HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-72 MINUTES & STAFF FINDINGS #3 1 OF 782-1ZZ7
Finalization of General Plan amendments by resolUti0h
Ao Chico. Urban Area. Land. Use (Greenling)';
B Concdw Area General. Plan amen dmerr�;
Genera.
Cj Butte County Planning Commission cleanup
Plan amendment. '
MOTION: CERTIFY FINAL ZNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE
CONCOW GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT-
S M
2 3 4 5 (Und iinous].y carried)
VOTE: ?
MOTION: ADOPT RESOMUrYON 82-1.22 ADOPTING THE d9TCL AREA LAND
USE PLAN INCLUDING ASSOCIATED WRITTM POLICIES, THE
CONCOW AREA ,LAND USE PLAN AND FOOTHILL AREA RESIDENTIAL
TO THE BUTTE COUNTY
LAND 175E DE''iIGNATION A5 ANAMMDAMENDMENT
GE OF THE LAND USE
ING THE LANGUAGE
,�3ENBUCOUNTY GENERAL
OF5 BUTTE GT
M S
VOTE: 1 N 2 Y 3 `Y 4 N 8 Y (Motion Carried
000
OP sUPM18098 MINUTtt August 1i 1089
R
,'119 C1 PUBLIC, HEARING: CHICO AREA LAND USE, (GREENLINE) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
'
b�''' The public hearing on the Chico Area Land Use (Greenline)
General. Plan amendment was held as continued.
Charlie Woods, planning depurtmtent, set out the. draft that had
been presented to the "Board using the coalition pzoposal and changing
the wording in it from ordinance to policy. The draft also shows a commit-
ment on the part of the Board to review this every five years. The refer-
ence to the five years does not infringe upon an individual's right to
petition the Board for a change at any time, since the Board can make
three changes to the General Plan each year..
Supervisor .Saraceni was concerned that no change could be, made
unless there were no other urban or suburban lands reasonably available
for proposed development. He was concerned that there was nowhere else
that this type of thing was done in the Genera. plan. He did not Ebel
there would be time when there would not be rtii.table development land
available. The property located within the sphere of influence of the
city could be annexed and utilized as urban use, but if it remained in
the co!Inty, it would be agricultural use:
Supervisor Dolan was in favor of the restrictions, felt the
community support for a greenline`was to say go some other place to
build other than the west area. It does not eliminate the argument about
the east side.
Chaixman_Wheeler felt it was very ,restrictive afid the same would
apply if it went to the electorate and voted on by the people:
Discussion of city -country cooperation held at this time.
Supervisor Saradeni did not see the cooperation working both
ways;, the county has made several concessions in several areas of the
county and he did not see a reciprocation by the cities.
Chairman 'Wheeler stated when the Board had gone through the
hearings and made their decision on Entld
er an Sacramento Avenues, they
were very explicit about conserving agricultural land and gave direction
to the committee to meet with the city to come back with a proposal, which.
was done. This matter has taken four years since that time
Supervisor Dolan stated since the Ciyt of Chico adopted their
general, plan, there has been concern in that area that the county also
adopt a general pian similar to the general plan of the city. The board �
has granted jurisdiction on county lands for two big server assessment
districts. The. previous Board did dsciss the sphere of infttiencc.
80AR0 OF 8UPtRVI8OAS wjNutFs tilt'
I
Supervisor Saraceni found if the county is trying to ,eserve
agricultural land along with the city, when a piece of property moves
into•:city and the city does away with the agricultural use, that is
not • ,,eration with each other on the different lines as far as cooperation
in saving agricultural land is concerned.
Supervisor Dolan stated for the last 25 years the history has
been that the county was approving high density development and the city
Was trying to preserve agriculture. The reason for the controversy is
because of the approval of the high density developments. The county
approved apartments along Highway 32 and there were lengthy hearings x
that were approved on a split vote.. If there was to be development in
the west area, there would be a need to amend the General Plan and the
sphere of influence would have to be changed. The county would have to.
do something about providing sewer, because this is being provided ,to
the east ride and is not planned for the west side. It would have to be
a complete turn around in the policy of the city.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
a motion of intent was made to adopt the polic as
Y presented.
Supervisor Saracen:i stated under the change it talked about a
majority vote to change the location to the Chico area greenline, The
Change can only be made after written findings of fact. is th
cated in the other elements? at duel
Supervisor Dolan advised it was new, different, more restrictive
and harder than normal, Which was the intent of the greenline to establish
an urban growth boundary. The purpose is to have a restrictive urban
growth boundary,'
Chairman Wheeler stated the intent of the greenline was for
the conservation and preservation of'agricultural land. She found that the
language was parallel, to the request for Withdrawal from the W.i;lliamson
Act Agreement, which speaks to the preservation of agricultural land.
ko on motioni
AYE, *4pervisor8 Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
NOBS.- )ervisors Moseley and Saracen
Wti.or. carried.
Mt, Wo3ds stated the last step involved in this process was
land use designation. 9xhibit G is what the Planning Commission is
recommending. The Board has already made some changes that rel.atee to
SUDAD.
RECESS: 2t46 p.m
CbNVENE: 2e53 p.m
,ussioh of the various land use desJlgnations hgld at this
time. Nit, x,jods set out the Planning Commission recommendations for,
the Chapmaaxtown and the Mulberry Area at. this timethere were thirty
some changes that dere made,
BOA(�D Of SUPtVIS0�5 M
��y 22 1982
_
r ..
On mthtion h SupervIsor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and Carr ed, i is the Board's; intent to establish a land use deli natio
as recommended by the planning Cammissian, except, ss changed by the Boa n
intent trr establish the greenline. AYES.*
Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler. nd
NC�BSs Supervisors MoseleyFand saracenia
Louis Canienzindo Jr. , 219! Oroville-Durham Highway, the Board had just overthrown the Constit�itiot+ �,� g Y stated
p. , "fie State and United
unconstitutianal: He would like a things in this line were
States. xt na o Inion dome of the thing
greet'
pY what had been'`'done,
BOARD bP
,. UZ5bR5 M�I'tUi'�S .. el.ulY 22y �9$
�1�aEk
1}�
a
. .�.�.n .ucu-w uaGREENLINE)` GENERAL PLAN
MENT
The public hearing on the .Chico area 1'and
general plan amendment was heldas continued. use greenline)
Charlie Woods, planning departments advised that the order
of the process would be to cern£
of intent on the ro ect. Y and finalize the ;EIR prior to a motion
p The final BIR represents and reflects the
Board's understanding of the comments and the responses,
differ between the general plan and specific , the ►a guidelines X
recognize the opinions of individuals including eproject axperts. guidelines
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan. and seconded by Su
pervisor
Fulton that the Board certify the EIk,
Supervisor Saracens could not vote to certify tate E3R when
he did not believe that the questions had been answered. He was
concerned with downzoning, consideration cif property owners and the cost
to -property that was dowuzoned.
Supervisor Dolan advised the motion way
to fy the
and wan offered because she had read the document andctheicommentsjR The
decision on the placement of the line designation still remains..
Supervisor Moseley felt from the discussions that had been
Open
for lawsuits. accepts this; , if the Board' .they will be leaving themselves wide
hoped
e r
Chairman Wheeler advised that the amendments to the draft
ETTt answered eve during &
the Board to deal Withnwhetherwto hange theas raised Plan in - This allows {
particular area. Plan in this x
question Supervisor Sarsceni stated that a q ion was asked of
Planning ,as to how much Agrioultural land would be converted,
y questions he felt g The
had nat bee
estimate Was made without' the rev x designations for urban uses i
There are man
Y xpayers tri a situatiotl where theyecouldthat
be liableput
the count and to
Supervisot Dolan telt if there were questions relative to d
the Elk teen they should be discussed. at this time:
was trade of the project they started 'with the base line
64 wenttti Ah e£romnt W
ther64 There were 5;000 or 9*600 aches developed that come from
h ,. anning area to see what was built and
Physical observation. o£ the pl
what oras not built at the present time,
`The EIR talks about that already.
The desigr;ation zone located within the city limits is where the
difference lies between the two lines, this narrows
lines and between 1500 ait down between two
i
- 'nal 1600 acres,
00 Rp
OE 5UPERyTB0it5 fdINUTC July 21 � 7982'
w
Supervisor garaceni did not feel the EIRansneredof thee
questions relative to the lCouldoafbectevarcusthe �property owners-
downzoning cost and how it '
felt that the EIR set out potentials.
Supervisor Dolan
The buffer area proposals were discussed. andrwliatssize they
ded
Th and i£ so, where whether they _want to do :that.,
would want to use for a buffer zon2.
vxsor 'Fulton advised that the acreages were listed on
Super
vi
es 160 and vi He conceived the buffer as part of the position
p_&
of the establishment of the greenl tle.
d
Chairman Wheeler stated that questions
she had weretalking
at the podium and were �
answered in the amps►tion
about the redline.
Mr., Woods advised that that was discussed in the portion
of the EIR- '
s . of whether there
Supervisot Uo1.an stated the question for
should be a change in the GAneral Plan designation is, appropriate
the board. The EIR will. not aswer the question f
the next discussion by ro riate.._ Zoning and land use
of whether it is legislatively app P
determinations have been held constitutional and the county has the
d r
legal authority to do so since. the
early
gethat could be
.is
moral,, they agree; ot� like it, is, p y this can either
discussed for a Jong time by maing d chanson
The
change the potential value of the land upwards or downwards.
The physical. environmental issues and alternatives are set out and
the potential mitigation measures are set out and she did not have any
substantial Problems with the written:'EIR
Supervisor Saraceni stated that yestdtday he went through
the EIR and there were many p
robjams with it, The board has heard
ho have relied:. on the designation for use �of
testimony from people w
their land. `
"Vote on motion:
AXES: Supezvisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
NOMP Supervisors X68eley and Saraceni
M6tion Carried.
.oA �U�R"�igCt f�UTuy1 , V,Lai
•
•
'kOjEcr
Mr. Woods stated that the Board and Commission proposed a
;eneral Plan amendment for the Chico area land use designation, growth
Boundaries referred to as the
greenline and the policy statement. The
Lain alternative described has been the proposal by the coalition, with
he exception of lane use urban growth boundaries, tild different
olicies statements, it is up to the Board whether they wish to adopt
he Planning Commission line or the coalition line in total, a
ombination or make changes.
Discussion of the coalition proposed study area for the
ell -Muir area w�Cg- held at this time., if the Board contemplated
putting this property on the agricultural
at the Planning Commission during their hh side; this was not di8scused
if the, Board wishes to make a eaxings. The law'requires
Proposal not considered by the Commission,.
it must be sent back to the dOmmi.ssion on a teferral for report
back to the Board.
Mr. Woods made a ,slide
north :area, Durham -Dayton area, andesouth tarea. ion of the northwest area,
es
of the Department of Water Resources aerial photo slidesrdatediJune,
15824 Mr. Woods then set out the various exhibit,a that had been
Presented to the Board as far as the maps were concerned,
Discussion of SUDAD held at this time,
Chairman Wheeler stated a question that will arise is.
Whether there is a vested interest as tar as these particular pk
are concerned. _ls
various proposals fat believed in the Sudad area there were
Supervisor
P P r as the designation of the $reenli4ie« The
Board has discussed the drainaqj district, ectsthe ;coning and the
AIOrthwedt Chico zoning in 157x,, the joint count
dity The P"laanning Commi'the boundaties of the Northwest rezone-bme followed:
P
scion. expanded L9poni that to_*one and included the
Fabian PL�aperty and subdivided the area to make ,a triangular area
that abuts the Fabianro er
P P tY,� The coalition #1 line is fairly
Similar to' the committee recommendation, The
f01100S the boundaries of SUDAD she understood their ntdseatth
and reasoning but did not agree with iti She wcAt back and looked up
all the minutes surrounding the formation of the drainage district
which began in 193. She .rooked at the't.ctofilm rolls of the
newspaper reports. She reau the files that ate
located in the Clerk's
Okfice and the Public Works 'De artment�
county forms another assessment districtOnadO cl side 98 if 'the
, be
about what is on the public record. The public record 'for SUDAD
is not even available at one location,
a
Chairman Wheeler stated that Supervisor Dolan was correct
and she found the tedords to be inaccurate, and were pages of the
iuiaute� missing
960D OF Stir��`�tillS��S �1INUT�s - July 21 1`'�JB'z'
Supervisor Dolan said that the pages missing were the Board
members responses to the protection. She understood that a representa-
tion made by the. Public Works Director and Board members either in
or out of the meeting might have meant a comm{tment, unless they
went into the findings of the Board meeting. (,chat Was, the representation
to the Board or to the area itself is what is ih the official records.
She looked at the assesments and whether these trax:ts','.ated into
urban uses, She reviewed this in the context at the time the decisions
were being made for the drainage district which began in the early
1960s. There was no freeway atthattime, although there were
beginning discussions ,of the freeway and where it would be placed.
When the county becomes involved with the State Division of Transporta-
tion, the state always talks about drainage and always demand
drainage assessment districts. At that timet there was no General Plan
for the county and no zoning to speak of. There 'Was no Planning
Department, The Esplanade was a two-lane road, The U.S. Army Corps'
of Engineers was constructing Mud Creek dive7:sion channel. Chico
p Property ggg s faced with a freeway.
was faced withowners and overnment wa
11
over Esplanade it should be four late and + hpcl the county took
Esplanade 99 was-, oin to be the fkee
ne from Lindo Channel to a ,point
north of Shasta avenue or at Shasta Avenue. Property O hers in the
area formed a steering: Commitee and drew up the plans Add talked about
the drainage, problems in the north d ea.
The area was between Mud and Sycamore to the north, Bay to the west,
Bu,Lnap and Cohassett on the east and, bagicdIly, Lindo Channel on the
south. West East Avenue did not e:
on Morseman-Lassen area. ti st and neither did development
RECESS 12:00 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1!42 p . m.
The hearing was continued to late in the meeting.
11.82 � PUBLIC ;112ARING. 67TM APPA r Ax.r,
- _.......,.�,..�, uc..vr.tci�1, rLAN AMENDMENT
The public hearing on tfie Chico area land use (GreenlnE)
General Plan amendment was held as continued.
Supervisor Dolan continued her disceItsion on StMAb ne
xr ;yen the One -line and the other is about �. ` ; »res,
Her position is that part of SUDAD, except fur tiie 20t�.,,frr. frontage
on Esplanade, should be designated agricultural for various 'reasons
The assessments levied were considered V for agricultural use of the
land. The outfall was not construr�,,ed in this ar
constructed in a1.1 areasre
ea. where the asseents wrere indcatedey e
smas S for
subdivision and C for commercial.
and The outfalls through this district,
'�,artieularly, in this area were open ditches, which are agricultural
c',,a age tacx],3ttes..
The vrere petitions by property owners and
BOARD OP sUPt-RVISaos MINUTES � duly 21, 1982;
sup
porte
formthe f
rs, who indicated they 'were requesting ; that the . district br
ed for ouz-laneing of Highway g y 99 • If this did n ;a�. happens
the petitions would be :
nullafied. That is what the original initiation.
of the drainage ditch was for. The o-:Iier concerns of the drainage
district were in making sure that the State Divisions of Highway have
development to the east over to Coha:set Road, This shows that the
area was Li.ndo Channel to just a bit north of Shasta Avenue. The
road widening in curb stopped below East Avenue: The further
commitments were general statements Stich as en drainage
necessary for development of the north area, System is
is on the east side of Esplanade and they A never
of the district
what :north Chico me t, y Were never specific :about
Everyone had differing definitions of north
CVico during the 1960s. The true commitment of the governmental,
agency toward land in the assessment distract can be easily determined
by the assessment on the parcels-. The assessment was agricultural
except for the frontage on the Fabian property.
for agricultural drainage. They were paying
The assessments for commercial property
were six times more than thiat for agriculture. She believed the drainage
distract was formed for agricultural purposes also.
statements quoted in the ne Sh.; was aware of
Up in the count de paper that subdivision maps were held
y ps.tments, without some kind of drainage necessary,
to gather an advantage of state funds for this. There were substantial
Protests to the f"''mat.on of the district durlag the four hour hearing
and there is no indication that the protests were withdrawn. The
,
findings and. the re+rords show that this district was necessary for
p + there was no indic,"tion that zonin would
the ublic health welfare and
be achidved. She understood that the Esplanade and Highway 32 easements
were achieved at the time it seetrnd to have been done for !Jest East
JAV,gnue frontage. This was not done in this case but it was assessed �
farming.
The land use for this area is in aarici ltuxe"
6"pporting agriculture. T'he Schill Farm 'n Alkop Farm,
the 1"abiart property is in the -` g is in that area and
lliamsan Act. The inVest;ments in
agracuItural activities in these three parcels are extensive. She
has a, 1 ter from Allsop Farms which indicates their investment is in
the millions. As far As drainage facilities,
g > for the mo;gr pa.;t, they
da not exist even � r this area. There would be a need f't;r extensive.
upgxad7,ng of the drainage system, if the area Oere to hw des tensdt(
for-rxrbail uses. There toi:?,t, he a furthex ens
al parcels in the area sotchao£mMutl' Creetcuttang
On large agricultur
could ci:ie pressure for further subdividing, a which
':Sha felt that: the cou, ty could win the argw ton vested
are several coitt oaa'es c�tr this matter, sted rights. There
Oue case iinvalved fah tS,
for sewer purposes and the court did ryot require $acramettto "au>ity to
zone this area for izrba�n use.. Give�i the ext:eidtive drainage district
around the south cOuaty, if they aesignated this urban where the
assesmentcs were for agricuireare , it would be a devastat e
other areas, The drainaE f'acilitEa thraughauf the ing precedent
t
I'
the out£al.l was open. disc,, - .but: not co xa sane saes, ,
SUD1;D are aharrn on &•ihihi:t Db .and the area IS' extensive:
wire lowered as set 'but in kxhlbit E nstt-ucted,i and the assessments
inte,retatious she has la�.d ott what sheifeltven tshauldhe ohe�desinaterl
n her'
as agriculture. g
dOAi�p
OF SUPILIRVI On M Nl TE8 .. duly
0
Chariman Wheeler stated she would not argue the. intent of
1the Board, at that time. if the area. were left in agricultural or
placed into the urban area and if it went to court, it would be up
to the court to decide the intent of the former Board. She felt there
was sufficent evidence the intent was there for development at the
time. Based on the same information Supervisor Dolan had acquired,
there was ,also a proposal put together and supported by data developed
in cooperation with County Counsel, Public Works, and Ringel and
Associates which was circulated and supported by the Greater Chico
Chamber of Commerce relative to this matter, which she would put into
the public record. She read the information at this time. She felt one
of the most important issues was that the Board will allow no subdivision
unless there is drainage provided. The information further goes on t
to say that the State will not construct the freeway unless the drainage
district is formed, It goes on further to say that the greatest
benefits derived from formation of the drainage district would be
derived from the owners of property not now commercialized. She felt
that a commitment had been made, and based on the fact that two former,
Supervisors have indicated that was the intent even .Though it was not
in the record, she did not f,E1 that was the fault of the Supervisors
in full but a matter of poor record'keeping in the past. There is no
chronological record of events. There are a great many missing parts
and pieces. She felt this was the intent at the time the district was
formed.
Supervisor Dolan agr+zed it wa-s the intent, but did not
agree that it was the intent of the entire district. She referred
to an. editorial from September 2, 196+ in the Chico Enterprise -Record
It was her opinion that no patent argument for formation of the
district came from the Epi editorial.: .It is not in the resolution
voted on by the Board
Chairman Wheeler stated that A.P. O'Neill sent a memo to
the Board dated March 1.5, 1963 wh;.ch indicated that the Board is
probably aware orderly development could not occur without proper,
drainage. There is a page missing 'f. -am the minutes. The resolution
would not have spoken to the commitment* but the minutes is where it
would have been discussed4
it was moved, blyy Super'v'isor Dolan, that, x is the Board's
intent to establish a greenling based on. the Gk ,anal, joint city -
county committee prWposal, except it Mould beset 200 feet westerly'
of the Esplatada:
Motion hies for lack of second:
On motion of Supervisor Dolan; seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
And carried, -it is the Board's intent to designate this area based on
the recommendation called for iii%cr�alition line No.2. AYES: Supervisors
Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler. Noes. Supervisors Moseley and Saracens..
5n.ARp OP SUMV18ORs 14INUTES - July 21', 1982
A
Supervisor Saraceni felt that it was quite clear there had
been a great deal of confusion, over any line. The line relates to
protection of agricultural land. The county orchard and field crop
!designation and; zoning county -wide does protect agricultural. land.
lbere is no information showing that agricultural 'land is being
converted from agriculture to development. He felt that the property
owners had spoken to their concerns on the use of the property
through the line disignation.by the Planning Commission. For those
reasons, he felt that it would be downzoning to approve the other line
and could not support it.
Supervisor Moseley agreed with Supervisor Saracen.. People
that have asked to be taken out of the line should have a chance to
have their land removed. The matter should be sent back to the Planning d
Commission for that purpose. The county is creating a hardship on
those propsrty owners and she resented it.
Cha. -?-man Wheeler responded she had dealt' with this issue
for eight months and long before that. She felt that the county would
be in a better position and so would all of the property,owners if the
legislative body made the decision. Then the decision is with the
elected legislative body. This is merely a change in the General
Plan designation in the legislative process. Those changes can ;be made
either through the legislative process or the landowners themselves
have an opportunity to come forward and make application to the
county to make a change when the need does arise. There is land in
that area that is the most productive in the world. She did not feel
they should continue to asphalt the area clear to the Sacramento River.
If the Board does not decide the issue, it will be .decided by the
electorate and then can only be changed by a 4%5s vote of the people.
She telt it was important for the property owners to recognize this.
It is incumbent upon the-$oard to resolve this matter and not have it
resolved at the poles. She recogtixed ghat the people in the Community
were saying. They want an implemcintation of the designation.
Supervisor Saraceni stated the property designation change
will: be a downzonixig The fact is tha Board, as elected officials,
are acting like they own the property by deciding what should take.1
place with it. He felt there should be input from the property owfters.
Supervisor Dolan steted this a. General Flan amendment. General
plans and planning tools change. The Board is changing the General
Plan designation in some areas. In some areas recommendations will
change from open and grazing to urtsn or low density or ftoift low
density to agriculturei it is not downzoning+
7
Chairman Wheeler stated pursuant to state law, the county has
the ability to change the General Plan designation three times per
YEIAto
Generaeople are concerned about the twenty-year issue. That is
in
ge and is an issue by which each yaar there
is study and updating on a regular basis. The Board is not taking
any rights away that people do not have at this tune
BOARD OR SUPMISORS MINUMS � uuly 21 , 1;g8
.!Muir �aue��.��< •. ,' !�" .
k
Supervisor Moseley stated that the federal government just
came out with statistics that show there was two mi',lion acres of
agricultural land that has never been touched. In looking through
history, people, who becov: crowded, are forced then to do something
else: '
Supervisor Dolan stated the decision that had ;just been
made 'was to designate the Alk,oa Farms as urban area. This is a very
important issue to the commtud t�r_of Chico.
It did not just star in the last eight nontke but has been going on since
the City ,of Chico developed, th-ir General. Pl,,_i
x� n 1962 and hada guide
for agricultural land. There has been wide disagreement between the
county and the cit on this issue., One of the thins this will do is
y
to get the city and county to agree on gXbwth Another issue is for
the community to consider a community that they would be proud to
turn over to the heirs in the future,. s`hey must also consider: a
community that they can afford. She felt there was a slight difference
between considering and 116tening to the wishes and wants of peoples
Because someone does not agree with tlia wishes and wanes does tot mean
that they did 'riot listen. From her experien,-e in the community, by
grokv ng up there and ...i:ace 1972.as a City Planning Commi rsioner, it
was her feeling it was time for the Board to act responsibly.
Supervisor Saraceni stated when a line such as this is
established, development will. be .in one a'l.,,ea and eliminates the
ability to develop iri other areas. The tilard has heard testimony that
if this :Line is passed, the county would be restricting some properties`
in the use of land that other ptdlg5erties hale the opportunity to do.
Na one could show him any one COW 'J, that hal doan the same tiring
that of a decisiron. attempting ti. do . He could not support that
that Butte Goon r was at
Supervisor Dolan stated it was 4u„t , clear what was being
done. This was a.Genetal Plan amendment and every single county and
city does general plan amendtaentsh They are cl.esignating an urban
growth boundary,. She asked that Supervisor t4aceni check with
Fresno, holo, Santa, crdz, and Visalia Coubties
Supervisor Saraceni again stated the county already had
a General Flan that relates to the protection of agricultural land and
that there are designations to protect that agricultural land and there
is zoning county -wide to protect it
Supervisor Moseley would like to know how much it cost the
county to consider this project.
BOOR OP :SUpBftMORS MINUTES jul, 21 1982
Supervisor Dolan stated if they were going to calculate tc—.
cost for the proposal, then the Board needed to take part' in the added
cost for the information that is in the EIR The maps that they now
have are the same information she had two years ago. The maps are
repeated. She would like to know 'how many exhibits there were before
the Planning Commission hearings, at the time they forwarded' their
recommendation to the,Board-, how many have been added to that during the
Board hearings, and what thay spent at that time. The Board could have
taken action last December, January, Febuary or :larch. It is always
three members of the Board who make the final decision.
i
a
i
r
I
Chariman Wheeler stated there were questions raised about:
putting the county in legal jeopard, if they made the General Plan
designation. There was also discussion about; taking of land,, which
had to be solved.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, spoke regarding the question
of whether rezoning,constitued inverse condemnation. The only remedy
is to have the cone reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court has not had a
opportunity to rule on that matter. As far as case law is concerned,
there arereally_no damages awarded or liability found unless the use
of the property is virtually prohibited. In case law, as long as there
is some general use of the land, they have not found for damages,
His ;opinion was that with the General Plan change that is before the
Board, this would not constitute any kind of liability,, because there
are uses on either side of the line.
Supervisor Dolan stated rand use divisions are never parcel
specific.. How a development arises will affadt that propertyt,s
neighbors. Use of surrounding laid effects other property: The Board
has had farmers talk about right's of fattwland The more development
that moves in, the more complaints the county receives.
Northwest Chico Area
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, it is the intent of theBoardto have a greenline as
recommended by coalition line N041 and at a further time to consider
a study area. AYES! Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chaii-man 147hee1er:
NOEStSupervisors Mosely and Saracenii,
j
.West Chico Area
p ' y pe Wheeler
On motion of Supervisor Dolan seconded b Supervisor
and carried, it .is the Board's intent to designate 'the rreenli ehws
described in the ro osal called the coalition from Muig
Highway f
and Big AYES Super rlsors Dolan., l:ulton,
and Chairman o
ChairmanOblteelet- NOES! Supervisors Coseley and Saraceni.
198
gUARD OR SUpRRVTStlR5 MOMS� duly 91 ��..
�1
West_ Chi_
co Area
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded; by Supervisor
cludes
Wheeler that from Big Chico Creek to Little Chico Creek, following
North, Graves as designated follow the greenling the ba ly follong
the street boundaries of North
Gra
e ,wh is
areahit placed sonathe agricultural
"S-R!' zoning, that the agricultural
side.
Chairman Wheeler stated, pririarily from Oak Park to River
Coad, this area is Contigv
ust to the city, and some areas directly
about the
the incorporated area of the City of ChctlEtenownershhave
Board is placing an agricultural designation, p p
a mechinism for development through annexation. 'i'he.r
ause the city services, arenava� fable,
application for annexation bec o through the area.
because there are sewer trunk and water lines 'that,gg
Supervisor Dolan sated they could request aninexaton, but
it requires approval of Lafco and the app
noval of the agency to be
and
ning -
annexed to. The area is currently zoned"A-10"
severUtrunk whicheruns
e
not taking away anyone's r� ghts . smile n to
down Rose Avenue, is at capacity, the Gty of Chico is trying
g i
accou►odate the.. last side. Because the sewer trunk runs through that 1
, it does not mean there is available capacity
area, as the land was located
Supervisor 5araceni stated as longeS. If it is located in
within the city, it can be used for urban Use
it must be used for agriculture. As Long as can
ibuilt
an
the county)
it does not mutter how deep the soil Vis. It can be b h
anne �
on. r _
Supervisor Dolan advised soil was one :onsidcrat3.on. Zoning,
p
arcel size and services in the area were other consideratidnso
Vote. on motion:
AYES :Supervisors'Dolan, Fulton, and Chairman Wheeler
NOE'S: Supervisors Moseley and 5araceni
Motion carried:
Durham-Da"lton Area
Wheeler asked that the 11e1dinger; Sweet Nectar
Chairman sitb�ivisioric� on the conked properties
Enterprises, and underlying ossJble
be referred back to the planning
Comm3,ss�on for review and p
e 146U
inel"ion or change of zoning in th ftItUtoi thehBoard'
3a rd d life to send
it buck for a study and a recomme
f3 A�q 0� SOMISORS MI UT5S July '2l f �9
Vote on motions
AYES Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisors Moseley and;Saraceni
Motion carried.
South Chico. Area
and carried the intent of the Board is to des'
' tion of Supervisor Dolan seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
mo
Proposed b the coalition. . �.golan a ultonl nd as
Y AYRs . Supervisors Dolan, Fulton unci
Chairman Wheeler NOES Supervisors Hoseley =d Saracen±.
RECESS: 4:45 p.m.
RECONVENE: $:00 p.m.
The hearing was continued to .duly 22, 1982 at 1 3py,
p;m.
it was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor
Wheeler that the Board's intent to des'
8uate a greenl3ne be as
recommended b the coalition which is the
y r � pennsula concept.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the biBest i
property is located wit!Un a Land Conservation Act agreementoana with
the window provision there could be application to withdraw from the
Williamson Act. They could,then,apply for a General Plan change at
that time,
BOARD op aUP. 11VISO S 11N'uT duly X9$2
PUBLIC HEARING: CHI'CO AREA LAND USE PLAN(GRE
i
The public nearingon the MINE) — GENERAL PLAN'AMENDMENT
Plan amendment was' he) d as ontinued ico area land use plan Cgreenline) General
Woods g p � g
hearing.. Plannin de artment set, out the: background of the
Charlie
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Raymond Jans. Mr. Jams advised he had
an Rive Road. He felt the ori property is Durham and
would support original greenline on the map made sense He
a good land conservaeion lan.
to stick with a P > If the county is not going
goon land conservation plan, them. he wanted his ten acre
parcel on River Road excluded from the agricultural side of the line. He would
hate to see the propert;* south of Chico developed.
If the in the south Chico area and on River Road, then he wantedhBsard allows development
in the development area. - Property included,
2. Karen Vercruse, representing: the Coalition.
.for the record a letter she had written three weeks ago dat s..JVerdr ,elincluded
There Are two documents included which are
the General Plan text and a co he coalition recommendations for
never the coalition's intent toyundermine°thetlegislativeiOn initiative
tive Petition• It was
received this information for their June 23 1982 meeting.The Board
considering their 'line adopted three objective criteria., 1 Tsoilotype, 2 in
existing zoning; and 3) parcel sizes. ) type, 2)
coaliti on was presenting at this time.ShThe edifference the mbetween AP with the overlays the
line presented by the coalition is that it includes the entirenSUDADson°the
urban side. She also referred to a chart which was presented that includes
the arguments for the placement of the coalition line,
trying to research the actions that took place; there is la lackiof documentation
for what happened in, that there are brief Board
record as to what the intention of the Board was asutosthe dunderstandinno t of
the landowners other than for paying assessments, since money was paidon.the assessments, there is a vested ri"ht
were on the Board at tho.t time who have givpneStatements re are two Under bath ethat hthe
_ Promised the property owners they could IL.46lop if they were included my
district. The Coalition took this info".
had otic
n to the
told that the .district was a criteria that took priority attorney and were
criteria. over all the other r
'In the Bell Muir area She set out the criteria 'used from.. the chart'.
most often he arguments for p els and the sizes of the parcels. The
She also set out the number of arc
that area were the serious drainage and
circulation roblems.
P If this land is allowed on the urban side the residents
ofthearea will, have to 'face a drains e dist
to the dtAinage,
And circulation problems. The recommendation isttorkeepolution uthis on the agricultural
side of the' line now, keeping :the zoni .:, 'i
the. residentsyagree to the study and Puy the 5cost nofgthedstgdy,ve a IfuthedY agea if
of the study shows this should be on th-S urban side, then the area Shoulduagr
to Pa`T for the, urban area. That is shady area No, l on the petition
BOARD ofi St ppltV,80g8
MINUTES .: JU1Y y, 1982
O= The River Road area is the
o4 equity this area should a -l1 a most: c7.ear1
change, in a Y agriculture. For the
remain griculture, sake
TheY recommended no
east of he south area, the P1
and north o� anniu
The line Y f the Or & Coimnission recommended
n t
y dace after
o s _Clii;co Highwayturban
inclusion.
is �.n because.
stud r the Inter -go it was never formed.
on the urban side:..
created a deli g vernmental Committee There was to be a
mostl nate -line. To the east is °uttee had met. SeParat�
Y• agricultural use. `M--2 > the ht The coalition
Wi11i The the
amson Act contract that wri11 meet the her side is "A-2" and
was considered for cancellation a.10 17
agricultural
denied b ancellation o£ the g this; area knownuse: One
Y the Board. contrast as Midway Orchards
determined that TO be included in the in 1+�7a'and 1479 and was
the contract it i's, agricultural] Williamson Act
must be Y viable land and for > it must be
the request for Proven n as cable agriculture] -cancellation Of
and the cancellation based o land.
Property should remain in a n the fact there The Board denied t
about the same time for Entler Avenueiacul uraltea. was a viable orchard
Avenue to uSe- The decision was '
stop. They n, they went on Rhen the Board all made
go urban,.
considered record to say that wase owed Entler
impacted if tfie are�i istalloact wed that the Aurha�n area a good
would palce to
develop because of the a sum #A antly
There were two ar a�
the property�-ntspresented
A 5�� zoite.
on the urkbsanin their di hese werebt MidwayWarcpa g
in their trees and those Although Orchard for
factual :and and. roc that fungus.
professional data rt. Y rchards has
tt� ting
cone ud pr that was ugh there was mention of the
and other fa Presented, 'Mr Cott Ingham draws his
re x ative to the soils map. e . ree
chc z �.:a ,.t .The
c0 him. there were
Some of the me clition did nz,�`t use the comments
two-week3 x,gh and using a soil ambers of the coal
tic,n ,
Surround n goer, sated � Pin making
S orchards axe the soil channels .id Orchards
the fact that,liz acquxredh,althy orchar
ds. are drained,
able to develo i ��.pY±� `• Cottingham has made �1 the
is roe P Che Pzop�:'rty. with the knowledge t much of
P P rly and lawfull There z`r, u a ^11a?- g that he might be
meal Y lade "� "he Board antees
gf s l�lidway Orchards wi 1l, remain on the ,1, • gr,� since
ethis
Seo ebe rminatiol
lice. u
grt�u,itta�d
Of the
The Plannin a
my one g �hnng or soil de .ti.ng their reco {
follow the g Couu�sslon in crew
the h elfin mmended Linc did no
With Set objective Hues termination.
the board' The
arc
s attention to the and fol coalitionline is
consideration • - criteria.
written text reconmiendations for t
?'he text recommenda She called
Pl.aan,ing Coam�sst5n rec .ons differ i�,l two heir
thea ommendation was for a
gricultural side which would allow major respects: The
one acre on the agriC�which s gra culture r,bsidential uses on
tUt the sPlittin
agricultural "'Vi'.able land whichde-• Because the g of Propertydown
a�f taxes and operational 3' inch tided the d"elfin%hn;oo£
pende- upon income comparable cost, money on paper, to be Ii1e eUses> even a good fanner could find
to develo Pato jb
way to lose
P'•. This. definition has never been accepted
DOARb or. 8UPEIty sa t�1rN JT s W
N
on the state level, and should not be accepted on the county level. They do no
depend on the definition but depend on the ronin and
They were the only g in some instances soil.
in the petition so thatpanyoneecan see awhere d bas
sthe offOf icial Chiort. A coarea
is ire euro
would be located. They did not refer to the soil classification in the enline
initiative but relied upon zoning,.
Supervisor Dolan asked if there was a letter available to the P•' 4d
from the attorney setting forth his opinion on the vested rights as far is
the drainage district is concerned.
She also asked if the dapositiobs of
the Board members' on the Board at that time would be available to the Board.
Ms. Vexcruse advised that she could have the attorney write a letter
to the Board setting forth his opinion relativd to. the vested rights. Thedepositions•are in the possession of Ron Steward and the Board could check
on those.
Ms. Vercruse answered questioned from n m
time. peryis,or Dolan at this
The Caa.4' tion'had not determined what the. urban land use would be for
the SUDAD area. The first column on the chart relative to the
Bell Muir I
area is• a list of properties and Parcels.. The totals, are cumulative,
P They
realized that some of the Parceling was�done prior to the zoning being
placed on the area.,
Ms. Vercruse responded to questioned. from Supervisor Fulton
relative to the fund amendment process, that could be included in the �
initis"ve to be circulated. As,far as camplainir from People ,
the devoloped portion of Property next to agricultural useop a mo ing i to F
a nuisance ordinance so that agriculture that exists
Prior to development
cannot be considered a nuisanice to those people moving into the area.
coalition brought isthe
p the idea. of Abuffer zone to be considered. They had k
recommended a 1.00 -foot setback. They did not drop the suggested becau.5e
they ,felt there was- nothing wrong with a buffet zone
vera They felt the lite
a
agrtculturalus sa imPortant at this Point, She felt that prateotian of
a es could 'tie included as
be considered on an indua basis whF�trt:hef the greenline or it coin''
cormideratiIon. project comes forward for
3. Tbhn �IbreheaProximity
d;oh� nett Corehead spoke regarding Land #4
located on River Ptaad in r
present land use is low and high density. the city limits or Chico. The
Y de was representibr! seven
farmers who have petition 'Vith 90 percent of the prope
the existing zoning which is rty owned t o have
low and meiurr, densit'
Commission greenitne.was clearly shown. There hasy, beens
He
fel
the Planniz+.g ;t
rvices existing r
in rttfiat area for years ref high urbanisation on the west, sough, east and
noh of their property, Theis pax>te1,s are small, ten acres; and were ,
subdivided 50 years ago.. He wouldconside;t any change in the zoni�ig to
be dOwnzoning. He did not a
approve of the line being brought in from the
wast and limiting ' their land for the next twenty Years. The 'i
the Planning Commission y petitioned and
The criteria used by the co— couldpz;obably maltethat -is A rtheCrro6mise in that area.
property !it
an the urban aide of the ,line also.. This �iroperty has al:� the factors
iizcluding transportation; electric and water services and schools and the
BOAnD Op S ' R1 I.50ItS 1�1a Nt.lTS5 Jiffy i r 1982
;property is adjacent to the city limits: He felt the buffo. turie would 'be
difficult to 4force. The land is economically unfeasible to use ?'or
a,gricultural A-10" zoning was illegal;
because it wasudownzoning. felt
etsupported the.rPlanning Commission line.
He did not feel that agricultural land could be defined on the soil alone
but also needed to have the consideration of how the property is used.
if the property is located in the middle of town, this is not good farmland,
Discussion of whether Mr. Morehead could petition Por annexation
to the city held at this time. Mr. V6ads% adv sed that than subject was
considered during the Planning Commission meetings and the ci.t,,v had responded
that this tract. of land. could not arnext because there would be no annexation
I further west and the Sever line is ;a trunk line that is not available for
I' services.
Mr. Morehead advised that they were not real estate people 'or
developers-.. They have been trying to farm that area. He felt they coup
tie :into the sewer line that runs down next to the property,'Letter submitted
for the record.
4. Hemi Heidenger. Mr. Heidenger spoke relative to his property
located at 139Q-Dayton Road. Mr. Heidengex set out where his property was
located and how Dayton Stoad rain. The Planning Department map shows over
100 parcels in subdivision in. this area. The property was purchased on the
basis of the General Plan, which was, consistent with the Chico Area General
Plan in the early 1960s. The greenline is not needed with the zoning ordi,nanco
on the books. He mentioned the doubt about the legality of the zoning made
in the west during .1972 and 1434, parti:cuularlyy with, regard to the General
P14in at the time.. Therfl. is- a conflict of interest regarding a present Planning
Commission 7nember, when tthe conki:s-c�jioner presented a signed petition and
voted on the greenline when 'their property was; affected. Tn the discussions
regarding'Mari:aa and Stanley Avenues, there have been three more short
roads put in off Dayton Road between Edgar Slough and the Sievers property
in the past few-years. They did not propose to take. land out of ,farming
in the immediate future biit they are entitled to comparable zoning with the
property in the immediate ,area. He trl.shed to "stress the section in the y
supplement to the Land Dse Element text from tb,e Planning Department on
page 3 under the heading of definitions and criteria relative 'to the
commtErcial production of agricultural products. They are opposed to the
lishing of a 20-year freeze on the zoning in the Dayton Road area.
A matter of discrini nai.� Oti of property rights cinder the federal c6hbtitution
amendments- is :again calied to the Boatd attention.. In 1981 in California
there were 3,000 new farms established and there was a gain of 100,000 acres I
of land into a ricult..re after conside.rin the land lost to urbaui.za,ti.on,
road construction and rights-oe-w4y4 He submitted a letter from Sweet NectAr
ynterprises for the record at this time. The property he was representing
was his property, the Sweet Nectar Enterprises property and two properties
to the left of 'their property. In the 19 years he has owned the propertys
the Planning Commission nor the coalition have never contacted him to
discuss the toning or any property rights. The Chico W-y Gotmdil's
proposal of no development on the west side is a lefthanded way Of helping
develop the east side:
BOARD 0 JA8 hIXWTDS - J111Y` `70
1982
S • T Ouis Camenxind, Jr. , Oroviiie—Chi-
co Highway, Durham. Mr.
o be a reenlne, he -was in favor of
w4enzi:nd advised that if there 'He tHewas most particularly concerned
zhe Plannin ; C�iss1on' s P P ' co Highway
(;bice area.. ZSdway and the railroad are the natural bounda�:ies
with the south On the Oroville-Cbz
between urb.:a and agriculture in that area.
ma there are small parcels that have been created and he
looking at theP Parc S. He challenged some of the fig
are viable agri'-ulturzl p
77, Appendix P relative to the ecanhascchanged�and almond
drafing
t EIR an page the gross income. The economy reenline
$1,400 per acre being �, t need a g.
production is not very Profitable. The farmers do na
�aecause of the A 2d' and " robing.
rises. MsHume advised that
6. Kathy Hume, Sweet: Nectar Enterp .
on Dayton Road. All tt,er property
ro erty abuts developed property 2 acres . She felt this
their p P e urban side e�tcept fax 2-'1/ There are underlying
has been excluded from th ro ert the
decision and it divided the
parcels have been oamed by
sax an arbitrary ro erty. The P years.
w bdivision, on some of the
d have been planted it. almonds for, 16T; " lost
Kohnkeam3ly for 26 y profit for 2 years.
ears, the property has made a p
Out of the 16 y In their letter to the Laird da"'tdie 29,
money the majority of the time. are associated with f.arQun1/
they mentioned the econom3.c factors which dower.. There are 25��-�
1982, end the almond prices are coming
All costs are rising g o it would have
rt that the gxeenl:ines says is aoriculears because there are `
AC res Of proPe y If she had been subdivided 10 y farmed. now is
trees �,gcated on it• that is being
urban property ears and she felt this
been included ti the Placed on it for the nett 2Q �' s holdings
res -tri: P art of the family
having The line excludes p
�;as an undue hardship- input and
ent on the other side of the creek behind pr Pe'
there is dPyelshb allow -i ng
She felt the line should be drawn more flexibly
wishes of the people who five on the line. Th.e fad.ly
3xed for not developing the propartY sooner.
co;ideration for the
feels that they have been Penal,
immediately. With the aiaard _ iii the area intend to develop outside. the
urban area, thew
None of the people of the assets of the family c
the ^maj or ty
plaoing d has- shut the door on the f ami,ly s
is no that can bE dome and the Boar on the farmer who
e toperty to their own hest interest. The buffer, axes is
ability to -manage P lace for putting the buff er is
Vague.
The only Possible P
The coalition as
limits' and that is^ a burden to the farmer.
city .
abuts thetia.thaC the financial aspect be `remove thingtw with. thon 80
airiproPertya
recnuunende going broke, they could not do l ears:
if a farmer is S
and the harthea&t sewer that area peal -mare
A rtcultural land to the east has heeri product=iVe land for �uany Y be
Hocau6t o : the '$but ease sewer orae area, ani. 'make another a
developed and it is ;unfa�:x to open uP
0
restrictive. ;.,.;itA felt that there were quite a few, real estate people ancl:
developers %,iho ;lwued land on the east side who stood to gain a great, deal
if all the are immediately exeltaed from development. She asked
that theBoar01 consider their petition this parcel west and across the
street be, considered for urban side of tiia line.. That would make it a much
straighter 11ae.
7.- .lames Maxwell., representing Constance Seiver. Mrz"•Maxwell
to have it on the urban side of the line. y prefer
stated that: Gia. Seiver owned property at 1890 Dayton Road and would refe
8. Lloyd Heidenger, Dayton Road, Chico. 'Mr. Heidenger set olrt
his experiences in Glenn County when he worked for Walt Henning about seven.
years ago at 25 & P. He has head people say that if a person feels khat 20
acrt3 of almonds is not going to be viable in the future, then the gy,ower
should get.: m-, alternate crop. He is currently growing elephant garlic.
The. University, of Arizona has a project that is currently stalled. It is
easy for someone who does not own land in Chico to draw arbitrary lines; without
talking with the broperty owners involved. The Kohnke family, Mrs. Seivers
and their family *save been hear today representing an area that has been
g
designated for a, ion time on the General Plan which calls for urban,, low
density Mr. Heidenger felt that in fairh ss to the people
who own the p operty, the Supervisors when they look at, the land should
notify the protert0 owner and talk with 'dem. He expressed concerns about
the errors on the waps and as far as his id acres` is concerned it is wrong.
Many of the pe+iple who have been involved moved to Chico -five or ten ,years
ago and wanted _to be civically;:mi.nded and wanted to be involved in the,
best interest.4 of the area bud did not own any land. They are not Nirmers
and did not ptq:
of the EIR it talk'.; abour'1,100 acres of land that is primarily in walnut
and alnonds. Someone came up with. a gross production of $1,400.per acre,.
There is also mention later ori of a market val Le of $8,000_ per acre He
would like for the. Board to consider the profit that would be made .it the
$8,000 were put in tI7e bank or investments at 14 percent interst which would
be $1,120 interest per acre and taking that away from $1,400 per acre that
leaves a total of $280 per acre ;to pay taxes and everything that goes into
farming. Thi county is putting pressure on the agricultural land in trying
to save it. Farmers are the only people expected not to pay themselves
There isa need to save agricultural land, but at the same time, he was not
in favor of penalizing people who have little parcels of land that can make.
a living from. He wondered if the people who drew the line really knew the
different `itt-.teen SUDAD and the Shasta Drainage District, SUDAD was formed
at the time of the .five -toile dam weir and the whole area was assessed: He
has three districts formed on his property. If the Board is going to accept P
district,all that gall the way to the
of ." people hocorte beforetheBoa d who do not town property
o
andgivender
a , .;aLkutiful presentation. He wanted to know who was paying the bill. There
was a beautiful presentation made on the study area and these people say its t.
is important to study that area 'b4t_ause the average is three acres or
maybe three plus acres per person. He doubted,6hether they had transferred
that figuring to the south Chico area and proposed a greenline that comes
110 acres off Midway to the Mary'bell Ranch. He wondered if the Board knew
how many acres were north.of the coalition greenl;ne There are over 200
acres in one parcel -of farmland aad 300 acres more total of the parcel of land
When he'noted that, his next question came to mind who owned that land. Could]
that possibly make a difference. He knew who owned the property around Muir
Avenue. The CED group is concerned about the coalition line for saving
agriculture. Why wouldn't they cut out 200 acres. They are not interested
in saving agricultural land. He las Beard comments out of the city and county;
about the cost to the county for subdiv-ision, planning and taxpayers having
to pay for the subdivisions. There is not one subdivision that did not pay
for its on way. He put in three land developments and he defied anyone to f
tell him they dial toot pay their way through the taxes that were paid. He'
was thermwhen the cit.1 tried to stop the development of the North. Vallay
W1. Now the city would like to at;,e:Y the mall. He asked that the Board
consider that there were representatives of 75 to 100people that the coalit'iot
c
would cut out and turn around and ad250 acres of a0 ricul.tural land to the
urban side.
11. Tom tdgAtri Mr. Edgar asked that the Hoard remember that the
greenii ne is to protect productive farmland. The people in the City of Chico
did vote in favor of a greenlitie. If all the .people in the Board r0bm were
asked where the line should be, there are very few who could do soy cost
people do not want to see development all the way to the river but: if Bell
Road
gots,
they
really
aeThe
iawould
o�that
youovestofthecit 'where the is,thatitremains,The
�
people know that: large parcels provide vary stable forms of income: This
ha6 nothing to do -" th the statement that the people of Chico are demanding
1301R�?
OF 8uPtAVZ50R8 bq&tOTHa - july 7y l9g2
a.particular greenline. The Planning Commission established criteria.
gesteatrequire
Before drawing the, lines to was sab
there better be criteria t asedecision on.CoThat tslwhat thesPlanniag
Commission criteria
did„ t sed;wrashproductiveOrganization
agriculturalthat
land andlanotherfwwasOne
'natural
of the criteria 1
boundaries. The coalition claims to have criteria and that is an untruthful
statement.% The coalition s+a.tes that the only thing that
is�vanuetant is
and the
good agricultural land.Ie fives in the countyMangrove
soil, there is at least 20 ft :t deep. The soil is also that deep where
CSUC, city hall, and Bidwel, Mansion are located: If something is five
ggling, it itj not farmland although 4Q years ago it might
acres and stru
have been. There are two groups involved in this matter. They are the
'Property owrzrs who live and owa land on the line and preesure groups who
betwe.a
live outside the area. Mx. Brazel] has described the.Thco
SUDAD Shasta t3rainage Disxct and the. third district. The coalition has
come before the Board had said that STJDAD has rre meted rights., Why h 5than
leased and not the other districts) TW real t�xoblem is that 7;a rhea than
P ort coalition
a parcel by parcel ana]ysisi, the coalit*jon is, saying they supe to
line No. 2 and if the Board does not like iovehthe rroalitiaey will take tli.�nevNoe 1 a
the people. if the Board had chosen to aper
lked ; he county right ilto a
few -months ago, the coalition would page wap,roposa'.
law suit because.SUDAD is. nov excluded in their
h refex;ed to a letter to the planning Commission dated Tune S, 1981,,
p tion position that they had worked
when he specifically responded to the coalition
that time, he was on the
otlt in detail a line based on criteria: Duwas
Use Committee, of the Butte Business rn� n Park andwfierBal dwine the eC na truction. •
and manipulated by Dan Dxake, Califa
k to their
The brirtom lane was in, C u.� ae days they came bacmeetings and in
them s
nt.t told the alliance the eriVi,ronmeatal groups have told them where they
want the lift.: and- if the alliance does not give them. the line tha:xe would be
ra choice but to go to thway Around
e people with the gxeenlCali orniaePaxk. and Baldwin
west Chico. The people hurt wouf,.d be Dan Drake,
ro osdl that went to theplanning
ertnibeingadesigaate`
Construction. The first p P f
California Park showed the back one -»half of the property y
as orchard and field troP or open and gxazing.
One-half of the project
and oue--half is ,tri the county. The city council turnW,-1
is located in the city yt blinds. He f0it the bottom line
down their request for development inter, roposal which s not `basad
ti° the coalitionhe
coaychatigsdition atheirPposition since l9 relatir'e
was than fir► Ap l+ 8l Ron
on criteria,:. Has ca a before the Board
Stewart, reptesenting the Ea6� an Pro `erty and yna ically the abalitian
to SUDAD. fir. Stewart is ]fan Dr4ke sositioneau�l suddenly changed the limei
found it necessary to reverse the p
Vercrus" the deaisiona 0.1 `he Board and those ate n
e has said there is a vested tight. a ore certain c 'rcumstances
when private eitiOhd rely upon
The coins have been particular about »,sated b ghts
eat�i rights .also. . Coastil
'Most, �f the recent vested rights is#yes have been because of the
Com4
4SSion' which is an a
coast. ;fin appointed who said oto aevelopment a,lon
y de�;elapers repeatedl
amounts of money expended y said they had la g the
them, P and therefore the plans in, progress 4,�td large,
The courts said no. P rights could `-,ot be take awayrr
then immediately jumpingThe Position that STJDAD interested a vested and
m
the fence DAD political expediency,
small. During the testimony on Bell.: Road
Categories 1, 2 and 3 were dej;cR , the average
study area. Everyone he was aware of `gybed:.. parcel size is Vary
term line phis area ;could be called
ine Qf demarkation. is convenienced the a
line. TJhen'it is convenient,the coal" is a to
Everything he had heard was the coalition will move the stability, It does not have reason for the
on urban land. Is the ree greenline was wa,1ting
to do with whether there is a
land? It ;s g aline being proposed to subdivisiot
large subdivisions. Possible that the Bell Road ar Provide ton -
2'hese are f g te• < 1 agriculture
like to ice, or to p,•ea will neve develop into
have therm in one acre � acre arcels where a person' mi
term drainage systems. Parcels. It'does P but
It might not be a not' articularly neQd long-
down the road. The coalition is sa good idea
to have thi,• 1
residential or, the othex` side of the they do not want � developer)
on parcels for agricultural deal greenline, agricuitural�
y_gnations? s"fi is the minimum size
has been structured so that it e That is"
five annot be dumped five acres. This line..
Road area.' -The Property owned by P" °n the little people in the
the SUDAD y�
propert Mr. Morehead has more services than
In the south area, why is it
Construction property, Dan Drakes it: that the coalition, moved around Baldwin
prdPerty in that area. It 1s, n
personal interest ri ht. a
there would be The have repeatedly come before the
g y
srnae kind at u Board and said
the Butte, Business havbe b.eentconsu cr tariare
Of eoilitldn line No. On 'did not support o
by Mr. McCready s,peakingofor oChi coo20AQ wasgo.
there on xeeord in support
The bottom line summarized
in the southeast and nor theast develo ment was a rp
investment and 2fir. McCread Chico
deal of money
P. districts; Chico has a big
invelatments in their line,3 felt they should support the gine people with
h
ge felt that what Was before the Board tans an
improper use of ]and uge Planning the r g they
the big developers on the east have
PoliL�eal c],out to 'make :sure they gave a handle on dev
elopmnnt,
12. Hester Patrick
tray Just, across 'from the Midway. Mit ► Patrick. ad
this motilin dway Orchards, wised that her property j
S and tans Farming their 400 acres of altr r.ds. Several S
Mr. Jack Meline was at the. meeting
ago Supervisor 0inston made a motion to s 1 years
Subdivision: The Poard all voted that "top development ab. Entler Avenue
there were manly plausible would 'ue agreeable.
Ender Avenuelsnatians as At that time,
The Board had turned down thewhy development should stop"at
Act• She was primarily opposed to Zea withdrawal from tho T411amsot
Midway or wherever.
p frogging whether it was on the
area does not It is the Bonxd's, responsibiaty,
become Q-ather San Jose area: l to,see that this
d;tstinctidn between land that was
The co�.itibn made the
that wasin agricultural
not in the south Chico .area, produttion and the, land
13. Herb Hedenger,
Of the area disc Dayton Road. Mr. HLid
Their ;propertyused during the retia euger knew that
is is between. meeting be pointed to as leapFart
that wrap developed but zoned The K9.hake property is u Frogging.
on subdivisions on more t an two subd' P against a subii siou
Zvisions. The Siever►s
located next to the b sides of the property fronts
Kohnke propert property. His pro er.
industrial. production across the strut. there p ty was
- is a mobile home park plus
The hearing
closed to the public was continued to-ruly 21y, 1982 at, ip.0
� a. tt. anal
WAD Q �1p RVI Q S, MY Notts
N
13
MEeral
plan amendment
— llua-zing on the '7;L=::!!Etl – utlNtRAL PLAN A1'XNV
was held as continued . QiJcoarea landus_e.—Plan ------____
'Hearing open to the public.
Appearing:
John Morehead, Chico.
a letter that was written for the Mr- Mot -ahead handed the Board members
meeting.
2. Herb Heidenger, 1590 Dayton Road,
Out the uses in the area including the subdivision Mr. Heidenger set
He purchased the ubdivi8ion that had beet allowed.
.line is not needed because ;Of currentthe General Plan in 1961.
The green praPd-VtY on Dayton Road based on
the doubt regarding the legality of the rezohtoning ordinances, He mentioned
1974. That is not Ing in west Chico in 1972 . en 3-oned
Only the Opinion of some property owners and
Of the commission. There is a -conflict of jbut Also a member
present PlaniAng COM siOn members, when the individualof tile
Board a petition si , U1.3 interest regarding one
person; and w r'ned by property owners I pree0ited to the
hen th* do in the same aInd immediate area of
Mission member voted on the that
their I eir Property, There is discus greenline when it affected
discussion Of property rights under the U.S.
tutional amendments by those citculatiot P.
.take I ons- He does C6nstj_
comparable out of farming it the immedate future. He fp not propose to
lt he r
able toting that is in the immediate area. was entitled to,
from 36 Lloyd Heid6hget, 1510 Dayton Road, I
Sweet -Nectar Enterprises &rl Mr. Hdidenger read a
requesting to be d submitted it for the r6cord, letter
Placed on the and
side of the greenline. They are,
A small farmer get up,before the Board and say He had heard,
Y there were no Prolwith
farming 2G acres. of almonds
He Just received his PG&8 bill Andbforems Almond
production oft 20 acres Of land the
that the 1.981 drop will not be 8 cost is Up 30 percent And they anticipate
$.57 Per pound. Fifteen old until December and November. He
� months ago the price was $1,80 per paid
concerned with a recent article in the newspaper Pbudd. He was
4* Nick t6ttdgna� Chico. Mr. Be-, telative to this J.�sto.
rtagna stated he was a farmer and
did hot feel that the issue was what was grown on the property but �whdth
the land was a farmable piece of
property. er
farmer to grow one dropo they will go If it is not economical for
is the issue, to another dtup,, Where the Afte is a drawn
have 5- Lloyd 90idehger,qtr
dome before the. Board tal kidg Hfiidenget stated that a number Of people
for People to cork- up t6 dhbut the groing
of -kiwi. It is easy
On their 'he Board and say what
1 4 iaeOne shojAld bL, growing
BOA91) op 80"RVISOA8 'June 30
1 Box 40.7- B,, Chico. Mr. Brazell stated
b. -praak Brazell, Rt. ,
page wing
he had a draft th;,.t"was sttarted
arted. The Land age Element bottomoftthe spsge giving
in 1981. He read from the draft ?lland. He also read zLom page 4,
roducti`on of agriculturalProducts.
a, definition of p ommercial production of agrto the icultural p {
is
No. Z relative he Boarder of Q
He hoped that t did not forget these terms and definitions. ike ever,► �
P eo le as opportunity to make a p
would gave agricultural p pHe was very touch in favor of agricultural land.
other industry in the U.S. established and not penalizing
He was also in; `avar of the greenline bei: --
people -with small land.. Whocannot make a P
rofi.t.
Hearing on the $IR closed to the public and .confined �o the Board•,
was sent 'back to staff for final, comments ,to be prepared for i
This 1982..
Baaxd consideration on July 21,
lamming department, stated they had provided. the. �
Charlie Woods, P In putting all the different
Board with maps that are 8-1/2 x ll" format.
The
they h`d to show the places where the
liIIedatesfJune, 19d1
hoes on the APs artment of Water 'Resources inventory
information from the Dep. they
and not 1980',The Board also asked sooathebAepartmen and
Conservation ave not been
able to do that: Th are response i
letter. One of the things that seems to be of conce%-, co the Boaasdroptia es
act of 8X0 sexes of age Cultural land Or "i" it arrived at that Ana who it not whet
the imp ht be
to use the maps and show why th y
ople think it is. They also have some aerial slides that ma.g
ofe
help to th= Board.
The hearing
Was continued to July 7, 1982 ,at 10:30 a'm' for
consideration of the prOJect.
BOARl] Or SUPEW18ORS MjNUTtS - Juno tO' 1982
R
LYC HEARINGt. CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN_(GItEENLINEI —GENERAL PLAN AMe)Ge e
1070
PUB oa the Chico area land use plan (greenline) Gexieral
The public hearing.
Plan amendment was held as continued.
Chairman
Wheeler advised she had presented an outline to the Board
e. The Board
received L
he Planng
by which they can resolve this issu need for additionaltimeto prepare
Department. memo indicating the.e is.
an EIR to conform to CEQA.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor, Dolan
ented by Chai.raoan Wheeler was
and unanimously carried, the outline as p
res'
accepted.
Chairman Wheeler read a letter from the City. of Chico Planning
ecord at this time.
Coumti.ssion and submitted the letter for the r
gearing 'open to the public. Appearing,!
].. Tom McCready, 4 Rosemary
Circle, Chico, Mr. McCready was proud
theast
southeast
of
what city and county had done to es tabgsel1forethercoalitiondgreenl.ine,
sewer districts. xe felt this would make a c
u crest Sewer
Northeast Sewer Assessment
There will have been created he S acres in Wer Assessment District, with
District and 2,700 acres is the 50 a total:
1 li0 acids to the
settingsoutheout-theamaking
the possibility of adding , two istricts.
of 5,'750 acres. He presented a s]
Because of the city's massive commitment to the growth s ae the Chico area,
• � more housing on the west side of Chaco.
there is not a need toi any
zoned the ]rind east of gighway 99 and north of 5,rcamore Creek for
was
county more one acre partoj.s,
one acre lots and there is not a need VwV aratec.t agricultural ,land. There
pof and he hoped, the Board would
his feeling that the coalition linewould
has been much discussion about property tights
cons
ides over l00' property' owners who have financial counn3.tm��nta to the sewer.
a9ses�•nar.t, districts that will cost over $5' million.
Z; ',on to d3,8play some serial maps.
Nina Lambert asked for pe'rmissi
Mr. Morehead strongly endorsed the
3. ,john Morehead„ Chi o. ro erty
Planning Coumi.ssion g
reenline. i#c wanted t'o point out t1�at his property
adjoined the city
Iii not a toile awayAte
further`s'egtst;c`orasouthte rofdtownbat�y
the additions, services are le:�s costly
there is an illegal ini:erim on the property, the designation is low and
medium density and the Hanning
commission
greenliad saves over 200 acres of
loxia if the line is moved in to Rode .Avenue. ._o. Mr. Cottingham presented
4. till Cottingham, Rt. 3, Bo' 1308, Chic
19$2 �rhich he
rea4 at this time and su
letter dated ,lune 22bmitted for the
a
record.
B0AhD OF SUP T2VZS0R8 MVNIT-,'T9S y J'une23, 1982
}
5. Joel 'Burrell, aorthwest area of Chico. fir. Uurrell referred
to the original 'Planning
Commission vote on the BP11 Road area. The north
ost
t homes.
side of the area is daze land and ast�aseiiusolelyth eansthe mdetelrna ion Ofthis
wanted to know if the decision w p.
area being
vino loam or had the Board gone out to see out the area was cu
Chairman Wheel— advised that .Lt was a combiShelon hasohadall
accessthose
to
She was very well acquaintei with the area• o oral on
things ile coalition based their p P this
may aerial maps of the area. $l,�: knecr uantified. They will be taking
the types Of soils and this should be q"
into consideration.
Burrell statedthat sone 'time. back a petition was submitted
In lRal he purchased ,a piece
suggested that Bel]. Road be a buffer area. TfLere is, a su�divislon that is
of property that fronts,'ono st:ee at was hintent in purchasing the
: Yxe wandered if the Boar going to take into coms:tderati.on
J. =edi:atel south. of his- property. 'd was' g g
property. �
the supply and demand of almond prodLction, He owns. a ter acre parcel,.
ecler advised that the coal:ttion had come forward
Chan ,'man Wh it could: go to the urban side l
with a proposal, for that area indicatingTheissues are primarily circulations
provided certain issues- are addressed.
drainage, vers anal other condition-t-0
se Chico- Mr. Fie3:dengex wondered
6. Lloyd geidenger, Dayton Read, 'body to in effect designate
of
the gove� -�.ag y a
if it was the responsibility lite,
ter o£ peop� By drawa.ng�thezli ears
u.a
of time and $100,000 to $00,000 in their property.y
ert owners on Che. west 'side of to;�i't who
agricultural uses. Theze 00,0 ro e
the county would be asking thepropel,
purchased the property and took the lines that were drawn into consideration,
the on.
e to give. up that investment: He referred to the
at the time of purchase Orchards that were
financial imp and the production rates out of young iv city and
advantage of technology so people planted on five ten, that planted taking parcels along the edge of town when t ty
fifteen and twenty acre p ,
county called that area urban density: The greenline would
a gove�tnmdht i
Was it the resprnsibility ,
are to a non.-productive Area, their own property
boa to tell people what theycould and, could not grow on r
9
Chairman Wheeler understood that the kohnke property had been
ro 'rthtis divided
than �.s part o£ the record. That p P�- y ve,
shaken to in a letter line. She understood the xeaso51eha�itedg'rhat the
b' the coal.iiti.on green
oc,cuxzed i:s because of the underlyIng su%di.visthesunderlyi:ng; stbdi.v-#;i.ons
p,iLanni.ng nepattment prepare samethinz showing
diad how Large the subdivision were.
SUP-RVI" SOS MINUT15 Jurie s 1982
lair. He.denger stated that when they tried to subdiv-1de their
property in 1972 Mr. Kohnke signed a petition to stop the subdivision,
because he under the impression that
agriculturit was viable to have a small
2.11 property. After he
to agricultural uses he signed the petition restricting himself
paid taxes ,for urban uses' on;his property.
e
There person who objected the most to the subdivision o.i thir property.
property
sold his property for more than agricultural property prices.
7. Herb 8eideager, Chico. Mr. Heidenger stated he had '
lived
Chico since 1920 except from 1967 to 1979. At,the time he purchased thein
Property
In 1963 a 40
on Dayton Road, fie was aware of the subdv sion on the Kohnke property
subdivisions whish P wereapproved morelwas divided itto five acre .lot subdivision. On the
Stanley Avenues, in 1962 a trailer park hwa3
sPut eIn. ars aThere is�more than
one mile of residential zoning on that side of the street. It is only fair
that in setting lines and changing zones, that 'their property be included
on the urban side. The Cit.. of Ch'
ons on the
east and want to make sure there iscnothing o is bIndcompetition toizing lthe west.
8. Nina Lambert: Mrs. Lambert Presented aerial photographs
at this time. These were taken in October 1980 or 1981. She was speaking
as a citizen, property owner and Planning Commissioner from District 2.
She was speaking for herself. She moved to west Chico in 1936 and currently
owns 20 acres and also one-half interest _n; .
57 acres with an approximatel
total of 40, acres. She has spent the last 20
agricultural land in Chico, years trying to protect y
Where is a neod for that particularly it,
south and west Chico area,. Zoning is not enought. The past Boards have
not provided a limit line,, She requested a lir it line to ;add strength.
1
to the zoning. The. iohin&ahould
Butte county he determined on soil type compatibility.
is in an agricultural preserve. The countyvn 'tax base is
agriculture. She felt the only suggested line: that was'. drawn was the
one done by the joint city -County; committee and the south Chido area was
]eft open: In November, 1980 the Planning Lommiss,i.on approved
the south Chico area and the Bc,�ard never acted on +•. li. a line for
'at line. She did not
completely agreement with the coalition proposal as, referred to ,for the
November ballot. Zt allows -four fifths vote of the Board to make certain
findings. Pxeviotw Boards; have made the findings they felt were necessary.
Big Chico Creak Estates is an example of that► The
Pe-pl'livihin
North Graves Avenue area have requested their propertyobee
placedgon-thee
agrithe cultural side of the line. She felt the proposal should be to adopt
most restrictive greenliue. She felt this would be 'the original joint-
c3ty,cI ty line and the Novembers 1980 proposal for south Chico
adopted gas the General 'lan and then havingbeing
.a five year, review period.:
Tlie five-year period would allow for a soils study or fiseal impdcts king x
the 4gpicultural advisor provided by the extension service at UC Davis.
B006 of 8UPriRV18bgs A11
This time could be used to resolve the agricultural
rve q
Look t thy+ sewex district and economic onditionFSheehad prepared atdstiOn nd
trap out.,
r, orgrnal proposed line and the November, 1980 Planning
Commission p�1711t ng map. It shows the current uses of the land. She
submitted an ='��a.tline on her 20 -year old orchard with regard to the total
orchard exper;aes,, taxes, equipment and income received prior to
and planting of new tress". The new trees` are sixyearn old. -he removal
9- M" ty Worley, 787 Filbert Avenue,
on rvatiWorley "asked if the
Board had a letter from the State Department of Conservation. Site was
curious about the 8,000 acres. She asked if a copy of the letter could
be sent to the City of Chico. �+e
the pl;aanila there wast ggreen],ine supported in the.letter. from
+� to is the original compromise line.
:.980 line, This was the
suported and then the coalition nbeganmarine with se etuoiminorsmorgizially
which the council supported and, then subse
line quently there was the coalition
Supervisor, Dolan advised than when the proposal was drawn 'the south
Chico area was left as it was because there was a z�"
at the time ming study going cm
10. Jerry Brandstats. Mr,
Rose Avenue. He supported a greeniinerconcept, gHeandstatttsetlloutatheasoilisei-on
for this area,—id it is found in a small amount in the total alluvial fan.
tYPe
As far as Vvall acreages, he knew that kiwi was profitable for one al fa
two
to the neighbors. .
acres. He urged the Board to consider high 'profit crops without problems
RECES: 10,32
RECONVENE; 10.-51 a.m.
Frank Bennett", Ke,
"er Road, appear$n1; as a private c� oxen.
br. Bennett advised that he had driven about 700 to 800 miles up and ditn.
the line and "talked with people regarding the reenline.
g He did not krnow
of any iss� a that had come befote the Planning Cotua�.ssion i"n the last 3
years whew isi:Ce
th�:re was more confusion and less and6rstanding ab
problems,: .fie felt this, should be resolved, out �;he 'basic
and he has been a, proponent of ,it.
He felt there `was a compromise line. Hefelt there wera three peztinetYt
,lines ane they were the old 1571 line, the Planning C'ot�itssion recotrare�nded
Y l He felt that any one of the,
three alir%es wot.�ld be
.sons
the coaliL•iun line in than 'vers
Wrng, The county has bdeix tisitig a line that was >dra%M
in 1571<, idan - p the difference l etweeat land
�* pco le do `tot undex`stand
toning, "here is a need to uner,stand the `bas::cs of Planning and the e and
MOD OP SUR'ERV SORS �11NUI-jiq .. `'UO Lit ,,..
s
difference between the two. The Board is now, talking about land use. The
second ling the Planning Commission recommended had accusations against the
-commission that they were picking out of Sears Roebuck.. The line came from
hours and hours of public hearings'and the commission was accused of taking
1,500 acres o,.it of agriculture. They recommended the removal of about 2,500
acres from law- density residential. The last coalition :line did something
the, commmi,ssion was afraid to do and that was to draw- a line on the north and y
around SUDAD and it 'makes sense. In the. sl)uth. Chico area the commission
recommended the down desi9 ation of a massive amount of low density residenti
to agricultural residential. He felt that -made sense. He would ;not make
anj comments on the 1!,*gality of downzon mg property, becuase that was something
for the courts- to dec1de. The queatLon that always uothered him was the
morality of it. People purchased the property based on the land use that
was on the property. Se knew some people in tha area who have everything
they own tied up into five, ten, twenty and thirty acres of land. With tho
stroke of a pen, the county can decrease the economic value of the land and
is that morally defensible. He felt that looking at both the coalition line
and. the Planning Commission line, there were many areas that were the same.
He felt if the hoard followed the coalition line in the north and the Planning
Commission line in the south it would be sot th I g that everyone could live
with. He has hoard the comment that it is- very easy to develop on the
west side of Chico. That land is flat anc, J,f there is, development there
has to be drainage put in«and that is very expensive. There hez to be
massive outsized pipes to hold the water as it slowly di-i.fts away. }
When he was first on the Planning Commission, the commission
was dealing Lith the Bartram rezone. Since the rezone was accomplished almost;
six yo -ars ago, there has been no building out tbnre. There are three fifty -
Acre blocks and none have been developed. Ther- _re all bare land.
Developers are not eager to go on flat lana to do; "Glop prrperti because of
the cost of the land plus drainage plus under ground utilities which axe
.$2,000 per lot. This makes for a very expensive operation plus the cost of
the housing.. If there uet'e people with big i.ncotes to buy the houses that,
would be finei He urged Che Board to remember that: the line needed to be
p
dxawts in x compromise manner so eryone can come out in the tong run,
12. Tack Mongan, 1520 14an6ester Road, 'Chico. Mr. Morgan urged
the Botrd to make a decision on this matter at the earliest possible Moment
Whatever decision the Board 'makes will be wrong and will not satisfy everyone.)
Over the pastL several weeks he has analyzed the different grednlines and j
it was his opinion that the coalition greenline prepared got present,,ation 1
on the petition is that one that has the broadest support. It is 0,ie least
restrictive ' ite on the west and the north at0i§ sand is testri ative in the
south Chico area.
300D OF SiMShVI , 098 MiiNI.iTHS jutie23 '1952
13. Frank Brazell, Rt. 1, Box 407—B, Chico. Mr. Brazell felt
that Dr. Bennett presented his case earlier in the meeting. He has had
experience in subdividing on the xwest side and it is not cheap. He develoPes
a 33 acre subdivision on Oakway end Glenwood. That seems,to have ser_ a
precedent on that side for greea:Lines with the city and a lot of other people.
They put in drainage on that project. When the Shasta Avenue Subdivision
went in two or three years ago, the county requirements added $2,70 per
lot above the land costs. i1he buyer paid for that increase. rte set out,
the experiences he has 'Lad in Butte `County starting in 1954 wfen he owued
the. Marybell Rancho There are certain people trying to get t)te, people.,
to live in a rock pile in the sewer disrricts. on the east sid y of cc,?n.
He wanted to live on the west side of town and if he did not, he would
move somewhere else. Good soil is not the answer. it hakes acreage and
volume:. lie has been; involved in specialized crops. The farmers today are.
livir g on the interest they should be drawing, off of.. Tn tha country today,
there is 15o,000 ,million acres of farm Aland not touched. The problem is
thbd the farmer cannot make a prc4it. The reason for the sewer distr;Lets
on the east side of Chico is be.:ause theca could not be development without
it because of the lava on the ground, There are people who wont to live
on the west side.
Chairman Wheeler advised that as, far as the ExR, written copies
of the deficiencies- will be supplied to planning hefore June 30, 190,.
a
Supervisor Saraceni made reference to, iintormation supp'ILed by
Supervisor Dolan from 61'A relative to urban $rowt'h and boundgry. greeu!J As.
Tt,i.s does ,not mention downzoning of property. It has not been ana,ereb as
to igbether the county can legally downzone propeilty and not be, MableL for
that property losse What is the effect on the underlying subdivisions and
what properties become nonconforming, He asked that staff respond to these
iss�•.�s,.
olid come u�i.n�heWpebruaPlanning heaxiadep �tmeent, advised that these issues
p February g y were advised. by staff that it
t:ab inappropriate for the EIR
Chairman,�ihealer advised that those were questions that the
Board should asp Counsel to respond to in writing iheluding8uperVi8or
Dolan's cOmments
Supervisor Dolan wA9 frustrated with asking fox informable-- the
Board may already have. There area multitude of maps hanging on the
wall that ,show a great deal of what .is being asked. Two of the maps a'l'e:
import in that one shows what the designation will be chtinged to and
those that will be the same designation. Ocie of the maps shtows the
bduthe�General.ddtidd oPi.anime doiU actoptec�gi.nythe 1979 sanysmdpi zst fwhey are. rising this because
hi at they will use. There is
a map that shows the existing land uses and the 6actles run so that the
parcels can be seen.. It does not show whether the. parcels have walnuts;
prunes or kiwi and does not show one story or two story homes. Th ete are
large maps showing where people 1iVe, the planning Commiasioin line parcels
sizes that may or may not c:onfntm to the de6ignatidh.
BOARb OF SOP I2VI80AS MVNUT�-,S JOX� 02$0 1082 f
J
Supervisor Saraceni understood what was taking place. tie wanted
to know what impact there would be on the property owner and whether it would_
take money or investments over the years out of the reach of the owner,
completely because of the restricted use of land planning in the future.
MHe was concerned about the impact ori the county as to whether the county is
able to make up that difference in those particular pieces of .
. prnpertyF
Chairman Wheeler did not feel the maps wete truely that fine lined
enough to give the figures quoted by the Depat=ent of Conservation, if they
were broken down into three other maps and by area showing both sides of the F
linea the Board would know how -much property 38 already urbane zed. What
she wanted was a parcel by parcel inventory.
Supervisor Moseley questioned how much it had cdst the county to
work on the greenline. There has been ha.urs and hours pcit iAto the s ,projjAct.
Some of the people purchased the property for their old age and are now in r
their old age wanting to do something with 'their proper; -v. Sho astced Mr..
Morgan what he thought of the presentation by Dr. Bennett relative to his
opinion on that particular line,
14. Jack'Morga.n. Mr. Morgan responded that he was not sure what:
Dr. Bennett was speaking of. His interpretation of Dr. Bennettts comments
was, that he would like to expand the line further to the south and west
to include a larger section of the south Chico area, He would not support_
that,
Supervisor SaxacdZi would be, interested' ±n the colat and time put
Inti going through this project;. He feltai
that -with. l the h urs the
Planum COmmi,ssion spent on this project'that th ay were tty;tLg to comprom;,.se
in such a way so that everyonels ;hopes and needs wo.u:l.d be fulfilled,ire was
concerned with. the input he had received from people. who felt that ch Caging
or downzaning of property would Meet them and he
sate til,(am wondered who would campers -
Chairman Wheeler stated the Issue; had been a long time in c m3.ng
to a rc'soluti(rI of the issue. In dealing with land use issues she did not
ctLi,pit they would be re, olved. Thete. really was iao agricultural. zoning in
tb,A county until., 1966 and those are some Of the points raised it! the QTR,
The first xan3ng was ;';n 1966 and t2i41t Vias• iIA643'1 zonirig. She did not know 1
if the Board wduldhdvi,,j the ability to make a decision of wnat the maorit)r
of tht4 people feel, is right. Maybe "the people axe the one that Will ultimately
make the decision. This is not. just
Por the greateau�bax� area o� Chico but
it affects' tho- entire county.
The haearing was continued to .lune 30, 1991 at loop aim.
933
P[7t3LIC HEARING: REVISEDDRAFT EM AND GENERAL PLAN: AMENDMENT, CHICO ARTA LAND
tag PLAN (GREENLINE)
The public hearing on the revised draft EIR and General Plan amendment
mol' the Chico area land use plan Zgreenlinel was held as continued.
Charlie Woods, planning department, set out the executive summary
in the EIR showing the impacts of the proposed project. Comments from state
Agencies and private inaidd number.thP1n a and are identified by EIR and a ritten form have been forwarded t Ce
h
Board. Additional maps were rep
They include an at lempd assesGm�nrto est* edistrictsespartictlarly map
no
rth thlarea,
in
information on drainage g
identification of Cal Water Service Comlanci us sin thearea,
area�withcurrent
overlayboundaries
of the City of Chico,
and the existing
of the. ;Planning Commission and the c�alitio'rt proposals. Exhibit C shows the
existing land use that goes back to 1971, exhibit. E, is the goa-City Chico
proposal, g Commission proposal.
committee ro osal and exhibit G is the Plannin
planning Department directed to prepare an overlay of the existing
General Plan designation with Bbatd-City Oi Chico committee and planning
Commission,. proposals.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing,
1, Bill Cottingham, Route 2, Boyd 13M Chico. Mr, Cottingham set
discussing the new
out his background with the almond industry. He wouldbe drelate to
revised draft EIR, p
articularly pages 41, 46, 48 49 and 50 as they
te
the south Chico area.
At somin a titheher date, hd theodld ElR btttewoul.discuss confinehhimself
deficiencies he had
al
to the pages outlined: He felt the time, spent in the hearings have been
well spent because they would eventually tutee ttig thehe aothereci��ens�And
agricultural lands in the c�c.'►unty, whi p
property rights as well, tie
etne est toRbes`binly a, feebledeandrin�some iareas
the, j ob correctly. H
ins ul,in.g. On the
County gsoile survey. 'Ytie 1929 soilsesurveyeJ.'s obsol.B1earead
page he has mentione
'the wr
the 1929 Butte
He set out the toils hearing that was field in Dutnam this spring, l;
from a transcript of the tae record'i'ng of that meeting relative to the
1929 soils p
map. It was pointed out the map was on a scale of one inch per
technicaltoo d
mile fadealknownIaboutsoil
ith no aerial photography, The plotting was hot
done on a plain sheet of gaper: There was not a g It was his
sc3once and there are many' eculsions3 and errors in the map:
understanding after talking � orhieoby sti dexeitsoandil s�fthessurEac!ts rafhthe
meeting, the soil tests w
Soil appeared to be the same, they dd`'not actually take soils samples
every, ten acres. Sometimes the
assttot ova labloaat that tiry meandthe crops+
The equipment for excavation w
than they wera. They did 'not have the technical knowledge
are 'also different about surface soil thaeasea and ph Uctors, which change over long periods
of time.
It was his opinion t '" e writer
technical that
thst�has�3tieeh Offered ainto Cevidence with
ut down ;
attempted top ,. � � � articularly Wii.h Mi�.tray
refetenee to the soil in the sou�tl. Cha.eo arertjp
He read the quote from Nkt
the aecbnd 6graph listed on p
Orchards age 41.
*� �
T1iis paragraph �.$ 'very important and.. shojis a great deal of bias and is not
n
f
BC?1lRD (7f� SU?hIVI5QR5 rtZ'Nt�T Sw May 27, l98,2 .•
0
a true statement. It has a tremendou.,5 bearing on what the writer eludes to
on pages 46, 48 and 49. He did not provide the information. The information.
was provided by the experts chosen by the county and he only deposited the
money to pay for the report. The writer of the ETR also advises that the
soil information is referenced in appendix I and uses the report done by
Dr Rart. There is no where in the report where Dr. Hart sets any percentage
for various soils°. The report states the orchard changes very rapidly. Ile
submi:tted,a letter at thin time. He submitteda. trap that had born drawn by
Eco Analysts, which would 'lie checked back out to him at the end of the hearing.
They began to find =rock and stone problems in; the south part of the
orchard. They knew they had this ptobleri in the north part of the orchard'.
Apparently the sub layer or compaction layer has broken jap and now there
are stones about three to four inches in diameter coming up through the entire*
orchard. He read the letter from Dr. Beck dated May 24, IM which was submitted
for the record. He set out the exhibits in the ETR relating to the rlidway
Orchards data. On page 46, the soils classification for Midway Orchards is
set out. Someone had altered the evidence that was presented during the public
hearings. He read from the top of ;page 48 at this time. The writer of the
13I11 uses the criteria that is in Dr. Hart's report and that report does not
set out any percentages. The report uses a 1967 soil conservation report,,a
1974 Department of Water Resources report, a 1929 survey, the 100 -story index
and a rating of at least $200 per acre adjusted for .inflation with a three-
year average income of $753.33: The writer used an obsolete 1967 soil map.
There is a 1978 report available that was submitted for the :record. On page
49, the writer admits that Midway Orchards has a ph factor. The ph factor
for Midway Orchards is 4.9 percent. He submitted information from the soil
book showing the strong acidity for the property. He set out the information
that hg had presented relative to the 1978 report at this time on the ph
factor reading, salienity and toxic substances. All of these factors show
that Midway Orchards has a sour soil, which is ;one of the most important soil
fertility problems in the united States. Because of the soil salienity, rock,
soil: depth and soil diseases, the experts have put Midway Orchards into category
poor soil. On page 49, the writer has stated that the 1.429 soils map shows.
Midway Orchard as having vina loam which in fact they do not have any of the
vina loam. The writer refers to the fact that the soil conditions are a
result. of management practices, if the: writer is referring to fertilizer
applications and past management practices, this could have changed the ph
factor, but it is questionable amoy.,g the experts that he has sp�►ken withi Since
AM$ the orchard has changed ownership every four and onemhalf years. There
is no reference on pages 48 and 49 of the HIR that shows the problems Midway
Orchard is having. The writer presents a simple solution to the ph factor.
He Set out the reasons the simple Solution would not be applicable to tree
crops. The 1978 soil criteria says inorder to make a change in any piece; of
land it has to be feasible. The tosti of making midway Orchards feasible
tabul.d be around $1 million.
BOARID 0P SUPEAVISOR8 MINUTS8 May:, '�Z.'7...1982_ '
On page 48, the writer refers to the fact an adjusted gross income C
Of $61.7.80 per year would make property prime agricultural land cafe o
according to the Williamson Act. The Williamson Act was written so loosely,
that in 1;65 property pw allowed into the Williamson Act that did not gross
$200 per acre. fan people received tax benefits from placing their property
into the act. The writer failed to mention that it costs money to ruil an +t
+i
orchard. He has presented ;figures during public hearings relative to the f
income of the property that shows he is losing $2,000er
not see that that made this prime agricultural land. p Year and could F
On page 49 the writer refers to the fact there is oak root fungus
and this is one more limitation. The writer states this is a common problem
in the Sacramento Valley, particularly in Chico and Durham areas', He set
out how the Oak root fungus problem started. To say this is a common problem
is incorrect. There were approxi:ma.tely 400000 acres of eight to twenty year
old orchaxds that have no oak root fungus 'yecause they are not planted on thio
?' P rl the pruiries� The writer advises it is easy to
waterwa s but lanced o
crop, the trees or fungus,
it rootg practices by simplychanging the
control oak root fun s. with management
stock. If the writer had referred to
the report by xr. Post, he would have noticed that resistant root stock was
dying in this orchard. There are very few crops he could grow,
this orchard and it is referred
to on page b49�with aeria asimple or sanswer �this ��,s�n
sites .are specific. They have had to replace�some sIvl.Oo trees inistentlntheand no
past
c
ee years due to bacteria cankor.
Mr. Cottingham read from Page 50 of the EIR at this tim
to the assessment of the impact of. e relative
'The EIR the project as it related to time soil.
not see howtan onetcouldsayroherorchard was agricultural land. He could
Midwayrime
proven that ityis class 4 or 5 soil, extreme acidity, toxictime land nsoil, a it haq been
percolation, soil disease, eight , excessive
There has been expert test;imonytthatrwas fhot usedoby the wrps and itercofhtheoEI
R.
relahive to pages 4l 46 48 !,
Supervisor Dolan felt that after listening to the presentation
e $ 9 and h it seemed the criticism was directed
towj,rd figure 4.3 on 'page 46 and the chart on page 4,.
delineate three limitations which are to The map and chart
Ow 'phs oak root fungus and bacteria
cankor. After rereading the letter re ort b Dr,
on appendix Y, the report re'
to the classificationHatt iforh�'d dwg� paragraph
srtd says tha southerin most soil would probably fi class 3 and the soils
in the other two areas would be at
She read the second t least class 2 and possibly class l soil.
paragraph of the same letter report by Dr, Hart relating
to the soils in the or :bards, wh
freeich gets out that the soils vary from stoner
sandy loam er clay loam to clay loam dread having rocks and cobbles:
V- �
1, 1iIVUT S =._ l�raY _.27; 1.082
r �OQ�A VIJlifi
�,: _ ...
0
Mr Cottingham advised in the third paragraph of Dr. Hart's soil
report, there is an indication that 60 percent of the, soil in the north
section in certain areas are sand. That is .high pertol.ation which is twice
as much as required for prime land, He was nointin o•t th
f
U the EIR did not even use the et„ ,L_: g t - at the writer
evidence that, ;aa4 .available to them. The
report by Dr: Hart was misquoted. As far as the experts are concerned, L F
Midway Orchards is in a class 4 catngory. The proof of that classification
is in the saleni
ty and the, additional charts show, 'n"g the ph tactors. The
chart in the EIR does not have salienity, alkalinity or toxins:
Supervisor Dolan questioned who determined the L classification for
the soils from tris chart that had been presented?
Mr. Cottingham stated he had presented the Boaid with
a list o
aPP�oximately 20 experts who % 3ve discussed the Midway Orchards problem.
The evidence was in the document and was not used properly.
RECESS:
10•.7 a.m.
RECONVENE: •10:38 a.m.
2. Lloyd Heidinger, Dayton Road, Mr. Haidinger read a letter
from,his father and himself, which he entered Leto ftite record d this time,
relativ,-z to the zoning for Dayton Road and the fact that the "A�-XO" z
was doto on Septemper 1, 1974 by _ 1498. oning
3. Tom Edgar, representin, Adway Orchards. Mr. F -I.- stated in
revieu'.:.0g.the revised EIR he had discovered a significa�14„number of things
khat are incorrect and inadequate in thn re or.t. would
i; n w�,th ani then $o into further d0ai.la
overview to Uel� ttlr± lateron,till
hi4 presentation, The initial EIR had s'ubstantia'l areas of hi.t brical
itirormation whish was incorrect.
J�jitn Stutz had prepared a significant amount
Of in.forination and, i re is not present at the hearing',y d
that information in a letter setting out the ;i correcthistorical ,he be submi I ing
next major
� point is that the EIR ignored tttc r_u:rrent greenline, wh3.chashe The
county adopted in 19;71 for the Chico area. The
p was modified sl, ghtly i
in 1x79. This Eine is clearly an urban grcwth bounda,
Cfy' and the document
virtually ignores those af,tvici.�l da�.umeitt•z of B W�
the joint city -count tate G6tlit� The EIR treats
is factuallyincorrect. proposal P the oriainal£greenl.i.ne. That,
green ,ine ro” osal �;,,
The EIR
does not prove
the ift ormation that will
allow a Liecision as t;ti wthete the Vdenline should be laced.
the city-�Count tw p it refers to
Y propo >a1, the coalition prapos,al and the Planning Commission
Ptoposal. The Board Appeaa4 t�7 have throe choices which is to rubber&tamp
one of thosero �..
P 1P sals because tile Elk does not gave ;detailed traps an the
services of the
properties. The
current land use activities and urban
Ptevious 1,IIR had snaps and charts in great detail and those doctments have
virtually ordinarilydbelonared From this EIR« large amdunt cf material, that wou�.d
in th,e appextdi-tt is
The critical kinds of hfortnation thatlhavegbeen fought overreilt weight �andft h�reext itself.'
to the. Board rm many occasions i:? simply not in the tekt. The law "requires
sented
that the information be before the Boa#:d in order.tChallo e
all4w the Board to make
decision as to inhere to drawn t:he litre.
whete the information is located within that document,,
anyone to 'show him
Bt�ARkl OF SUi�j 2VTSOtts MINUTES may, 27;
11
There is a wrientation town, ` prime agricultural soil. There i
a real problem with tha.' because the en, .re urban area of. Chico is located on
prime agricultural soil. The Planning Commission set criteria for dratiing
the greenline which dear: with agriculturally productive soil. It is defined
in the document. This was made reference to inthe document that it is located
in the appendix. A CSUC dormitory is being built west of the main campus on
soil that isclearly prime agricultural soil, viva loap. Tt is it the middle
of the urban area. This is one of the reaons it is important to concentrate
on a discussion of. agriculturally productive land rather than simply that the
soil is prime vita loam soil and must be preserved at all costs.
One of the major areas of the document is the fact the county will
potentially lose 17,700 prime; acres of agricultural soil. They have ?'ready
lost. 8,000 acres and are about to lose 9,700 acres if the Elia is adopted
He suspected the county had already lost the 8,000 acres of prime soil and
felt that was ghat the Chico urban area was. He cha11eaged the adojj tion of
the proposed project would involve an additional loss of 9,700 acreti. The
reason for this is because the county currently has a greenline which was
adopted in 1971 and 1979 which is substantially west of any current proposal.
The line 'would move, eastward and the land available for. urban development
was not going to be available. There is a paragraph in the EIR setting
out that the latter from the State_ Department of Conservationreceived
May 6, 1982 advises the. EIR is inadequate. III reading the letter, it says
this is an unacceptable document because the county is about to lose 9 X00
acres of prilne agricultural soil.
He would like to dise-uss the prime �5ras8lands east of Chico. The
Department of Conservation is most upset Abdul;; the fact tr county is going
to destry prime grassland east of Chico, The land east of Chico is not prime
agricultural land and is nothing more than a nuisance. The apo -t makes
reference to vernal pools east of Chico, '*TX-lich means springtih,p. Apparently,
the state would like to presexve springtiwt swamps. During the summer, the t
fire department has burned the pr:tme gras,,laads because of fire hara,rds and +'
because they are major sources o£ grasshoppers., In ssomemannet the Hoard
going oingto have to deal, with the letter from the De artme�f Conservation.
The material received from the state points out it i,svirtually iTnpossible
to determine how and Aere the 9,700 acres come from, The previous draft
ETR had substantial secticns oil ecoz omit Onalysitt which have d'isdppeared
from this docurdAht and the state .s telling the county to nut tY►oso sections
back into the EM.
0111tp rJUl EitVSS''CSS . �: _��ay 2�, j 082
•
Mr. Edgar would be dealing with ppecific portions of the EIR. On,
page 2, Mr. Stutz would be p6inting out major factual erros in the his'sorical
material. On page S, there is a substantial blowdown of the land use plan
which p , 1 land .use plan, by notation on the
document. Someoneth he land use m
reading the EIR would develop the strong impression
there was a horrible state of affairs since 1971. On page 7 there is
mention of the several times the county has been sued but generally they
have wone all the lawsuits mentioned izf that 'material. There are numerous
references in the document the county has an illegal General. Plan in the
Chico area. The doctuert refers to the fact they are acknowledging there
is 'an illegal General Plan admitting the county has taken certain actio!a's
with an yllegal plan. He cautioned the Board they were being asked to
rectifya document.saying they agreed they had an Illegal plan. He felt
the Board should ask the Planning staff and County Counsel to explain in
detail why the plan is illegal. Staff, should give the Board a detailed
list of the areas where there; is an illegal document so the Hoard has a
checklist when they finally complete the document, everyone w-ould know the
Board had made an honest attempt to clear up all the illegalities. He was.
aware of a few inconsistencies in certain areas of the interior of the
Chico urban are where the zoning was not consistent with,the General Plan,
The Planning Commission, made recommendat,ons that will resolve the problem
of the inconsitencies but that does notmake the entire General. Plan illegal:
p to the fact both the county and City of
Chico entered into8a point effort to have a preliminary proposal for
g_ , it refers
discussions and a place to start on this very detailed and complex subject.
.As a matter Of law this in nothing mote than a preliminary proposal upon
whic, public discussion will occur. The ducumenc seems to;say them. is
an agreement which was reached by the committee and that established a line
and the Line should be set in concrete; it seems to imply there is no choice
but to rubber stamp .the proposal. and the commission has chosen not to rubber
stamp the proposal and that is; somehow illegal and immoral, A change to the
General Plan must be based upon hearings and the 91R1. and all the things the
g_ y possibly be true,g-
Board is doing. The dodlxment takes the Position tlz reenline was established
by agreement which could not y
On page 9 there is discussion about the o;,'iginal greenline. It
was his understanding the original green eine as mentioned is the original
prop!"isal from the joint city county ,activities., That is not rle original
greepline 'because it was established in 1975 a,s the official �lr current and
again modified in 1979, That is what is law and is the offi�ytal greenlinrt
of Che county, which is clearly the urban agridUl,tural boundary. He felt
jVhat the RIR Wal to discuss as a matter of law was any adjustments to the
11,09 'map. The EER does not deal with that map: The calculations on the
oral loss sof Prime agricultural soi:l.d would be different if the 1,979 map
t+tera used
BCI�'t` U a 5C1��E t"til :OttS 1�iTNt�`r s rtdy::27 s$2
•
The concept of the coalition line is introduced on page 11. it,
was his understanding the Chico Board of Realtors was rot supporting ;the.
1coalition line but
lChicong atever Chamberhofcounty Commercewas
to do. It was
s not specifically
supporting the coalition greenline. It is appropriate for the document to
find out who was supporting what line. It was his understanding the
coalition was no longer supporting what was the coalition line, and the
new line goes around the Fabian property and no longer in the greenli.ne.
It was his understanding the coalition group was no longe;: requiring the
mine field in the general area of Bell Road be on the other side of the
line. That is the major probl.em:of the document. It does ,not give the
Board information to allow them to exercise their independent judgment,
which as a matter of lav theBoard has it;., do
The RI,Tt, on page 12 advised the ,Tanning Commission received 33
requests for changes and that most of the people who made requests had
their requests accepted. The document does not tell the Board the bulk of
the requests was for minor adjustments within the Chico .urban area, pointing
out the zoning ift certain areas and the land use designations were not con-
sistent. 'Those topics had no impact on the gree'nline itself: The Board
will be asked to ratify, modify or deny those requests for changes of the
land use designation within the Chico urban area. The document does not
help the Board make that decision other than advising the Hoard there is
a 'summary of r%quests• n the appendix. Thee was a substantial amount of
mappingwork
11t they were, entitled to have some of the maps
in the document toashowethenland Use designation in the Chico urban area
as it exists and as proposed for changes. The reason this project took so
long is because a great deal, v ,A have to be dome in charring the land
use designation so there woula be consistency, which to required by state
.law.
He chall.engea the comment because the current Chico land use plan
did not meet the standards of law, it was a practical matter not functional
and subject to potential legal challengus recognised by the Board of
Supervisors and therefore the county 'was proposing to revise the. plan:.
This is set out on page 15 of the ;i;ilt in the middle of the page. He was
not aware the Board had made that finding and decision4 possibly the Bokv
h,ab'made that decision; but he encouraged the Board to discuss this matter
with County Counsel as to possible implications of that sentenaa. Page l8
of the 81P,is an atat a breakdown of where the land use designations.
ate. It does not.. help very mue.n in terms of whether there should be land'
added ar subtracted in the north, west: or south. It appears a significant
nu bet of acreages described are coming front the eastern port&on of the
Project. lie understood there were signi4icant amounto of land added to
the eastern side of Chico as it reg'-ates to theplannin area. When there
is .a shift in the map in this manner, there are substantial.ly large,: amouhts
of acreages to deal with. tiefelt pis a matter, of law tlye Board should know
what the implications of the map shift was especially when they have ,been
told that somehow they will be bulldozing 9,700 acres of Ptime agricultural
soil and Potentially destroying veru-il: pools of prime grasslands, lie felt
this ;gas why the state on May' b, 1W advised the. board had m,#jor defects
in their Mi,
Mr. Edgar spoke. relative to page 19 of this EIR dealing with
specific objectives. When. Mr. Henipl-1 was befo-ee the Board at, the last
meeting he pointe& out the major inconsistencies and problems between the
EIR as it existed and the Butte County Housing El_mer.°t. He also pointed
out that .California law requires the Board to -,pe ifically- address concernw
relative to affordable housing, He noted in the area of specific objectives.
there was discussion concerning the open space element but no mention of
the ;housing: element,, He f+�I t this was a major defbct
Mr. Edgar advised that Mr, Cottingham had allued to page 26;
It has previously been pointed out the Planning Lonut.ssion proposal of
the greenline talks about protecting agriculturally productive soils.
The discussion on page 26 revolves primarily around, prime soils and 'tries
to use the Williamson Act as a source of a good definition of prime dgricul
Lural soil. When the act was passed; it was designed to encourage farmers
to voluntarily put their land into I:he act to assist the farm(*ts. The
state was modivated to have a very broad and liberal definition of prime
agricultural soil. This definition will not assist anyone in helping them
to decide where to put the This is a document that ignores the
commission's position based or, r°,a agriculturally producti a coil. It
goes on further to state if a person can get $2G0 per acre that iPprime
agricultural soil. He :elated _^his experience his fandly had on a one-fourth,
acre of land in downtown Chico whard they get $20.0 per year in agricultural
jproduce in backyard type of crops.
,
rage 55 of the. EIR seems to be the source of the stage's concern
about taking 9,700 acres of prime agricultural soil: He had tried to figure
out how the acteages were calculated and where they came from. There is
reference to Table 4:5 on page 38. it does not, estimate the fi.`gurd on the
9;700 acres. Table: 4.6 on -page 57 does not help understand, -wheta the 9.700
acres come fromi it felt this was a maj or defect in the document. The
state: htb pointed out it does not have appropriate tables to assist a person
in making a decision going from the north; to the o7est and east and 'Chen
to the so-,th as to where the line should. be placed, He 'disagreed with the
statement they are nibout to take 9j100 acres of prime agricultural land.
document beforetheBoard wasdhi's comments less effectiveathanitime. the.doen felt theg>
document: they had last:
February. All of the chattsi economic analyai,s maps, detailed infobnati6ft
regarding urban services in the Morehead area, small parcels in the South
and minefield Greasy;has disappeared. It has been xeslaced by general
types of infortetion.
Supervisor Dolan staffed page 55 of the EIp, and the letter from
the state indicates in the planning area, there is 17,700 arses, wh,ch
fall in class i. and 2 by the 1967 soil aonserva'tidn service map i, it
io,ciicates 9,700 acres are alreadv urbanized. She would, j,ike to have staff
Idetdil where the 17,700 atte calculation canoe from:
W- . Edgar stated he had his figures backward.
BOARD 0V 5tiptR'Vt8'0R5 MINUTtS..": 'May 27 - 1.9B2
Mr. 'Woods advised they mesa using the mapping that was
available from the classVoications of the 1967 map. Those wets adopi:ed
by the county in the land rise element*
This figure relates to all the
soils class!.ia.ed class l and 2 rated by the soil ez)nservatioa service
with the planning area. By looking at the map Usted asEIR-ed the lands
approximated the boundaries, using the 1967 map. They
in class 1 and 2 rating and the binds already impacted and, subtracted tEtoso
and .then �eagured tb ses in the atea p1waned for urban development to get
a set of numbers.
Mr. Edgar -referred to the letter from the Department of Conservaticw
on page 2, paragraph d, which states the prime lands lost in the magnitude 1,
of 81000 acres are a significant impact. In the executive stunmary on page
ff s
planning states there are overriding considerations If the
thesta}
Bodoes nothing, and lets the existit,g land. use designation remain, ta
the
there_ is nothing lost. If the line is moved. to the. east, he submitted they
and. He felt because of the critical
must be saving land and not losing h,
issues involved, it was appropriate the Board be given %he kinds of maps
and charts that allowed them to under8tand where the. 8,000 acres are
coming
from and where they are going. In all the proposals, there will be
more. agricultural land in the Chico urb8,n area and less land available for
urban developnYent according to the land use designation excluding anythixtg
happening on the east side. HO suggested it was tnisleacUng ta' have a
statement that says if they adopt ono of t;he :Lines, they will lose 800'0
acres of prime agricultural land. Much of the land being discuu., is
maybe prime agricultural: soil in the same ,ensu that C UC'dormitory is
al: lana, but it is hardly ,rime agricultural soil3
prime agricultur
Chairman Wheeler advised the state dd.i recommend that certain �
items listed.on the, memo dated May 6, 1982, be included in the final EIR.
and she was certain they would include them. This speak
s to arae lAll.i:amson
Act and deacr ptio:t as far as;"ttma possibility of agricultural: acreages:
on
ty
displaced upon full implimentation of6iil or orchard data oplan, they ae asking rye dt,ta.
be crop specific or Category specific'otich as raw Crop'
the amount of known agricultural land that wnulrw be converted under the Plano
JB -there are any listings of Wi.11.iamson, Ak t parcels in the planned ate: and
current contract status and planned use. It talks ahoutr the estimation 'of
loss of ironies lost to the community from the elimination of surrounding
agriculturdj lands. Another otie is the project al,ternativa which she read
into the record at this tim.
4 john �ioreheacl, Chico. Mr; Morehead. questioned: who had written
the draft MR. Ile felt it was very inadequatd. fie had written a letter in
vebrua�ry, to the staff telling them Ohat fiat:; wanted put into the tr19 and they
did not even include it in the EIR.. `•:t+ sho+rz.d up As a. intrer--departmental.
mdmo on the first 'page. He wondered VIV this was; not inclt+ded iii the E,Ii2.
He wpndered when the coalition placed their lett�st in the to.Port. Tltere is
a groat deal of discussion about the coalixion that: ie. sigtiod by fi.vd� names.
The entire document is mixed up and a perv6n cannot f ollOw a,ny os 010 SeCtjons
He wanted to discuss the area cshere his pt')perty eras locsterl a"hi..cb: is west
OE tot,:=ts
'There ure urban dev�.lopmeitts its this Area. fie i� dryland farming
his property, which is an orchard. They ritly time they have polls 10 when
they use i�priiafcleics. 1. they kill something it would be the squirrels. They
...... o 2T1 0 8UPtRIVl;8 0 RS U1NUTS ..2�'s;:..l �.b..
4
•
are better off not farming because the chemicals used might drain into the
creek. The reference to the loss of aquatic habitat does not apply to,th s
area. He did not knowwhat endangered plants were in this area. The surface
and subsurface water would be better if they did not try to <farm the property.
The property adjoins the city limits.
Mr. Morehead made a correction to page 14 relative to the rezoning
for Oak Park Avenue done in 1971 by a Charles Holly, at al. The "A-10"
zoning remains in effect. He set out the background of the- zoning in the
area and the decisions by the Board on the requests. The history is as
follows: "A -l" zoning in 1949; "A-2" coning until 1955; Dorothy Hili., at al
petition for rezone of 330, acres for wi:�st Chico incorporating the boundaries r
of 'Big Chico Creek, Rancho Airport and Chico River Road from ''A--2" to
"A -R" zoning which was approved in 1960; Use permit for multi -family use
in "A -R" area for 11 acres adjacent to the city boundar ► by Craig Hall in
1964 which was approved; annexation application by Craig Hall. in 1:964 which
was approved; General Plan adoption in 1966 with AR designatiod for areas
to Rose Avenue for a density of residential 15 to 30 persons per acre west
of Rose Avenue to suburban 3 to 8 persons per acre, Chico Savings and Loan
application for rezone of 10 acres in "A, -R" area on. Oak Park Avenue west
of Rose Avenue J "MHP" zoning in 1968 which was detied, Chico Savings and
Laon application for Ranchita Gardens, a 38 lot subdivigiotn, west of his
property which was approved in 1968; Reno Ricky, at al application for
rezone of 50 acres of "AR" area west of Craig Hall on ,Santa Clara Avenue
to "RT -1" distr�.ct approved in 1968; Tal Gamma Beta Fraternity application
for use perm5.t~ for board :ig house on Santa Clara Avenue in "RT -l" area for
public -quasi tis► approved in 1.969; Baker and Baker application for rezone
of 10 acres of Riolty parcel west and south of Craig Hall on Santa Clara
Avenue from 'ORT -l" to "R-4" for student housing project denied in 1965;
Application for rezone of 10 acres of 'r,,:-1" area nest of Craig -Hall
to OR -.311 di 0t,riet in 1969 denied; Thelma Cummings at al application for
rezone of 30t) acres of "A -R" ald "RT -1" area to "Ar -3", whish 'is now "A-510,
rezone in IA9 which was denied; William 1. Shultz application for rezorie
of 4 acres west : f Rosedale from "A -W' to "Pk -C"' for apartments in 3.970
iahich was denied; William 1. shul,tz application for use permit for multi
family use for 4 acres west oL Rosedale School; City of Chico Planning
Commission recommendation for denial of Shultz request and proposal to
have cut-off line for multi=fdmily'use west of Rosedale 'School aind Craig {
Hall cumpldk later to be called the redline; Robert I,L, lritton, at al
application for rezone from "A-Vanal 'IRT -1" area to now "S -R",
toaed re'ldv, tht EIR very :carefully and tecognizc the defi0lencie8 pointed
out, ar,d take into considevation those facto;;s. The Board aright t; *ant to
aUb adnsider this might be inverse condi mnat<ion in the event: his clients
ace Fiat able to develOp theit property in the-mdniiet 1 -hey would like to.
$OARb
OF St1nwrs
OItS A1Y NUT'ES - Wt
y � g z �1
6. Lloyd 'Heidinger, Chico. `,sir. Heidinger wondered what, they
were going to receive a fair hearing as far as the affected property owners
on this proposal are concerned.. The "A-101" zoning does not conform to thE.
General Plan. He felt people should remember the knowledge that; existing
around Chico and why r:YLe people ,invested their time and futures into Land
that was adjacent or near commercial zoning of the city limits in the Chico
area. People =,rho own land alongthe line are being direly affected by the
proposal and seem to be the one's v%o are conbistently at the meetings and
yet the hearings go on and on, He hoped they would be given a fair hearing
on the issues raised.
7. Bob Heiman, Rt. 2, Box 202, Chico; Bidwell Avenue. Mr.
Heiman stated that after attending many of the hearings that have been
'naild, he felt the people were wanted to disregard the greenline and the
growth could be controlled.by the present ,toning. He felt that was the
purpose of having zoning. He diu not feel the Board would create ha.rimony
among the people of Chico by continuing the hearings on this matter.He
felt if the EIR is so insufficient, am public hearings would be an injustice
to the people who come to every hearing. He recr.mmeaded that the greeriine
be disregarded and they control growth thrd.ug:h 4oning,
Chairman Wheeler advised she would likt� to submit a review she
had made of the EIR in written form. There were several inadequate
f-atements_ made in thpe FIR. An example of the inadequate statements is
to implementpage 2der thetgoalrofect perserving agricultural lands. The informationd
p
she has is that that is not nec.essaril+y so. Any inadequacies need to be
responded to by staff. She understood the coalition might be coming forward
with some new boundary proposals.
8. ,Ion Morehead, Chico. Mr. 'Morehead stated he would be speaking
to the area west of Chico. From approximately 1978 to date, he has recei.ved
approximately $4,000 from bis 22 ac es. That does not conform to the fk is
Of $200 per dcre per year. From 1$7879 the property was in almonds and,
from that bate it was bare ground. The property is currently zoned "A-19"
zoning, which is inconsistent with the General. Flan. the General Plan
des gnatior, is COT low and medium delisity: He, would like to .,,ee the zoning.
in that qt.a changed to conform to the General Plan,
The Bearing was coati ia4ed to, J+ane 2.1, 1982 at 9400
DbARD QF StlVARV1801W MtNUTt8 - May 21 1982
GRE
ISTRATIVE OFFICER TO OPEN
CHEDULED
820 DESIGNATE INTERIM ADMIN 982 ND. CONTINUE THE MATTER TTO THURSDAYR,IMAYJ27, 1982
FOR _WEDNESDAY . MAl' S ► .1
Chairman Wheeler statedshe had discussed the scheduled hearing r
for the Chico area land use plan (greenline) - General Plan amendment with
the Planning Director. The impact report is in the Clear`nghouse and will
not be back until Me'tl 14th or 15th. She questioned if they should continue
the hearing to June 2nd
SupL-rvisor Dolan „tatkneweihaajust impactread
the memo from the Planning
staff regarding this issue. $.he port would not be back until
later in the month, she felt they should begin taking 1.estimony. The draft
impact report is available in the Planning Department office and county
libraries. The Chico Health Department has copies. 1
The hearing will he continued to Thursday, May 27 1982 at 9:0a.m•
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saracen.
and carried, Mike Pleat- interim administrative officer, -*;as designated to
uLge plan (greenline) General plan amendment nearing
open the Chico area land
scheduled for Wednesday; May 5, 1982 at :10:00 a.m. and cipntinue tba hearing
to Thursday, ,May 27, 1982 at 9:00 a.m.
AYES: Supervisors Fulton, Moseley, �" irman Wheel�
.,�araceni and Clic �
Supervisor Dolan
1 �
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 3:13 p.m. to hold a al.osed :session on
meet and confez N
821. PUBLIC NEARING: CIIICO AREA LAND USE PYRAN (GREENLTNE) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT" -
CONTIJAUE TO, 27, 1982
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, continued the pubii.
hearing until: Thursday, May 27, 1982 at 9:00 a.rn
s
82= 237 PuBLIC.HEARING: CHiCO-AREA LAND USE PLAN GREENLINE} GENERAL PLAN
The public hearing on the Chico area land use laxNDMENT
Plan amendment was held as advertised, P (greenling) general
Charlie Woods, planning department, set out the EIR at this time.
The EIR was prepared in reference to the original draft proposal. There ivere
changes from the existing plan. He identified the impacts at this time.
There will Ise loss of agriculture as a rather s ecifit t
im
the acreage estimated at around 250 acral in south Chico �withf150ptot2 Otacres
of what was in existing.production The reWainder of the impacts are the
type considered in a General Plan amendaWnt which are largely cumulative and
include the increase in services, ground water cinsumptior�, toss of surface
water, some loss of wildlife habitat partSxUl:arl along
The types of ctimulative effects y $ It+ tcular streams.
with development are the demands on schools
traffic and services. The original draft ox the
Proposed project. As a result of the Plannn r FSR focused on the original
Planning Department spoke with a few a enciesg omission hearings, the
of a sufficient magnitude to do an additional supplement. r1jesee if the aagenciesg
es were
contacted contacted felt the significant changes in. south Ch,,, . �,
a supplemental ftupact report. The x lar;, ? D�;;E ., ,
. p;rupa.r:ed arxct'circulat.,c
�A.. �.. i
P p .
the yupplemzr..�:1 inw�,�.ctr r�?port in the ro
per manner This
w p p and .land use. Provided an overall ±�
1 �� The identified i exami•�.�.C..otx of ,
due L•o the loss of agricultur. entified the usual m*acts
• the G ulatinraal land for from 600 t) 1 585 acres.
r ,�hP
other i�acts are largely the increase in the magnitude -of the holding
capaolty o -P from 140;000 up to the present 507;000 population. opulation. The i
the Sc.�ch Chico area are rather sped and there wetd comments fromcts
Caltrans and the City
azld 660 acres of of Chico that related to the 415 acres of indtwerial
residential ues in this area., b
teOyonded to the c•omme,its from the agencies and deco .fanning Departme-It
r> be approximately 20,374 trips per day in the area wherre�southethicould does
not have a fLeeway, The Midway does riot have the carrying capacity for the
proposed traffic. The have
They Put together responses to comments and recommended
mitigation measures or a series of al,ternativr:s to
to^ns; to cope with. the identified impacts, be looked at as a
One of the Ways to micl,gate the traffic impacts in the south Ch en
area would be to scale down the proposed industrial development+ and increase
the agricultural residential which would be rural residentd,al in this
area. $ gn y P particular
If the iniustrial deli anon dere reduced b 75 ercent, this would
change the .fi ut•�-s on the trips per day from 2O,tl00 to 14;000 trips. The
other alternative is to have a study drna in the south Chico areal since
there are conflicts or sof.l related issues that are not found along the other
areas .of the line, After the comments from the public on, the Elie, responses
11to those comments can be p' for the 86atd's consideration of a &,tial
,$Up wls_._n,�6C krT : xx , ID82
„