, specific, but not limited to, the Guernsey,
Levy and Hauselt parcels to the south and north, which are zoned for
residential development, will not, in the near future, develop in a
contiguous and rational way with respect to circulation, emergency
vehicle access and health and safety concerns as expressed in the
North Chico Plan Goals and Policies. The attached map illustrates ,
the logical and orderly way in which petitioners development and
' adjacent parcels, similarly zoned under the North Chico Plan would
link and flow. The efficient and orderly development, consistent with
the North Chico Plan, of proximate non contracted land prior to
petitioners land would be seriously impacted due to the limitations
imposed by the Agricultural Elements 300' set back, the issues of
nuisance and safety from agricultural herbicide and pesticide use,
and the "lack or proper and necessary circulation.
B.) In summary, immediate cancellation of the contract is proper in that
petitioneras proposed use of residential development of the land, including
residences and public infrastructure is in the public interest and will provide -
more contiguous patterns of urban development in that:
1.) The proposed development consistent with the Butte County
General Plan and North Chico Specific Plan;
' 2.) The development and construction of a residential development .
which supplies badly needed housing for the county, region and
the state at large. ,
3.) The construction of an east/west arterial providing access for
t ` emergency services and more orderly circulation for the area,
county and.state; ,
4.) The elimination of an old, marginally economic, and out of place
walnut orchard thereby eliminating the need for agricultural
setbacks (300 feet) on adjacent properties either already
constructed with residences or severely restricting and/or
} precluding development of adjacent properties zoned
residential under the Butte County General and North Chico
Specific Plan until after the year 2012, as well as the nuisance
and safety considerations involved with herbicide and pesticide
spraying associated with agricultural uses. The land is not high
value agricultural land due to the existing and proposed
' encroachment of urban residential development. The original
agricultural orchard use has been greatly compromised due to
the.change in zoning and use of surrounding and adjacent
properties.
5.) The rational, orderly implementation and development of the
North Chico area, including improved circulation, public utilities,
and public safety. Without the cancellation and de,/elopment of
the petitioners land the adjacent lands, which are zoned for
residential development, will not, in the near future develop in a
contiguous and rational way with respect to circulation,
emergency vehicle access and health and safety concerns as
expressed -in the North Chico Plan Goals and Policies.
Based upon the above, the petitioner, George Nicholaus respectfully seeks
,the recommendation of immediate cancellation by the Land Conservation
Advisory Committee.
LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _14 today of D e.c emb er
L999-, by and between F
hereinafter referred.to as "Owner", and the County of Butte, apolitical subdivision of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as "County".
WITNESS .ETH
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.
C'
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
F
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
19
1
WHEREAS, the placement of said property in an agricultural preserve and the
execution and approval of this Agreement is a determination that the highest and best use of said
property during the term of this Agreement or any renewal thereof is for agricultural uses;
NOW, THEREFORE, both Owner and County in consideration of the mutual
promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained and the substantial public benefits to be
derived therefrom, do hereby agree as follows:
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 property 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 improvement, this
Agreement shall be null and void for the land or interest in the land actually taken, but shall remain
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 i& deemed null and
void as to any land or interest in land subject to the Agreement which is taken byeminent domain.
V: This Agreement shall be effective as of the day and year first E-bove written and
shall remain in effect for a 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 tez (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 ?roperty 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 Conserv ation 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 accordance with
the provisions of Government Code Section 51283 and Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 99-124
Said cancellation fee may not be waived except as provided in Government Gude 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 the fee shall be
payable to the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, and one-half shall
v A
be payable to the County of Butte pursuant to Resolution No. 99-124.
21
3
VIII: Owner agrees, during the term of this Agreement, to provide County, upon ° ;
written request, with information relative to the income and expenses derived from and incurred in,
connection with-tlie use of the land subject to the Agreement for agricultural and compatible uses: '
The Owner agrees that he/she, his/her successors, and2assigns shall not,
divide by sale, gift, or financing, the property which is/the sub' ect of this Agreement into a parcel'
' - _ ' / fit•. i,/��/�'1
or parcels under separate ownership having less than ac/res. However, if the division is for
,
-' purposes'of transfer to immediate family members, then the property may be divided into a parcel ,
R or parcels under, separate ownership having no less than Laa acres, in accordance with the acreage
standards in D 1,'Column' 1 of Resolution 99-124, provided that a Joint Management Plan pursuant}
,to Government Code Section 51230.1 is executed. r:
TY +' (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 `
� . ; •��. ' .. � - um ,• � � r +
and the"remaining contracted lands conform to the above minim sizes.
-�
-} (c) Partial cancellation of this Agreement for a homesite segregation may
r
only be considered for aii 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 r v s
�y .�
66474.4'(b)(2), and if a permanent restriction prohibiting residential development is recorded on, the ,r41
F
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'
maint4ined c
"(d) Partial non -renewal of this Agreement is subject 'to the following, :a
- • 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. ,
4 r'
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 is null and void as to such land actually sold for that purpose. No penalty as
provided for in section VII shall be charged for a cancellation under this paragraph.
XII: This Agreement shall be canceled without payments or public hearing if it is
replaced by any other enforceable restriction authorized by Section 8 of Article XIII of the California
Constitution, including, but not limited. to, an open -space easement agreement pursuant to
Government Code Section 51255, or whenever there is no operative legislation implementing said
Article with respect to assessment practices.
XIII: The property of the Owner hereinabove referred to and to which the provisions
of the Agreement apply is situated in the County of Butte, State of California and is particularly
described as follows:
See—, Cie/C,'G�yjF� � P6-P�17. �r1C�'
Ct,�.�t
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, State 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 Phase1";
THENCE along a line parallel with and 60.00 feet northerly of the southerly line of said Remaining Lands,
South 89°42'01"West, a distance of 1868.22 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of California
State Highway 99 E;
THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" West, a distance of 209.82 feet;
THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line, North 63°19'53" East, a distance of 367.87 feet;
THENCE North 26°10'00" 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 right-of-way line of
California State Highway 99 E;
THENCE along said easterly right-of-way line, North 27°06'10" West, a distance of 302.30 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve having a radius of 618.80 feet, concave to the southwest, with a .chord
bearing of North 34°35'25" West, and a chord distance of 165.97 feet;
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 42°17'50" West, a distance of 216.97
feet;
THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line and along the northerly line of said Remaining Lands,
North 89°37'19" East, a distance of 2,743.37 feet;
THENCE leaving said northerly line, South 00017'59" East, a distance of 718.63 feet to the northeasterly
corner of said Lot "A";
THENCE along the northerly line of said Lot "A", South 89042'01" West, a distance of 325.00 feet to the
northwesterly corner of said Lot "A";
THENCE along the westerly line of said Lot "A", South 00017'59" East, a distance.of 200.00 feet to the
southwesterly corner of said Lot "A" and the Point of Beginning;
w �
Containing 48.23 acres, more or less.
FROFESSIgy�
VO esp• I
V•• C
A. N,q
cn:m� S•�
:n
No. 33381rM
Bruce A. Nash. .24
R.C.E. 33381
Registration Expires 06/30/02
XIV: If the Owner breaches the terms of this Agreement in a manner which results
in all or any portion of the property which is the subject of this Agreement not being. used for the
agricultural or open space uses contemplated by this Agreement, the parties agree that the County
would suffer damages, but that such damages would be extremely difficult and impracticable to
ascertain. Therefore, the parties agree it is reasonable to determine that the amount of the damages
which will be suffered by the County.and payable to it by the Owner in such event shall be based
upon the following calculation: $100 per month for any month or portion thereof in which such a
breach exists, multiplied by the percentage of the property affected by said breach. Provided;
however, that in no event shall the amount of such damages exceed $10,000. The parties further
agree that either party may give notice of non -renewal or partial non -renewal in accordance 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 upon termination
of this Agreement pursuant to said notice of non -renewal or partial non-renewaL
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner and County have executed this Agreement the
° day and year above written.
ATTEST:
JOHN BLACKLOCK,'Chief Executive
Officer and Clerk of the Board
i
V
Dolan', Chair
ounty Board of Supervisors
e
t
OWNERS(S)
,Evelyn C. Liptrap "
' G'OLTTs Resolufion0. 95-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF
r 7
SUPERVISORS AMENDING THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL '
PLAN AND 1ADOPTING THE=NORTH-CHICOTSPECIFIG'PLAN 7
' WHEREAS, ,Butte County initiated the specific planning process for the land area ;
generally, known as CSA 87 in the north portion of Chico; and
WHEREAS, numerous informational and discussion meetings were held by the
consultants and representatives of the County with the property owners in CSA 87 and
with representatives of the City of Chico on many subjects pertaining to the North
Chico Specific Plan, Rezone, General Plan Amendment, including but not limited to,
environmental constraints , growth pressures, circulation, drainage, airport ,
compatibility.; and {
WHEREAS,-. a Draft, Environmental Impact Report (DEM) was prepared and circulated
for public comment and the Planning Commission extended the pubic comment `
period for an additional thirty days beyond the statutorily required thkty days; and ;
,..
WHEREAS,.the Specific Plan text and accompanying maps were prepared with .
reference to' and in consideration of the 1983 Airport Land Use Handbook and, when
` r they became available, the .1993 Draft Airport Land Use Handbook and the Fnal
Airport Land Use Handbook, and
x WHEREAS, the Specific Plan text and accompanying maps were prepared with
reference to and in consideration of the F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Exposure Map and f
' related reports drafted in connection with the City of Chico•Airport Environs Plan
update process and consultations regarding land use compatibility conducted with the
City of Chico's airport planning consultant; and
WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission held duly advertised'and noticed
public hearings starting on January 13, 1994 and concluding on November 16, 1994 •,
'with a recommendation to adopt.the Rezone, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan
and EIR; and'.
r WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors held a duly advertised and noticed
. , public hearing on January 10, 1995 to consider the Planning Commission's
recommendations regarding the Rezone, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and i
4
EIR and the action of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's finding of
inconsistency with the 1978 Airport Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, public hearings at both the Butte County Planning Commission and the
Butte County Board of Supervisors considered the issue of overridin5 the findings of
inconsistency with the 1978 adopted Airport Land Use Plan for Chico Municipal
Airport; and.
WHEREAS, substantial testimony has been heard both. pro and con, and changes to
the Plan have been made as a result of testimony -and public review of the Specific
Plan and EIR;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Butte County Board of Supervisors do
hereby find and adopt the following:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. Comments on the Draft EIR were solicited, received, adequatey addressed and
incorporated into the Final EIR; and
C. Changes, alterations or mitigation measures listed in Section 3 of the Final EIR
have been required or incorporated into the project thereby eliminating or
substantially lessening significant effects identified by the County, responsible
agencies and members of the public; and
D. The Board of Supervisors has independently reviewed, analyzed and
considered the EIR and finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgement of
the County of Butte; and
E. Implementation of the Specific Plan will result in unavoidable and adverse
impacts in which no mitigation is available other than implementation of the No-
Project/No Development Alternative. These significant unavoidable impacts
include traffic and circulation, air quality impacts and land use impacts.
However, benefits discussed in 1, 2, and 3 below override these significant
adverse impacts and the Board of Supervisors makes the following Statement
of Overriding Considerations:
1. Traffic and Circulation Imams As discussed on Pages 9-9 of the Draft
EIR the impacts of the project were examined based upon the
assumption that no new traffic signals would be installed along State
Route 99 (per Caltrans policy) and that existing lane configurations
would be used as a basis for all scenarios. In addition, the New Arterial
2
,i
intersectiori is proposed to remain as an at grade intersection of State ;
Route. 99. As stated on Page 2-2 of the Final EIR (FEIR), traffic
operations at the unsignalized intersection of Keefer Road/State Route
•'99 intersection will operate at unacceptable levels, during the morning
peak period only, for left turn movements from Keefer Road onto. State'
Route 99.
ff The Specific Plan, through conditions of approval, has been modified to
{ • require the County to work with CalTrans on the installation of traffic
signals at SR 99 and the new arterial and Keefer Road. The Specific
Plan utilizes the existing creeks and sloughs as bicycle and pedestrian
z trails, connecting to the various land use area. This will assist in
minimizing the use of the automobile. In addition, the Specific Plan has
planned office, commercial and industrial areas which will make local jobs
-available for persons residing within the North Chico Specific Plan Area
and thereby reduce commuting traffic into and out of the area. '
The Chico General Plan identifies this land as a future growth area and .
`constrains growth in other areas. The Chico General Plan Map also
y depicts the Alternative Land Use Plan identified in the FEIR. Growth in
the Chico area is further constrained through agricultural preservation
policies, zoning, and "the greenline". The Chico General Plan requires
the infilling and increased densities to create a more compact urban
form. Thus, development within the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) '
area is necessary to accommodate future growth.
2. t. ,Air Quality Impacts: As discussed on Pages 10-1 through 10-11 of the
• - Draft EIR, the project will contribute indirect emissions associated .with
project -related automobile use, and will cumulatively exceed emissions
thresholds contained in the Air Quality Attainment Plan.
'
'Implementation of the Specific Plan will contribute indirect emissions
{ ` ; associated with project related automobile use, and will cumulatively
• exceed emission thresholds contained in the Air QualityAttainment Plan.
,The NCSP, more than' any plan in - the vicinity is designed to reduce the
' dependency upon the automobile and to reduce automobile trips.. The
*, location of the Village Core, the connection of the Village Core to the -
various land uses within the Plan, and the extensive trail and pathway
system, will contribute to lower emissions than standard urban/suburban
development.
Air quality impacts affect a regional area much larger than just the North, ,
Chico Specific Plan. Air quality impacts from any development within the _
• ''. Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin are of a type which would be
` expected to occur in connection with development anywhere in the
3 , S.
s
t
".County and can only effectively be'addressed on a region -wide basis. It
is questionable whether such. cumulative impacts attributable to the
adoption of this Plan are significant and they could not be completely
mitigated without prohibiting all new development., The cumulative r
impacts cannot be resolved with,project specific mitigation measures, but
could only be addressed in connection with overall development policies
in the Northern Sacramento. Valley Air Basin as a whole_
3.. Land Use Impacts: As discussed on Page 2-3 of the FEIR, the
implementation of the Specific Plan will cause the, cone sion of '
approArnately 1,630 acres of w4sting open space to urban/suburban
} uses. This area has been designated as a growth area for the City of
,Chico in their proposed' General Plan Update. The use :)f a specific plan
for more detailed planning allows for a workable solution to the traffic and
' drainage problems which have plagued the area.
The Chico General Plan .identifies this land as a future growth area and
Yf constrains growth in other areas. The Chico General Plan Map also
depicts the Alternative Land Use Plan identified in the FEIR. Growth its '
the Chico area is further constrained through agricultural preservation
policies, zoning, and "the greenline". The Chico Genera Plan requires,'
the infilling and increased densities to. create a more compact urban ,
• form. Thus, development within the NCSP area is necessary to
accommodate future -growth:
F. Project Alternative: In Chapter 5 of the FEIR, the Alternative Land Use Plan to, .
the project represents an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed
Land Use Plan contained in the Specific Plan as Figure 3-2. The Alternative
Land Use Plan locates proposed residential at densities greater than 1 dwelling
unit per acre, to a point 3,700 feet or more from the centerline of the main
runway of the Chico Municipal Airport. The Alternative Land. Use Plan relocates
the main arterial of the proposed Plan out of known wetlandhabitat; thus
minimizing potential impacts to wetlands.
Section 2: Overriding Findings regarding the Airport Land Use Commission. O,n
February 9, 1994 the Airport Land Use Commission found the North .Chico Specific '
Plan inconsistent with the currently adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico '
Municipal Airport, but did not make findings specifying the reasons fo- such
inconsistency. Government Code Section 65302.3 requires the NCSP to be consistent
with the said Airport Land Use Plan, unless the Board of Supervisors does not concur
with any provision of the Plan and adopts findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the
Public Utilities.Code. The Board of Supervisors does not concur with provisions in the
Chico Airport Land Use Plan which precludes any development in the airport environs
other than.1 acre or larger residential lots and agricultural uses. Furthermore, '
following the action,of the Airport Land Use Commission, an Alternate Land Use Plan
was prepared and is incorporated into the FEIR and the NCSP to provide for the
orderly development, expansion, . and long term viability of the Chico M inicipal Airport
and orderly development of the area surrounding the airport. Therefor-, the Board of
Supervisors makes the following findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section
21676.
A. The NCSP provides for the orders development expansion and Iona term
viability of the Chico Municipal Airport and orderly development of the area
surrounding the airport as follows:
1. Existing general plan and zoning provisions would have
allowed 1 acre parcels north of the airport which could
create significant. operational concerns for the airport. See
attached City of, Chico letter dated February 1, 1995.
2:. The NCSP reduces existing allowed densities off the north
end of the Clear Zone by increasing minimum parcel sizes
from 1 acre to 3 acres, as shown on the Alternative Land
Use Plan and thus makes the potential development in the
area more compatible with the orderly development and
expansion and long term viability of the airport;
3. Residential land uses, at densities greater than 1 unit per
acre, are not allowed within 3,700 feet from the centerline of
the main runway as shown on the Alternative Land Use
Map in the FEIR, thus limiting the potential for complaints of
incompatibility with airport uses;
4. Pursuant to the Alternative Land Use Plan noise sensitive
land uses are buffered from ground generated noise at the
airport, such as engine run-up, by locating industrial,
commercial and office land uses rather than residential
uses, closest to and adjacent to the airport;
5. Open space has been planned for the area westerly of the
Clear Zone, northerly of Mud Creek as shown on the
Alternative Land Use Plan in the FEIR, further reducing the
potential for complaints of incompatibility with airport uses;
6. One acre minimum parcel sizes are planned for the area..
north and west of Mud Creek as shown on the Alternative
Land Use Plan in the FEIR, which is consistent with the
currently adopted. Airport Land Use Plan for the Airport and
with the Airport Land Use Handbook pages 3-13, 9-19
through 9-25;..
-. 5
7. Airport expansion through the year 2010 is accommodated
by excluding new development within the 55 dB CNEL
projected for the year 2010 as projected by the Noise
Exposure Map for the Alternative. Land Use Plan in Chapter
5 of the FEIR;
8. The Specific Plan provides for airport protection measures
as part of the Development Regulations in Chapter 7 of the
Specific Plan, pages 7-6 and 7-7;
B. The NCSP protects the public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas adjacent to the
Chico Municipal Airport as follows:
1. Intensive uses as shown on the Alternative Land Use Map,
including the proposed elementary school, are located
abeam the runway, where the great majority of the
overflying traffic is light single engine aircraft, at reduced
throttle settings prior to landing as stated by the County's
consultant; Steve Honeycutt, in public hearings at the
Planning Commission on November 16, 1994 and at the
Board of Supervisors on January 10, 1995. This is also
shown on the, Generalized Flight Tracks exhibit following
page 3-12 of the FEIR and is depicted on the exhibit titled
Generalized Flight Tracks Over. Chico Urban Area attached
` hereto and presented by the County's consultant, Steve
Honeycutt at said hearing on January 10, 1995;
2. Intensive uses as shown on the Alternative Land Use Map,
including the proposed elementary school are located
inside and away from the Heavy Aircraft Pattern 1 flight
track, which will minimize overflight and single event noise
occurrences from heavy aircraft, as stated by the County's
consultant, Steve Honeycutt in public hearings at the
Planning Commission on November 16, 1994 and at the
Board of Supervisors on January 10, 1995. This is also
shown on the Generalized Flight Tracks exhibit following
page 3-12 of the FEIR and is depicted on the exhibit titled
Generalized Flight Tracks Over Chico Urban Area attached
hereto and presented by the County's consultant, Steve
Honeycutt at said hearing on January 10, 1995;
3. The.State Division of Aeronautics, in its letter of May 19, 1992,
determined that the proposed elementary school site provides the..
minimum level of safety suitable for a school;
T. 6
4. Prior to development of .an elementary school at the 'proposed location,
which may be ten years or more in the future, there will be additional
opportunities to re-evaluate safety and noise considerations through
involvement of the Chico Unified School District, the City of Chico, the
State Division of Aeronautics, the Airport Land Use Commission, and the
..County.
5. Avigation easements are required, as indicated on page 7-6 of the NCSP
text, for all residential development within the Plan area;
6. The NCSP provides for airport protection measures as part of the
Development Regulation in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan,, pages 7-6 and
7-7;
7. The Accident Sites for Runways of 6,000 Feet or More, Figure 8F, taken
from the 1994 Airgort Land Use Handbook and superimposed with the
Alternative Land Use Map for the NCSP ( see attached E<hibit A),
together with testimony pertaining thereto at the Board. of, Supervisors'
public hearing on January 10, 1995 by the County's conEultant Steve
Honeycutt,. indicates that the accident probability is highest within the.
boundaries of the Chico Municipal Airport Clear Zones and very low in
the vicinity of the Village Core, including high density residential and the
elementary, school site.
8.- The attached Exhibit B, Comparison of Flight Tracks and School Sites,
together with the testimony pertaining thereto at the Board of
Supervisors' public hearing on January 10, 1995 by the County's
consultant Steve Honeycutt, indicates that aircraft on flight tracks at,
Chico Municipal Airport are at a sufficient flight distance and altitude_ so
as to not expose the high density residential and the elementary school
sites to excessive noise or safety hazards.
C. The NCSP provide land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the airport as follows:
1. Noise attenuation is required to be incorporated into all new residential
construction as indicated in the additional requirements recommended by
the Planning Commission and incorporated into the NCS? in Chapter 4
on page 4-7.;
2. Enhanced disclosure measures, alerting potential buyers and renters of
the operations of the airport, avigation, easements, and arcraft
operations,: will be required by Chapter 7, Section. 7.6-3 of the. NCSP;
7
The NCSP provides for airport protection measures as part of the
.Development Regulation in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan; pages 7-6
and 7-7;
Intensive uses as shown on the Alternative Land Use Map, including the
proposed elementary school are located inside and away from the Heavy
Aircraft Pattern 1 flight track, which will minimize overflight and single
.event noise occurrences from heavy aircraft, as stated by the County's
consultant, Steve Honeycutt in public hearings at the Planning
Commission on November 16, 1994 and on January 10, 1995. This is
also shown on the Generalized Flight Tracks exhibit following page 3-12
of the FEIR and is depicted on the exhibit titled Generalized Flight Tracks
Over Chico Urban Area attached hereto and presented by the County's
consultant, Steve Honeycutt at said hearing on January 10, 1995;
5. The State Division of Aeronautics,. in its letter of May 19, 1992,
determined that the proposed elementary school site provides the
minimum level of safety suitable for a school;
6. Prior to development of an elementary school at the proposed location, .
which may be ten years or more in the future, there will be additional
opportunities to re-evaluate safety and noise considerations through
involvement of the Chico Unified School District, the City of Chico, the
State Division of Aeronautics, the AirportLand Use Commission, and the
County.
7. The NCSP reduces existing allowed densities off the north end of the.
Clear Zone have been reduced by increasing minimum parcel sizes from,
1 acre to 3 acres, as shown on the Alternative Land Use Plan in the
FEIR and thus makes the potential development in the area more
compatible with the orderly development and expansion and long term
viability of the airport;
B. Uses involving. high concentrations of people, including such uses as
social halls, churches, rest homes, convalescent homes, sanitariums and
foster or group homes will not.be allowed as a matter of right within
areas designated as residential zones, but will only be allowed if a use
permit is obtained in each case, subject to findings being made, following
a public hearing, that such use would not be detrimental to the health
and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood or to the general health, welfare and safety. Chapter 7 of
the NCSP, . pages 7-08 through 7-12, and Butte County .Code Section 24:
45.10.
Section 3: Action
8
A. Certification of the EIR: Subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1
and 2 of this resolution, certify the Final Environmental Impact Report
with mitigation measures as contained in documents entitled Draft
Environmental Impact Report on amendment of the General Plari and
adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan, dated December, 19-03, Final
Environmental Impact Report on amendment of the General Plar and adoption
of the North Chico Specific Plan, dated October, 1994:
B. Adoption of the Specific Plan: Adopt the North Chico Specific Pian amended by
the Revised Draft North. Chico Specific Plan, dated Revised October, 1994 with
the conditions indicated below:
1: The Alternative Land Use Plan shown attached and labeled Figure 3-2
shall replace Figure 3-2 contained in the North County Specific Plan
(NCSP). This shall be the Land Use Plan for the NCSP.
2. The Final NCSP shall be revised to incorporate all of the changes shown in the
Revised NCSP, dated October, 1994 and the mitigation measures of the FEIR,
where appropriate, as policies or regulations of the NCSP. The Figures and.
Tables shall be revised to reflect the Alternative Land Use Plan. All Figures and
Tables shall indicate the source, the preparer, and the date of preparation. All
references to the Rezone and the General Plan Amendment shall be purged
from NCSP, except for a historical reference to this approval process.
3. An Agricultural Policies subsection shall be added to the Chapter 3 - Land Use
and a policy shall be added which states as follows:
All existing orchards shall be permitted to continue, without
interference or.interruption by development.
4. Staff shall work with PG&E to select a street lighting fixture which shall be
utilized as the standard street light in the area south of Mud Creek. The ;
Specific Plan shall be amended to require the installation of street lights in the
area south of Mud Creek as a requirement of development. In addition, the
CSA or other funding mechanism shall be utilized for the payment and
maintenance of street, lights.
5. The NCSP, Chapter 4 - Circulation, page 4-7, shall be revised to add the
following policies:
B. Enhanced street entries shall be required at the
following locations:
a. The new arterial/ Highway 99 -
9
b. The north and south entry to the
industrial area
c. The new Hicks Road/Eaton
Road Y
d. The new arterial near Mud Creek
e. The new arterial near Sycamore
Creek
The entry shall consist of landscaping and
- hardscape. Rock or block walls shall be.
installed behind the sidewalk. The name of
each land use'area shall be designed into the
Rock or block wall, such as Village Area,
Industrial Park, and the like. Shrubbery and at
least four specimen size trees shall be used to
further enhance the entry. Each entry area
shall also have a raised landscaped median
with a left turn pocket. The design of the
street entries shall be approved by the
Directors' of Development Services and Public
Works.
:9. A detailed alignment study for Old Hicks
Road/New Hicks Road and Eaton Road shall
be prepared by or under the direction of Butte
County. The study shall indicate the precise
engineering of the (right of way) alignment ,
the removal or -relocation of structures, the
installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and other
infrastructure necessary to accomplish the re-
alignment.
10: Noise attenuation along existing and proposed
arterials shall be required to' protect residential
development proposed to be located adjacent ,
to the proposed arterials. Noise attenuation
measures shall be required to reduce interior
e noise levels to 45 dB for proposed residential
development adjacent to existing or planned
arterials and/or when adjacent to Highway 99.
6. The Alternative Land Use Plan contained in the FEIR indicates'a mini park on
the new arterial. The Land Use Plan shall be revised. to eliminate the mini park:
10 ,_
7. The Alternative Land Use Plan shall be amended to remove the Land Use
Summary table, to show the Heavy Industrial area and the surrounding Open
Space/Greenbelt as a green and blue cross hatched area and to show an area
west of Hicks Lane as R-1 Low Density Residential. In addition, the following
note shall be. added to the map:
Street alignments are conceptual and subject to precise
engineering. The Greenbelt areas along the creeks and
sloughs are conceptual in nature. The precise extent of
those areas shall be defined on the basis of land division _
maps, detailed engineered site plans and the like.
8. Add additional policies to the Circulation Chapter 4, which state, "No new street
alignments shall exclude safe and convenient access to properties." and
"Countystaff shall pursue negotiations with Caltrans for appropriate traffic
control, including but not limited to, traffic signals and street. alignments along
Highway 99, primarily at the intersections of Keefer Road and the new. arterial."
9. All revisions to the NCSP text and maps shall be made within 45 calendar days
from the effective date of approval of the related rezone ordinance.
10. For all residential properties of the North Chico Specific Plan, full mitigation of
school impacts shall be required in accordance with the following policy added
to page 6-13, under Chapter 6, Public Facilities and Services Element, under,
School Policies:
4. Impacts to school facilities within the Chico
Unified School District (CUSD) shall be fully
mitigated through the payment of mitigation
fees in the amounts justified by CUSD
prepared nexus studies, including
adjustments, and adopted by the District, or
through the implementation of other equivalent
measures acceptable to CUSD, including
.those measures specified in the CUSD Board
of Education Resolution No. 486-92.
The County recognizes that the new
residential growth contemplated by this
Specific Plan will result in significant increases
in the student population of the Chico Unified
School District ("CUSD"). The County also
recognizes that funding limitations have
severely hampered CUSD's ability to
accommodate students generated by new
residential development. Accordingly, the
County, as a condition of approval of this
Specific Plan, has required that new residential
development fully mitigate its impacts to
school facilities. But for this full mitigation
requirement, the County would not have
approved this Specific Plan.
Section 4 Effective Date
This action shall become effective on April 28, 1995, thirty calendar days from the date
of adoption of.this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of iButte, State of
California, on the 28thday of March , 1995 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Meyer, Dolan, Thomas and Vice Chair Houx
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chair McLaughlin
NOT VOTING: None
AVU L'Otl
MARY VNt HOUX, VICE CHI:1,13
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:. John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer.
and Clerk of the Bo
By
Attachments: Exhibit A: Aircraft Accident Characteristics: Accident_ Sites for
Runways of 6,000 Feet or More
Exhibit B: Comparison of Flight Tracks and School Sites
Exhibit C: Generalized Flight Tracks
Exhibit D: Generalized Flight Tracks over Chico Urban Area
Exhibit E: Increases in Residential Densities as a Result of the
Specific Plan
FIGURE 3-2: North. Chico Specific Plan Land Use Map
, a . 12
_�
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
.r
• 505 Wall Street
CITYoFCHICO P.O. Box 3420 .
INC. 187Z Chico, CA 95927
(916) 895-4800;.
Fax(916)895-4825
ATSS 459-4800
L-AGR-5-1-10/Chrono February 1,• 1995
Ed McLaughlin,. Chair
Butte County Board of supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear .Ed:
I am writing on behalf of the City Council regarding the County's
proposed action approving the Specific Plan for County s:rvice"Area
87.
As you are aware, the City Council, in a cooperative effDrt with
the Board of Supervisors, incorporated the CSA 87 specific Plan
into the newly adopted General Plan of the City of Chico•. That
action was taken based upon the county's efforts to meet the city's
• concerns regarding development in the vicinity of the Chico
Municipal Airport.
It is our understanding that the Board has considered a direction
which would provide one-acre lots north of the airport. You should `
be aware-that the City is very concerned about this direction and,
in fact, an integral part of our approval was the designation of
this area. for 5-acre parcels. In an effort to compromise, we had
agreed to the latest proposal of 3-acre parcels, again, however,
clearly preferring a 5-acre-minimum parcel size.
We believe that any development north of the airport in the
approach zone could create significant operational concerns for.the
airport and is an unwise course of action. As I believe, you are
aware, some of the residents of the existing development in that
area have already opposed airport activities.
The airport is critical to the economic future of the City and.
County, and we hope that you will reconsider this direction.
sincerely,
Michael McGinnis Sows
Mayor goAF;DOFS1)p .
cc: City.council Z
Airport Commission-
Airport Land Use commission o
John Blacklock.
Steve Honeycutt
City Attorney
Assistant City Manager
Community Development Director
�,' • .. "\ZCq Mede From Recycled Paper .
COMPARISON OF
FUGHT TRACKS
AND SCHOOL SITES
uco
ICVAL ,
PoaT A
s
ZA
11.700 LF
l(Low LF rAwamn
WMAWA MOL
` L....
13.100 LF 11.100 LF
vAaFROM E38 11.900 LF PLEAa1MrrALLEV HNW
30WELL:mm
"1. DISTANCETO RUNWAY ALONG FLIGHT PATH IS TME MOST RELEVANT MEASUREMENT. NOTOIRECT.
y 2' LOCATION ABEAM THE RUNWAY EQUALS ALTITUDE EQUIVALENT TO 2 12 TO 3 MILES
3. PROPOSED LOCATION COMPARES EQUALLY OR FAVORABLY TO BIDWELL JUNIOR HIGH. MCMANUS. AND OTHERS,
r
'
L
=m
V-1
c 111
.7
0
0
7 It,
e
AM
..... ... ...
if D
CHI CO MUNICIPAL
. ...... Z AIRPORT
Now
—A
9
-',t RT 150
FAR PA
t AIRPORT
4NOISE
COMPATIBILITY
A—J
!4-
draa�PROGRAM
.0416 AND
STRAIG
ID.4
IX 4 04VIRONS PLAN
77� -
k
SCALE
FEET V)
7:'
NORTH
0 -000 20004000
...... ......
LEGEND
a "I V Aro-Or. BOUnOWY
-e
EXHOIT fV
GENERALIZED
FLIGHT TRACKS
r
P&D Aviation
A Division of
P&D Technimiogies
EXHIBIT C
P:
SUagmas jets and HOSVY Aircraft
ev
Z
Lig". Arfcfuf
Lm"led Use Pilitt"m
A-
Isnots! Practice Drop Pattern
4,
0
Nse Mocutorling Site
Noose
44 IF
Norse btonnoring Site
t
Aw,gstion F-SmOffwnt
AlAmvs
I jrscK Designator
in jot
01
Dgosrture Track Designator
1
TG
Toucn ano Go Track Designator
EXHOIT fV
GENERALIZED
FLIGHT TRACKS
r
P&D Aviation
A Division of
P&D Technimiogies
EXHIBIT C
GENERALIZED FLIGHT TRACKS
,� ,��� _ •:i .T� OVER CHICO URBAN AREA
� � •�� �I ,`,, Gene, elized 111 I uedls pe, FAR Poll 150
., Anpo,l Nase bpoaue .e'.
ep Repat ay
';�• •v ;cE:£;f \^ McClintock. Bed1a fl Aeswatee
�$:'r'!.i %.♦ `�`,.` DeLemb1m. 1992
�• \,.
ii�'r•. 5? ,.'\ `' .. \. r �,. •. Lana us<i by 1ledtage PB,VIae enA
City of Chico Planning DepxOnanl la
`. !;:•� :y, �' \ f _ l:•+11g AI Plan UppA AIB
G: v:• II 1 ♦' ' ,\ - - Mad, 199]
��.:..'!'::<%`;:.....�.. AAA 1 � � ♦ \ ,
X.
-.•--I :: ' 44.iiAAYi� J \\I 11 . f f _ �1
\ t
'Yy Y ♦ 1 %
v
� 1 q
Ifu�
ISS _ ,
I
n
4� =
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING, AGENCY ARNOLD SGHWARZENFrrER,Sovemor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DiviDoo TS Street, Su
OHo using Policy Development
_o "m
P. O. Box 952053 �� I
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053_
(916)323-3177
FAX (916) 327-2643 -
California's Deepening Housing Crisis
'February 15, 2006
High Demand/Low Supply
California continues to experience very high rates of population growth and further•
tightening of its housing markets. Even encompassing the recession of the early 1990s,
California's population grew by an average approximating 450,000 people annually and is
projected to gain around 600,000 annually over the next decade.' As of January 1, 2005,
California's population was 36,810,358 which increased by 539,267 people in 2004.2 The
population increased 1.5% from the calendar year 2004, which was lower than the 1.8%
growth between 2003 and 2004.3 As in 2001, the United States became home to more
than one million immigrants in 2002. California was home to the largest number (291,191
or 27.4 percent) of the 2002 immigrants.4
Housing production has not kept pace with the State's housing needs, particularly in the
coastal metropolitan areas and housing need has worsened, especially for renter
households and low income owner households throughout the State. During the 1980s,
2.1 million units were built whereas the 1990s saw only 1.1 million units built. While the
average annual need is projected at approximately 220,000 housing units, construction
has lagged substantively below the need. Since 1999, less than 170,000 residential new
construction permits have been issued each year. During 2004, 212,960 new homes and
apartments were built, representing the highest production since 1989.5
The greatest production gap is in multifamily housing. Multifamily development only
accounted for approximately a quarter of all new units during the 1990s, a drop of nearly
70 percent from the levels of the 1980s. Since 2000, the number of multifamily units has
increased slightly, totaling approximately 28 percent of all new units constructed.6
' State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for California and Its
Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento, California, May 2004.
2 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City/county Population and Housing Estimates, 2005,
Revised 2001-2004 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2005.
3 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates, with Annual Percent
Change, January 1, 2004 and 2005. Sacramento, California, May 2005.
4 State of California, Department of Finance, Legal Immigration of California in 2002. Sacramento, California,
October 2003
5 Construction Industry Research Board, California Construction Review, May 31, 2005.
6 lbid
j California's Deepening Housing Crisis ."Page`2 of 7
Increasing Housing Costs/Decreasing Homeownership ,
California's homeownership rate in 2004 was the second lowest in the nation (59.7%) and
10 percentage points lower than.the national homeownership rate (69%).7 As of
December 2005, only 14 percent of California's households could afford to buy the '
median priced single-family home, while nationwide, affordability was 49 percent$: The' .
California Association of Realtors reported December 2005's median price of an existing`,, -
single -family detached home. in California was $548,430 representing a 16 percent''
increase over, December 2004's median price of $474,270. The disparity between t .
housing production and need has resulted in double-digit year-to-year percentage
,..increases in the median price over recent•years.10 California households, with a median'
household income of $54,140, are $73,810 short of the $127,950 qualifying income
needed to purchase a median -priced home at $545,910 in California, according to the.
California Association'of Realtors Homebuyer Income Gap Index TDA (HIGI) report for the i
third quarter of 2005.11 Following•is'a comparison of several county and community
median home prices reported for December 2005 and 2004 to reflect regional differences
in the State.12 4
Riverside/San Bernardino $394,790 20.7%
Los Angeles $552,760 19.3%
Central Valley $354,790 17.0%
s Orange $702,290 12:0%
Santa Clara.R $734,950 11.4%
3
- Sacramento $379,010 9.0%
t;
Growing Income Inequality
While housing prices have been escalating, numerous studies have documented a
widening gap in earnings reported by low-income versus high-income households
throughout the nation. The share of reported earned income attributable to the top 20
Riverside/San Bernardino $394,790 20.7%
Los Angeles $552,760 19.3%
Central Valley $354,790 17.0%
s Orange $702,290 12:0%
Santa Clara.R $734,950 11.4%
3
- Sacramento $379,010 9.0%
Growing Income Inequality
While housing prices have been escalating, numerous studies have documented a
widening gap in earnings reported by low-income versus high-income households
throughout the nation. The share of reported earned income attributable to the top 20
..
percent of taxpayers has been rising whereas it has been falling for the bottom 80 •^
.. percent.
` ' US Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership Annual Statistics, 2004.
;
r Y� A
8 California Association of Realtors, Press Release, February 9, 2006, http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzL 5MjLg=., -
9 Ibid
10 California Association of Realtors, Press Release, February 25, 2005.
^F:
11 California Association of Realtors, Press Release, November 1, 2005, http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU2MjY=. 3
12
California Association of Realtors, Press Release, February 9, 2006
13 California's Changing Income Distribution, Office of the Legislative Analyst, State'of California, August
• 2000. ,,
.• +
California's Deepening Housing Crisis Page 3 of 7
Rent/Wage Gap/Tight Housing Market
California is second only to Massachusetts in terms of the hourly wage needed to afford a
two bedroom apartment at fair market rent (FMR). In California,. an extremely low income
household (earning $19,327, 30% of the Area Median Income of $64,422) can afford
monthly rent up to $483, while the rMR for a two bedroom unit is $1,104. A worker
earning minimum wage ($6.75 per hour) must work 126 hours per week in order to afford
the average two-bedroom unit. The Housing Wage in California is $21.24; this is the-
amount
he amount a full time (40 hours per week) worker must earn per hour in order to afford the
average two-bedroom unit, and is more than three times (315%) the minimum wage
($6.75 per hour). 14
One of the main factors that accommodated the housing shortfall in the 1990s was a
reduction in both homeowner and rental, vacancy rates, demonstrated by the significant
drop in vacancy rates between 1990 and 2001. The homeowner vacancy rate decreased
from 1.8 percent to 1.2 percent, while the rental vacancy rate decreased from 6.0 percent
to 5.4 percent during the same time period.15 Vacant units were used to absorb a
significant amount of the housing demand during the later half of the 1990s, resulting in
extremely tight housing markets limiting mobility in many populous metropolitan areas; an
option that is no longer available to help address California's housing shortage.
Overpaying.
Over four out of ten of all California households are renters, and renters face the greatest
affordability challenges. In 1997, nearly a quarter of the renter households in the State's
metropolitan areas (1 million out of 4.2 million households) spent more than half of their
income on rent. 16 HUD (Census 2000) data indicates that 35 percent of California
households and 40 percent of renters spend more than 30 percent of their income on
housing. 17 In 2002, almost half a million of California's working families were "officially"
poor with incomes below the federal poverty level (FPL). Many more families (nearly 1.4
million) with incomes above the FPL, up to twice the FPL, still fell short of earning an,
income level to provide an adequate standard of living. 18
In.many counties, fair market rents exceed the monthly payments families receive from
CaIWORKs, (the State's cash assistance program for poor families), or the Supplemental
Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) program, which provides cash
assistance to the elderly, blind, and disabled.19 The two-bedroom FMR exceeds the
CalWORKs grant fora family of three in 31 counties, and equals at least 80 percent of the
grant level in every California county. In 2003, FMR for a studio apartment exceeds the
SSI/SSP grant for an elderly, blind, or disabled recipient in 13 counties, and exceeds 50,
percent of the grant in 40 counties. 20
Overcrowding
14 Out of Reach 2004, National Low Income Housing Coalition.
15 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership Statistics 2002; Homeowner and Rental
Vacancies by State 1986 to 2003 (Tables 3 and 4).
18 Locked Out:Califomia's Affordable Housing Crisis, California Budget Project, May 2000.
17 State of the Cities Data Systems: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, Census
2000.
18 (Working Hard, Falling Short: Investing in California's Working Families, California Budget Project, January
2005
19 Locked Out 2004: California's Affordable Housing Crisis, California Budget Project, January 2004.
20 (bid
California's Deepening Housing Crisis Page 4 of 7
Between 1980 and 1990, the percentage of overcrowded households in California nearly
doubled from 6.9 percent to 12.3 percent. Census 2000 reports more than 15 percent of
California households were overcrowded with overcrowding most common among low-
income households, and most prevalent in renter housing. Roughly 24 percent of renter
households statewide were overcrowded; in some counties, nearly a third of renter
households are overcrowded. One quarter of all overcrowded renter households
contained more than one family. Of all owner and renter overcrowded households,
estimates are that more than half are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 persons per
room). Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of
the housing stock and infrastructure.
Homeless
Although reliable counts of homeless persons are illusive, in 1997 as many as 360,000
Californians were estimated to be homeless.21 In the worst circumstances, homeless
persons live in places not meant for human habitation: cars, parks, sidewalks, stairwells,
and door stoops. An estimated 80,000 to 95,000 children are homeless in California,
making the percentage of homeless children greater today than at any time since the
Great Depression.. Many persons in need of emergency shelter and transitional
housing are employed but cannot find permanent housing that is affordable.
Farmworkers
Employment in California agriculture increased 22 percent between 1985 and 2000. As
of September 2000, California farm employment peaked at 486,000.23 California's total
farmworker population (including family members) is estimated to exceed 900,000.
Approximately 60 percent of farmworkers are accompanied by a spouse, child or parent.
The median number of children in families of farmworker parents is two.24 Farmworkers
and their families cope with substandard housing conditions fraught with serious health
and sanitation problems. To avoid harassment, they often live out of sight in undeveloped
canyons, fields, squatter camps, and back houses.
Privately owned employee housing (licensed by California) has been steadily diminishing
In 1976, employers owned 1,254 employee housing developments sheltering an
estimated 45,000 farmworkers and household members. In 2000, there were only
approximately 1,000. licensed employee housing developments with capacity for 23,000
farmworkers and household members.
Assisted Housing/Preservation of At -Risk Units
California received fewer federal housing assistance dollars in 1999 for each individual
living below the federal poverty level than all but one of the ten largest states. While the
federal government spent, on average, $286 on housing assistance for each
impoverished person, California received only $171 per impoverished person.25 In 2000,
21 California Housing Markets 1990-1997, State Housing Plan Update, State of California Department of
Housing & Community Development, 1998.
zz California Housing Law Project, Facts and Issues; Homeless Children;
www.housingadvocates.org/default.asp?ID=170
23 hftp://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/rural data/housing/housing.html
24 California's Housing Markets 1990-1997; California Department of Housing & Community Development,
January 1999.
25 Ibid
California's Deepening Housing Crisis Page 5 of 7
465,340 families were on waiting lists for public housing and rental subsidies in 20 local
jurisdictions; only about 130,000 families now live in existing public housing or receive
federal tenant -based subsidies in these same 20 jurisdictions. At the rate of two children
in each family waiting for housing, almost a million children are on California's housing
waiting lists. 6
The shortage of subsidized housing and the potential loss of affordability restrictions on a
substantial portion of the government -assisted rental housing stock estimated to house
more than 375,000 persons is one of California's foremost housing problems. Over the,
1990's, thousands of federally -assisted privately -owned rental housing developments
have terminated affordability restrictions. Since 1996, California has lost more than
29,000 affordable units due to owners electing to opt -out of subsidy contracts and prepay
loans .27 The risk of owners, converting units with subsidized rents for market -rate rents is
greatest in the State's highest cost rental markets and is both immediate and continuing
beyond 2010. In California, the number of federally assisted units approximates . .
150,000.28 California's experience with market -rate conversion of the older -assisted
stock suggests.that unless new incentives are created to retain Section 8 assistance, 15
to 20 percent of owners of Section 8 inventory are likely to opt -out and terminate their _
relationship with HUD. Due to tight rental markets in many parts of California, the State
has had a level of prepayment and conversion among older -assisted HUD properties that
is triple the amount of any other State.
4
"The Long Wait, The Critical Shortage of Housing in California," K. Williams, Corp. for Supportive Housing,
June 2000.
27 California Housing Partnership Corporation, June 2003.
28 California Housing Partnership Corporation, June 2003.
r
hc021506.doc
+ e
y
�a • c ants CI ra •' Merced
Santa Cru Madera
Fresno lnyo
n Ben r
,United States- 49% r Mont a Tulare r y
• V~ Kings
California -14%
Sa Luis Obisp Kern
r r, 'a :. _ - r'" s r ,'p.` '. 'T _moi Fi, i �Y, i, rj ... � k � y +' •,.,,
Percentage.of households able to afford a median priced home. j 2 ; , •, aF
California Association of Realtors, Press Release February 9, 2006. Graphic representation by HCD. r A �-_ • ,«•
^G:\HPD\DIV STATS\C.A.R\CAR_DATA.XLS-Califomia2
" -