HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-72 MINUTES & STAFF FINDINGS #3 2 OF 7x � +
Hparing open to the public. Appea°ting:
1. Leonard Rampil, representing Midway Orchards;, sir. Hampil stated
that the EIR as supplement by document referenced in his opinion was essentially
aan .inadequate document. He would like to emphasize the things missing and
ri:moortant for the Board to consider �n making a proper decision. The EIR
!is an informational document to help the Board make a decision. A layman
;should be able to pick up the EIR read it and understand the issues and
itachnical data well. The factor analysis should be in the appendices.
There should be no amoigui.ty in the document. The original EIR sets out
under the project description that this project covered about 11,000 acres
'The supplemental EI.R expands this to 75,000 acres. This is an increase of
over approximately seven times the original area and there is very little.
ch=. ge in the description of the project. There is no data base to
sWplenient
`Hampil asked: what the EIR relatlzed to, a General, 'Plan amendment?
To promote land use compY
atibilit and pteserti*e agriculture? That cartaialy
is a worthwhile objective. The problem is that the most controversial
Feature o£ the entire General Plan amendment is the addition roofethedgrtell tnan
It is not discussed :anywhere ^in the EIR,, It is nortantot in ts�irgle' feature cL
of the ETR or`the Supplemental EIR. The most imp
the entire. General Plan process and the u;ost controversial publ,i,c understand
mentioned in the project description. Hmt can the 'general p
s ecifically what they would be
acts would be, p
the alternative issues a'nd i.iup .�
on their property, if it was note i5tuanddshouldin ebelres This fundamental
isal
comfusion in t:'ie Elii should not a 20 'i t ref ] ects that if
one illustration. In the Supplemental EIR on page
Approved we are going to lose about 850 collective acres of ,
the project 3 s aPp back to the original Elia on page 52 look at
prime agritt. l.tnral ]and. Going
the al.ternaEive of no project and the conclusion is that only several hundred
acres to agricultural land will be 'lost_, The conclusti on is that it this
p agricul.ttte, then the Board should forget about
henGeneraldment sPlan amen meet and lose only several. hundred acres. There are
to e
but they are not in the El
Rh Going from
s 10,000 acre to a r5� this, arta 'due to the canfusi.onz
� 000 acme, project is partly ;Letter
several ea re to a. orcaun�el representing Midway Orchards, set a
In July 1..80 Tom Edgat, t
q Planning Department and the Board. In
to Bar! Nelson with. a copy toesh�.n
o the very things that Are being discussed
that letter it essentially g t
at the hearing
note, and,, specifically on the gree;dline concept which is
set out in Page 2 of this latter that maces i t clE'+r that if the culture
In
wing c"n the; greeny"ne to 5epaxatie ag
fx m rm3idential or�cammerorkl, there id nti reference to the ;reenline
.' pxeserve pini
and shots no ,alternatives of what happens set out in the E> e There
still not a described 81R. If the county it try g which they do
agricultural land acrid. feel the greet�.l.ine is zecessaxy,
not conceive; xsn c she starting Point to £3,gure out what prime agri.rultu.yal
• r �p preserve and what Side of the
laud is and what the county wants to pr th e, Isn't the analysis
agricult.Yral land the �o,Jnty wants to place e lin
o f prime land potential and Wouldn't the county Ot ;newtingathssbeldon(for
thalysia of the lands in disptitcon des there are several parcels in dispute. ,
etier� single `parcel» Planning
BOAtt) op, Stt�ERVSbO f�I �+U eh oar
He felt the first thitg he would look for in the EIR as a layman: would be
when the prime agricultural land was establi shed what kind of soils analysis
w*as done. He looked for that information in the EIR and on page 11 there
is a nap. The map does not have a date. He asked Mr. Cottingham where the
map came from and was advised that Mr. Cottingham had gone to the Soils
Conservation Authority and Chey concluded it was a 1925-26 soils map. That
is what is being used in 1982 for the HIR.
He went to the Pl.ann:t,ng Department yesterday and asked ,hat the
scientific basis was for the map. He was advised that their information
was that this is a 1925 map. He asked them if there had been any updates
since that time and was.shown. a new map that is not shown in the EIR. The
Planning Department advised him that the map was prepared in 1974 by the Water
Pollution Control District. They took the nap and called the Water Pollution
Control District and ware referred to the Soils Conservation people in
Oroville. He spoke with Mz:s. Shephard and was referred to Mr. Graham
who advised him that the snap was a 1918 map and has not been updated.
The EIR is a public entity document and there should not be any confusion
on the maps that are relied on. The dost important information is the
soils map: The EIR should sho who it came from, when it was done and
if it irts updated. if, in fact, this is a 1918 or 1925-26 map that
has been represented as a 1974 map, and he suggested that was inadequate.
Many changes have taken place at Midway Orchards since 1918.
There is better information available that should have been lysed. The
,information was made available to ttie Planning Deparrn}ent and 11r. Edgar
ire-introducedthe a3at'a in 1980 when he appeared before thia., Planning
g Thin is
scientific dataission in uthatne 9camenfromtansElR prepared by the county in .19'79 and
was prepared by Eco.�inalyst, an agency recommended by Planning stat y for
soil. Mr. CottingDrchards+ That E.IR deaf
wish soil and the dondition cf
the ETP r, pithy hgm qas invited to pay $4,010. for that data. He did not
select the person to do the study or the PUDE for that report. lt coutains
the information on soils fztom'Monarch Laboratories; Dr. Wf,lliam Molar,
UC Davis; Dr, 'Post and Dr. Hart. When this information was brought to
the Planning staff's attention yester, the conclusion Was that they were
obviously on the payroll of Midway Orchards. He dhddkpd that out and
Dr. Molar was not paid for the information. and his report is unb.asedz
Dr. Post. and Dr. Hart were not known to %ki Cottingham until the eodnty
made them known. rl dway Orchards olid pay the money which was paid to the
e}tperts. The expetts go into the marginal nature of the soil. and evaluate
the economic data of., Midwal• Orchards. He was referring to the EIR approved
by the county as a Final report on the di8etiptidn set out on pages $ to $
There is high grave;. which retards gr6oth, problems it equipment operation.
He xefet?red to Dx.. dart's topott in the appendi:s on page ,3O with 'described
the soil and grading of the 'property in the past. Dr.i post described root
rot and bud failure on page 35 and his conclusions nit page 38 is that
Midway Orchards. is beset with a ttumbet of cultural problems,, and the
Problems iiiherent,in this orchard are difficult to rectify. Re read
from the EIA it this time:
BOARIl by $Upt.PVT80R8 mINUTE8 W Vebruary 3, 1982
He wanted to know why this information was not in the current
EIR. This is information the Board needs 'o decide whether Midway Orchdrds
should be on one side of the 1.re or the other. It was referred to in the
appendix. Why use 1918 infor; mon when there is 1981 information on the
soils in the Midway Orchards p rvpurty. The Planning staff did not overlook
this ii°ormation because Mr. Edgar introduced the information. Staff;
he thought, failed to comment on it. The information was presented in
June, 1981 again in a revised format that was summarized in the letter
from Mr. Edgar and was presented during the Planning Commission hearing
process. It is required that the ,information be commented on, The
agency is required to respond to the comments from the general public.
The law says the agency should at least give the people the courtesy of
evaluating the information. The guidelines makes this hearing in its
y g Commission hearings a part of the. environ-
mental
and all the Planning
mental re,riew. The EIR is part of the entire hearing process and is intended
to be finalized after the hearing process and coming up with the information.
On page 13 thew is a weak address of the need to reassess the viability
of soils. Do°you draw .the line first and then, figure this out? Is it
done after the General Plan amendment? He would suggest that any kind
of decision says to research first not after the decision, The law in
Califori�a is very clear that the age,wcy has to certify the EIA first and
use it ,4s a tool in, the decision process.
In looking at the remainder of the description and discussion in
the: El1� of what the General Plan amendment really; is, you will not, find
it DO68 it tell you what is going on with the amendment? What the project
is reallyr doing is a massive downz'oning of 10,800 acres originally in the
EIR. It is a change of land use category from low density residential, which:
is one to six -units per acre; and medium density, five to eight units per
acre, to agricultural and agricultural residential designations along with
a small amount of low density, The agricultural residential designation
is ,one unit for every orae to forty acres. The Midway Orchards property
is correctly low density residential with an "A-2" zoning and one to six
unitsp could cou Bebuilt. er acre After the central Plan amendment 'there
=
can be ono unit for every one to forty acres. This is a 214,00 percent
reduction in density. He oras not saying this was not appropriate, He did
iot believe it was. Cie 'did believe that it was the duty of the tlR to say
ghat is going on and at least tell them that a sxibstantial part of the.
=cOnomy of the property is 'being taken from them. The EIR does not do that.
En planning, there are nine mandatory el.emen'ts to'the General Plan, Land
Use element is ottly a part of the General Plan and should be compatible.
Equally important is the Housing Element. Tlie county has a good housing. ¢
Elementj One of the best he has ever seen, The Housing Element was cots feted
in -September, 101 after an effort on the part of staff, Planning Cd= sign
and the Board: What does the element say? The Housing Element uoes the:
existing General Plan Land Use designation not proposed by this amendment
on 'Page 115, It fo-ecat3ts meeting Of housing demands in the ftrture by
the, existing Genersl plans which we have seen'Will be massively reduced
in density: 1f the General Plan amendment Is adopted, there will have to
h ;1TtTJ iy Ut> ziV'180RS MINUTES Vobruaxy" 5j 198
•
the ng Element'
All references to density are based
be a on theedoing existin General plan. In doing an analysis of the goals and
'.objectives of the Housing Element consistent with the General. Plan amendments
the principal, goals and objectives encourages greater density for housing,
not less. The reason why greater the future. Tes he Hous nghat Element�layslthat
be less agricultural land used in the f Pour months later', the county
out and recommends increases in density:
computation reference to this downzone. There
comes in with a massive co
r
is a need for 1,120' new ...units -per yea.and there were many statements about
ngo
why the cost of housing is high and comments abouts affordable housithis
?.s the area is reduced for ava_i.lalml tY of new construction housing
Will effect the market place. if there are fewer places to build housing,
using will go upi if there is a new housing area created
the price of ho
the
west side of Chino, there is limited area for development and the
on.word. monopoly can be used loosely at the density for 1,720 unit demand.
ur competition. That is what
It will drive up the cost of housing and deto
the Housing Element says -
important the most important discussions in the EIR is what the
qua to say why not leave it as it isi
alternatives are., It is afai t q of tele planning report. The
Tiie alternatives become very important part
masa interesting thingthe lawand�wasdfent is amil.i.arthe withptF:ept of state�J,aweand bPR
He re .rtarched the stat
guide1s and was not familiar with lines drawn
)•.e
for twenty years.
esis aneed
felt tka burden was on. the decision making body to,
for a greexnline. The EiR should do that does not, How ework? e r,]hatoisowrong
agreuJ.tural land under the
with whet has been utilized• He wo)Ald e�cpeet to find answers to those
gt�esti.ons in. Che EIR alternative section; There ere i5tnonge£eren.cein the Eto
to show why there is a need .for a greenn we need it, as opposed to whether
a greenl-Ane There is fto reference to why
WcPlanatiOh as to
we need it or what the alterna �es ate. Tasrtoiha�rath grpenline its
planning and zaning laws or 0 guidelines
in. If there is a need for a greenline, why is t only ►Chi ca and
why only in the east Chico axes.: why
is i>+ now 'needed in Orovil e and
Patdd.se. he offered a suggestion why the, greenli.ne might hot be a good
Idea. He did not feel the 8nard could make a decision yet because what
lace is casting in concrete a line for twenty years.
would be taking p date the General
cider state l.aw� the Board is required to annually up
Why is there a need to draw aline.
plan. It is to be a correct document, his conclusion is that the only
for twenty years that says hands off,
reason a line is being dioeioneothesononoComm3ssions�nd hoard.
governing 'body and the remains 'constant and that
T ng _ ,
Ff does not make the decisions � The `pl.at'.ning Ccimmi.s.�ian makes
the area o£ the: state he comes from, w
in that stn _
is _ _ _. one t a reason for the rt.co'mmendatia"•
tecommendati ins and staff supports it and gives
e aid not see that type of evatdtiot in the staff report 6h'
n the
BOARD 0P St1VUpv1soRS Al2NAJUS
Planning Commission's recommendation of the greenline. He did not see an.
objective EIR discussion of why there is a need for a greenline. There
must be 'recognition that -the greenline will effect properties and is
discriminatory aganist some properties and is not a uniform greenline.
It does not effect property owners equally. Depending on how the line is
placed, ;Midway Orchards could be wiped out. 'Why discriminate against. them?
There is damage in doing that When the economic viability is taken from
the property owner and—the property was purchased knowing the General
Plan designation. was low density with one to six units per acre and
the zoning was "A--2" zoning and farce a nonagrictaltural land into the
agricultural side the*e nothing left except to try to recoup the value of
the land by inverse condemnation actions. He did not think the Board should
put any property in that position;
In going through numerous documents and reports presented, he came
across reference to the coalition greenline, which was interesting because
it did not coincide with the Planning Commission recommendation and Midway
Orchards came out on the wrong side of the line. He asked if there had
been an ETR done for the coalition greenline. He could find no tIR on the
coalition line in the Planning Department files. Their investigation was;
if that is possible, more deficient in the soils area than the county's
investigation+ He has been reading that the General Plan airiendments were
controversial and he learned of the possibility of an initiative to
establish the greenline He could only suggest that in the areas of '
planning and zoning initiatives are forces because they are cast in concrete
forever -unless they are turned over by another initiative. He hoped the
Board was not inclined to be intimidated by the interest of the initiative.
He suggested that an initiative as discriminatory as he had seen proposed
would be struck down as invalid in ,a minute, If the county roust have a
greenline, the best analysis he has seen done was done by the Planning
Commission. They listened to the property owners effected, the evidence
and testimony of the property owners who should know something about their
property, They drew a line based on that testimony. This greenl, ne is
a much more pali.tab.l.e line and the result of this line is stiff; bitterness;
objections, machinery going to work and staff, does not -support it, rs the
division worth it to get into a greenline in the first place, and if the
county does doesn't that tell something, that there is a need for 81p,
data and information that would result in good land use decisions?
He .telt that! when the BIH was doAd, the county may also find they do not
need the drastic downzoning of low density toagricultural tesiderit.al,,
Why wasn't a "PA -C„ recommended'? The B'IH procedures apply equally to the ;
county initiated General. Plan ameudiiient as they apply to an individual
application, if Midway Orchards was required to produce the scientific
data, on soils in 1978 for the property, the county is held to the same
standards. They reached a conclusion and the county should be doing the
same type of soils analysis. The solution is really to go back and get
a basic document that was needed in the first place, and send it to the
Planning Commission and instruct staff to do the kind of evaluation that
should have been done in the first place. When that is done, the county
may find they do not need a greenl'ne. If the county does find the need,
them, they will know where the line should be placed. There might be support
for that line. axe urged the Board to make the proper investigation. It
would be easy for him to say the Board should adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation because his client is on the right side of the line. His
comments have been directed to the inadequacy of the Elft and it should be
changed. He submitted two documents for the record at this time.
2. Bill. Retzer, Rt. 4, Box 5288, Chico. Mr. Retzer tot out
his property on the map. it is located on Bsplarade north of .Mud Creek
on the went side. Ttu ptoperty is actually 87 acres witai. 8 or 9 acres
for an easement. In y ..rs pait before the drainage canal was put in by
the Corps of Engineers, the c, -eek ran down through his property and then bgdk
in a line. Around 1966 when the canal was built and widened, ttie area was t
filled in and°made deeper in order to give more flow capacity*. He set,
out 'he landmarks in. the area. To the northwest is the "M—),." zone fo;
Pleasant Valley Ready 'Mix; to the north the "N -l" zone of North Va11�:y
Ready Idx,•' the Garner Lane former golf course that is now 2" zotia nA;
divided into Lots for commercial enterprises; south are SaWral. honk
along Nord Highway with a Large mobile home park of 80 to kl= spades,
The lots developed in this area in the past were marked lq, � ,, 7 anti ;` Jme
5 acre parcels When the channel was developed, the Corps of zZtet2autss
provided drainage inlets through his property into tha canal with a one
way flow,gate Part of the Mud Creek Drainage District since it wds
formed in t:he 1960si tit had to agree s„ mazy instances with the former
speakf—N,e had not ,[een anyone doint soils study for his property.
He has seen the sbijs map from 1925. When the creek moved to the south down
it was done not many years after the rnport was made. The channel change
was not taken into considttation. ire would like to have staff and the
Board code out to hi,s property and loo's at it. By driving by the area,
walnut troes are visible; but what cannot be seen is where the credk was
located. The ESR did trot tell him anything about• his soil and it a%ould
have ` yen brought out. There is very -little soil where the ,creek onoa
was to itIppottt the trees. There was nothing in the EIA 'referring to
1.
Mod crr.Wk Drainage District. The property owner is paying into the
.iwgtrict and should have rights since there it a, drainage Nutlet in the
w.,eek. He has good major highway attess The street width is enough,
well tahtaiited and theta is a large enough btridgd, Thera is industrial
activities and housing surround his ptoperty: Rd did not: recall, this
issue being discussed at the Planning Commission meetings, He did not Leel
there had been enough input or pan- site i.nspec,tion by any tdtaber of the
county s taf a or Board to look at this area tiari.ous ly , He will have the,
creep on one tide of his property and the highway on the other side. ie
BOARD 01-%$UEDV'18OWS MUMS w Pebruary 3, 1982
did not like the greenline, period, He did not feel the planning process
need this type of line. His property was in "A 40" when it was purchased,
and felt that if the others were developments or wanted to come in and ask
,for a rezone, he would have the opportunity to do so. He did not think
he would have the same rights as other property owners if he was placed
on the greenl.ine and would have to ask,for a. General. Plan. Once a
General Plan is set, itis pretty tough to change i t . A General. Plan.
is to be general in nature, not a fixed line for each parcel. He set
out an article from the California Farmer dated November 21 1581: which
was submitted for the record. The heading is hand use planning, wz.11
the farmers be victims? If Agri cultural.is.ts Wart rulr:s they ham better
write rules they can live with. fie came before the Planning Commission
asking that ;is property be changed. He did wx: fepel there had Ueen
enough study of the soils done for his property in the EI.R. He has
development surrounding hitt. if there is growth in the area, he could
come in and apply .for a rezone.
Supervisor
sent to the Planning Commission �
b Mr.dRetzere'sv,ittorney of the correspondence
g y � y, Jefferson Brown.
She then received a hand written letter from Mr,- Retzer and an additional
correspondence from Mr. Brown. She knew this was considered by the commission
and the minutes reflect that consideration: Sometimes tours of the area
are taken on foot or slowly in A car, not necessarily with. the property
ow=ner tieing aware of it
Mr. Retzer did not think a persona who dijd not know the property
would know what was on the property unless this was discussed with the
property owner. He felt this was such a serious matter, that the Board -
Beds to take the time to meet with the property owners and took at the•
situation, Mud Creek is not there just for the' 'east side of Chico: It
is ,here 'for him to use also. There is a drainage inlet: into the canal on
is property.
Supervisor Dolan wanted to discuss � here
p twenty .years again tf t f
theanext�timeeanyoneos property will b looked At�is the Yeara2002. That
is g passed, g ,
There
is no way the county can legally do -n3' applications for change,,
Mr. Retzer realised that. When there is Appl ration for a General
Plan amendment, it is more complex than a change dt zoning, He wanted to
know how many times a person could have consideratton of an amendment.
Mt, Rafter was advise d there could be three changes in any
yes;. w,
t4a'1:RD 01' MINN 1tE8 l bbruary 5$ 1982
L:1
w
Mr. Retzer•stated he had lived in Chico since 1961 or 1962. He
has been in thereal estate business and was past president of the Chico
Board of Realtors in 1965. He also has an agricultural background having
graduated, from college in agriculture. The only way to get into agriculture
as to make money in real estate to be able to buy a ranch. He locked back
and was proud of what he did. He did not Like the entire picture of the
greenline. The Chico Board of. Realtors are supporting the greenline and
are in the coalition. much of their business comes Brom large landowners
and developers who are also in the coalition. He ;felt the Farm Bureau
was taken into this Many farm in agricultural areas and can have a huller
but cannot do commercial hulling because they will be covering more ground
with concrete and asphalt to be able to carry everyone's almonds. If you
go out Dayton Road there is a trucking business in agricultural land.
He°felt this greenline could effect the farmers from their commercial
ventures. Is it fair to him or other People that have industrial land
in the City of Chico to be denied. He felt to be fair, the farmers
would have to take the brunt of this also. There are commercial businesses
on the farms in prime agricultural land.
Chairman Wheeler spoke tegarding the comments by Supervisor
Dolan on the 20 -year plant. So many people have Vindicated their concern.
Supervisor Dolan is correct. 1rhen there was discussion of not having
the circumstances to make application to change the General Plan, she
felt that the people more directly effected by the designation are saying
they understand there can be changes but feel sure they would be precluded
from approval of the application. She will come out and walk fir. ?tetzer's
property with him.
3. Frank Brazell, 9t 1, Box 40 B, Chico. .Mr. Braze!! set
out the brooks he had brought with him to the hearing, lie wanLud Z6
discuss the drainage dis,"rict that was discussed by _Mr. Retzet.#e bras
sure that most of the Board
had no idea of What took Place when the Corps
of Engineers put in the bfud Creek drainage. He knew how the drainage
district came about, as well as others. A, person named Mr. Forester, who
owned property off Hortontiood, wanted to develop ten acres and could not
do soy He went to the county and received no response. fie then went to
the City of Chico and with; the Chamber of Commerce was seat back to
ashington, D.C. Mr. Forester got the Corps of tngineers to be involved
withY
the cit and: thetotal, of the land +ghat ruches to 5 --mike dam to
Mud Creek was to be assessed. This takes in the total. of the Chico Area
to the: river. People are still__ aying on that assessment district.
The district wAsforiied and the Meir etas put in so the city was not :flooded.
Mac. Forester divided his property. The gait runs into Sandy Culch and then
goes to .Mud Creek, At the same time, this Was happening, he tva.s on the
other end down the river; He went to the state and to Washington; D.G.
He had to sell S$ Acres to keep t%i river from 'washing away. He was begging
to save some of that ,good farmland the people are interested in, At
offered to payfor 90 percent of the cost of the riprap. in that same
area_he lost 40 Acres of laud.. It people are so jhtotested in saving
BOMW OV S(JPVRVt5M8 MfNVT'r-18 Vobruaty 3,; 1982
e
agricultxizal land, why are they not going where the action is at and
getting to' the river, and quite warrying 'about the land close to the City
of Chico. He knew of 200 to 300 acres of, parcels that have gone down the
Yiver„ They are gone forever. He was not interest in the five, one or
He did not know thtan acre almond orchards. a it and wasefooformed inst of the thedlatter epart tofct
because people are still Paying g nn d
the 1950S.
Some people and thing they are paying into 5UDA.D.
Ple are condiscuss pages of
He wondered if 'tk'ie Board wacy�eadyot�otndsCa�eAabo He
happened when
com:nuni.cations between theY,
SUpAD was farmed. The district was formed
w hrouca and the statehe wanted
ant d it
to be formed. They brought the highway g
rid of the eater. The state would take old Highway, 99, Esplanade, and
make it a four --lane highway and place curbs and gutters out to Shasta
ce and the
Boarof
Avenue if this is done, The Chamber of co=erpassedand approved itabecause the.
Supervisors supported this. The Board
state demanded it or they would not put in the freeway. When the drainage
district was formed there was $635,000 on the bond 1/2 or $2 million for
barouadiit 25wto
30 years, which means somewhere aroun
drainage y would
paid
for. The state made the �cnmsm.tmeat Eortrh�.sThefa�ersc�.ntthe :.
provide $95,000 app�roxi.matpayto help Pay
total; area were eased and pay �e bill Co take the water off the freeway.
the did not mind having
the drainage district or paying on it because he was
1 and a piece of ra ert 3/4 mile away piece of property
y from the ditch.
sub'n.st the
in different pareas. He ovine a told that this
agar eats and was
He challenged the engineer with the two payor
was of on top of that, On one piece f f ptmeadpdtty topin hethe 5first ame rdraina.ge
district, this drainage district was _o.
district he discussed. There was thk - e dto havedrainagedistrictwasother development
pfarmed
help develop the other property and a at the
The last drainage district wasoforCOnefL r�mersh$900eper Acre for n
fora little
Avenue to East Avenue: That
strip on tap of what was being pard on the other two districts.
Supervi:sar Moseley questioned Mr. Brazell about the people who
said there were promises made that the people could develop their
land..
there %was a commitment made by the
city, Board 'Che=loftCted t
bmntetceand stater He would be happy to let
c y,
his file at any time, He 'world not subtriit� it'
SuSupervisor Dolan lank at
Chairm.1n Giheejet advised Mr, Brazell that the Board would discuss
StJ>)AD after the information is ins She has inf6tilation supplied by Mr,
Brazall plus what staff has given to her. That will be discuseussioet
the trl;t
has been di.sctYssed. He was doncerned when there it resdi8tu lines
About drawing lines, greenlines ane coalition lines Were not
He set out the zeasowould i,tdbeobe� to theynt like lineswouldand £elt havettoth;eweesome type
needed and how long line
of pass to be able to travel from etf heohadhe ttongapperbrorieeline, it would
county or state line to andthet,
the Planning Commission l"101'E11'e,p
heard a statement frptt todirxm that
l!01 Z11 (J1� $UVtR, j80A8 �MNUTCS t~obruaty 3, 1082
•
Planning Commission line was the Frank Bennett line. If the Planning
fission line is the Prank Bennett line.., they. -he would call the coalition
the CED line.
4. Jon Morehead, Chico. Mn Morehead stated he was speaking for
seven property owned on the west side of Chico. They are opposed to the
greenlineespecially when there is an attempt to impose - the greenbelt and
downgrade the property. He ha.s never been able to get the definition of
agricultural land. They pay into the llud Creek Dradmge District<.
Lloyd.Heidinger Dayton Road, Mr. Heidinger stated he would
be addressing the 20 -year effect of the proposed greenline. The coalition
as porposed has the intent to take effect for .7.0 years. That has biva --sated
by one member of the coalition and they 'are wanting to take action downzoix+,rig
along with the line. He wanted to discuss the process for application by
an individual before the Planning Commission and Board to make changes to
the General -Plan. As property owners came before the Board for their
individual property, they were concerned about their wanting ;to address
the issues proposed, not necessarily by a faceless entity, because there
axe faces that come up, The entity proposed a 20 year effect, It seems to
be the embodiment to have this plan for. 20 years because of facing entities
for that period of time, ;and they want to rezone it 20 years into the future:
This is something the EIR does not address. In addition to the EIR, the
situation has btee:n based over many times on the 100' foot buffer.
He wandered how the EIR would .address the buffo -,r and how agriculture would
maintain a 100 �:.r,�t, zone away from new development in the. Dayton Road and
other areas:
S-rpervisor .Dolan stated that in her considerations of the
policy statement in defining buffer was that this Cak,ffer would be on
the urban side of the line.
6. Ndlcyne Turner, Rodeo Avenue, Chico: Z�Ls, Turner submitted
a petition with 50 signatures relative to her area. In the area from Alamo
Avenue to the, railroad tracks has a problem with sewage and drainage and, if
it developed further it will create a problem of having to have the sewage
and drainage pumped t4hich would added more expenses on the farming area.
7. Frank Btazell.. xf Brazell stated he had a map. of OTMAb. He
was willing to 'let the Board look at the tnap biro« he wanted it balk .-,r his
files, ,
Chairman wheeler advised Mr. Brazell that once the 'rdap is con
sidered by the ..Board it becomes part of the record and°rstays as part of
the record for one year.
ndmw OV SC1t��'Rb':1SORS \tXNi1(1 nS w February 5,, 1082
N
i
a
$uVe visot'Dolan stated that when the Board took a break, she
would be willing to sae he map
and compare it with the one she has-.
$. Leonard dampil. Mr. Hampil stated that the reason he referred
to the 20 -year duration was because it is mentioned in the notice of this
public hearing. He read the legal notice at this time.
g, IIll Cottinghamtotally inadequate and the responsibility I
Mr. Cottingham felt the Board knew his;
Position. He felt the. Et" wasY es of buildings
t
for maintaining the zoning, character of the zonings r» yp
permitted on the buffer, where it will be permitted and where it will ty
located was not addressed. He wanted to know who word pay the liability
..nsurance for that broad strip of land thath nt tuagh Chico. He ti
.felt all.these items had been omitted from t
What: occurs with may
felt
the buffer zones. This is Chousands of feet it' lost property and who
will pay for lost revenue.
10.- .lon ,M.orehead, Rt 2, $o4 Morehead141, Chino. Mr. Morehead was not,
nappy with.the ExR. He, felt that it should. have addressed 4hether the
Land could ,be, f a=ed ecouom.,,cally for profit, what was the build up around
the area in quest=ion, is it commercial or residential and does it have
public services such as PG&E, telephone, gas, water, improvements, roads
and; sewers. He felt the loo --foot setback should he completely taken out.
He felt that if t,je property was taken from the urban side; this would be
a waste of land. There has never been this type of setback tv this county.
ll, Chris Baldwin, Baldwin Contracting. 'Mr. Baldwin stated he
,,,Dula like to discussion the alternatives in the south Chino axes referred
to in the t,2.r. one of the alternatives is to go ahead with the amendment ,
and incorpot:ate the recommendations _of the Planning Commission in tVovember,
1980. The �tecbnd alternative is for a redesign of the entire south Chico
area to e.letninate the problems of traffic. All the problems deal with
traf2-id problems rather than soil in this area. The second alt;eraative
would be to down design some of the areJ as proposed by the Planning
Cbmmiss C+ri :o reduce traffic problem:3 • 14he third alternative would be
to put the area in an iutRr�m or study tired. His company owns about
C}iicr� area. :ie set the locatxon o"f the prope
300 acres in the south rty
out. on the map; This property runs "basically from HigZtray 99 down ;�iaryiiell
Road back too Highway 994 "•e made reference ,to two resolutions passed
by the Board in 1971 where tT-mparary road connections were approved for
the 250 acre industrial site, which is correctly zoned zoni-cg. They
only have 170 acres of that left. The last t the other property ,as
sold in. Southgate Industrial. O'nit 111. They past i`a a left --turn. lat,L5- afiti
acc'elerats, .irn and deee"lleration lanes on the basis of the resolutiox~s.
He felt t% had bade a commitment to that 250 acres as far as the "M--`2"
z04e and it should stay as itis. The rest of the property' that contains
the .bac 1-1 .ark and dredger tails to the gest has been in an industrial
,
situation tot: a number of years. That property is zoned !'A-1" zoning'
The property has been more or less designed from theirs"ta. ,point,
He
could not support alternative one as far as the Rlannirtg Com�mf.ssion line
in x:986 which takes,°away the "Ih-2" and puts the propetty into "A-201, zoni'ngo
BOA ' Oi� S[tptt''�.`jS0RS A1G�rCJIM ; tbruary 3 1 2
They put 'in improvements' base rin the "1+-2" zoning.: As far as the second
alternative goes,with the reduction of land by land designation as it
relates to traffic, they -could be willing to consider a different land
use designation from the industrial over approximately 96 acres that is
currently in ""A Z" zoning. He did not see any reason for the third
alternative and having a study area over the land that is currently llrf 21"
zoning, which has improvements on a state highway for over 250 acres. If
mans come forward on the. remaining 170 acres, the circulation will have to
be � addressed. ae was not interested in a study area for the 111,,f-2" zoning.
lie would like to seethe proposals for the study area for the 96 acres
cur;:ently in "A-2" zoning: He set out the original 250 acres out on the
p at this time.
12. Bob Heimanns Rt, 2, Box 202, Chico. Mr. Heimann stated he
ad attended quite a few meetings and the conclusions he has reached is that
any kind of lame that is created will create twice the problems that are
ere at the present time. He felt this sb6uld remain status quo and retain
the present zoning on the books
Supervisor Dolan stated she felt some ackwardness with this hearing,
&ayone can give an opinion or analysis of reports, presentations or whatever.
Sometimes site makes comments and sometimes she does riut. She attempted.
-not
to get on a one on one basis with any {member of the audience, She was
wondering how to organize the information and comments that have been
presented: 3he questionad whether some of the things brought up by sir•
Harapl. were accurate: Does she question them now while he is here, or.
She di. S
not want to et into a debate. This is
submit thein in writing,.,,,_,
a public hearing. The end result is to close off public comments and ti1•1a
del.iherate as the Board. this hearing is the giving of information by the
•
public to the Board.
Supervisi)t 5araceni stated that, based on the hearings hold and
the issues addressed on the EIRs he found without a doubt that he questioned
the ) IR with the testimt)Tjjy he has heard. It onlyw emphasizes the questions
he has heard in the
-+^,st He was convinced that the 'EIR did not cover the
questions raised in' the hearings. lie had a question relative to 'the General
Plan in how could the Board place .a specific geographic line in this plan.
It leads him to feel it could "- pen,ended in such a way there could be
1-W. Cation brought on ths:t. it' das been clear that the tilt has not
a.dd�assed soil and a few of the other items as to what effect would there
be on properties that are downzoned to more t6strictive land use than the
property now has. What effect will this hake 'on the underlying stibdivisions
Arid what property will become nonamfortui,ng. He also felt the Wk should
have addressed what agriculGiiral land had been c6W,erted in the last five
years, the last two years rad Last year, the other point brought up has
been on the ]4A-foo't easemeatybuffer or setback, He wanted to know the
legal., means to r4:ite this setback; and 'dads the county have those md'Ati!
qu
AO is going, to give this ptoperty and whn will be respdhdib l.e for it.
B C1'A C1FU7pt-j�,.\qS j1,S �JJNUTES Pabrt a 'y , 1
Supervisor Dolan stated those were questions `for the Board to
decide. The environmental imuact analysis does not answer the questions"
jfor the` Board if they want to establish a General Flan or greenl.ihe. The
,EIR.does not decide where and when the Board decides that. She hoped the
Board would not ,give those questions to staff, because they belonged at the
Board level. She felt they had adequate information and have been giver
an immense amount of information on the southern area of Chico. She knew
the Board would consider it. Considdring and listening does not always
Mean agreement. She felt the Board had head Very lengthy and confusing
discussions oA the buffer area. It is written down in the text forwarded
by the Planning Commission one way and the Board is given an alternative
analysis, labeled coalition, If someone believes that 100 acres along
the greenline ,is vacant, Chen they will have a problem if that is true.
She had not seen that. She was suggesting a point where the Board could
decide if this is what they want to do. They certainly have the tools
legally and every other way to establish the line in the Chico area. w
The Planning Commission dealt with this issue for three meetings. All.
Counsel's analysises are that yes the Board can deal with this.. She
hoped they would not give the matter back to staff to bring it back to
the Board.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he was looking at the policy in the
General Plaw based upon the continual analysis of the population trends.
He read the policy at this time. The designation of adequate land for
free competition is very clear. It seemed to him that by putting a specific
designation on this;, they are in violation of the General Plan policy.__
Supervisor Moseley stated she had seen problems.
Supervisor Dolan knew the policies were in there. She was on
thaBdard when a7 +gh it word by word.' The goal statements
and framework is to make,sp-cnfic decisions. She disagreed that they were
very specific in what conclusions whould b'e. It is a matter of opinion.
how much ,land is restricted. A holding capacity of almost i million peopa,e
is. not restriction. There is a population of 1400000 people. Itis s,
matter if discretion. It does not say continue with the Genetal. Plan for
ja holding.. capacity, but use discretion and allow for change whenever it is
o.eedad.
Supervisor Satadeni stated he could not make a decision based
line or information
oli in zhad heard thatwould Justify goingo into a specific
an, the informo,tion he had
in.g or down btl g in Butte County,, lie had not
heard adequate information in the ETlt to back the positions for the
line,
M
Supervisor ,bolan stated. the Board was iA hearing on the urban
designations for the Chico area and are not in zoiniag hearings at this ; ...
time: The Board is; looking at changes in the General Plan designation:
A$ one example, going from one existing tone that :is very arguable, from
the low dehsity residential to agricultural residential designation.
It is tecthnically not downzoIn ng.
w
h A1�1� 0t .� 1T� it�'i 5 ' I Nit hS eh ua.ty 3, 1-98
Chairman Wheeler stated this. was a r_haa,je in land use desi€yFtation
and it could be consideree downzan.i.ng.
i
Supervisor Dolan stated it was a reduction in the units allowed
b.y the "w�:c�xa] pian, The Board is to apply a des-gnation and line based on
the goo' S_.:.cements and policies that meet comaulal , social, physical and.
geographic needs
Supervisor Saracen stated that i the Board is to make a decision
on the greenline and even cine PLoperty owner- felt; the Bo.'zd had not spoken
to as property, the Boa.ra rta: t to have that. informationzade available to
be able to just -4 £q t;.e dPci.si on and what facts WerE, used for that decision.
He would not vete. for. jazk;,T changes without '..hose,, facts. He felt the
:Hoard should look at this and send it back to have the proper information
included i. a the EIR.
Chrr,,i.rmax Wheeler stated that as a matter of-::cedure the Board
will ga'.eye directic'.a, to staff to comment on the loll. ani; tha information
will be forthdomin.g to the Board. it will take a couple of weeks to 1
prepare the resperOes, She understood. Supervisor Sar,aceni to say that he
was not nPcessari�y r�dv; rc�e to the designation or urban-r,urryl demarkation,
' at wanted to make ache that the responses covered tete weaknesses in the
EIR:before he, could make a decision on this matter..
Superviso°l; Saraceni. stated he had found maV-7 thing: that have not
been addressed that put a financial impact on pa�rticui.ar .land owners who
are effected if their property is do =zoned and not given the Opportt, ty
to use the paopertes as designated in the zoning on tie property at: .:his.
that i erti .s will properties that hav c> ',erlyi ng
time. What $.s the effect on rhos
subdivisions j P P p ll be nonconfo-z=,ng i",
,a=. li.: tient
through. 'Ih ..o impact will there be with the 100--4.00t F #� anent'vtjUffer
or setbacl�. �i t,iose p rti.cu�.ar lands These art: some of rhe
have to bt, m ;wered.
Supervisor An aryeredlwilltno be answered. think that the �uTl�^t jiwill.hbe athe
resp� ttsehJ
that axe real and unau� w
andrthey have been developing information. There is a certain amount of
discretion when tonside.:ing the planning process that falls with the Board
in their hearings.
SCipervisor Saradeni could not make a decision ul t•:il he had the
answera that relate to the cost and what would happen to hese propetties,
and the prupertq owner.
r as ba.si.cally' why the Board is dere
Chairman WhePlet fated That w
to allow pedple to rnalte comments to ref ex back- to staff to respond to the
questicins praised., Thet'e i t; no site speci.zic that covers the entire de etal,
r rd 'gas dealing with,
plan area,. She dial licit kiloV i>- that was the issue the Boa
toAjtp Up` Supj� VJSCM,9 XCINUTVIS Pets-ruary , i 4
l3, Frznk Bennett,, Keefer Road, Chico. rc. Bennett stated they
have had demarkation lines between agriculture and urban uses ever since
line has been a deface
lining was established. Highway 99 ;From Mud. Creek. to the Tehama County
q greenline between specific agricultural zones and
the "A-2" zoning Ever since he could remember. That line has been there and
has worked. He has been on the Planning Commission for close to six years
and has hevex permitted any splitting west of that .Line, There have
applications, but they have been routinely turned down. The greenlineeen on
the highway is not there because in 1578 or 19.79 the county designated all
land north of Dock Creek on the east side of Highway 99 as "A-4011 zoning.
Now that defacto greenitne� goes up Highway 99 to Rock Creek. If the General
Tan designation is changed on a owner "s land so that it is downgraded that
is ultimately downzaning of that land. There was not "A--R" designation
in the Glenwood area until the zoning in 1978 or 1979. Whatever the Board
does, they will have to set the General Plan changes in. Chico and'have specific
designation between the land uses whether there is a green -line or not. The
only difference is if the Board implements the
greenling then the language:
spelling this out specifies in the General Plan what it is all about. If
the Board decides not to have a greenline they the demarkation lines will
still have to be there.
14. Nel'c ne Turner, Rodeo Avenue. r
!s : Turner r stated they had
rrA 31' zoning, which is now "A-St' zoning,
in 'reBettye Blair, p;lanni�ig director, stated that this toning
ference to the Heimann property. The property is "A SR"''zoning.
Dr. Bennett is _talking about agricul:turual residential as it applies to
the General. Paan and Ms. Turner is talking about zoning:
his. Turner stated r;t.e had a newspaper clipping from Februa
zy and
;was designated as f"ASS"' zoning and some , area on the west side of Highway 32
APri.l., 1966 that sa s their area_ and. the
know where Dr. of that was larger., She did not
Bennett was talking about .when die said there was no mo�;ging
from the Esplanade over into agricultural land is `he last fern years, ng
the property is is talking about is north of Shasta. Avenue,
She
the zoning was changed out Henshaw and Lassen. ,Ave
a great deal. nues. They havetmovedtotit,
15, Frank Bennett, Dr. Bennett: stated he made reference to the
anything
Avenues, He made reference to the property count and Bay
land north df tiud Creel. He did not sayan join about S
P y rth to, the county line,
it was moved by Supervisor Saraceni seconded by, Supervisor Moseley
that staff be directed to go back into the BTR and update it properly as
to the questions than have been raised to the tiR4
Supervisor Dolan, objected to the motion because the Board is still.
in a public hearing status The questions raised By the public and the
questions ra.=sea by the Board wilx have to be responded to.
Chairttian Wheeler was certain th4 Board member$j would want to
�.
respond to the questions raisedan the BIR. She.. would j.ilze to doisti,nue
the hearing until` aftdr lundhF
10
Supervisor Dolan felt that the Board still had to consider
responses to comments brought up during the hearing.. Everything that
was brought up does become a part of the ETA as ,does the other concerns.
Mr. Woods advised that it does if it relates to something that
can he anal zed in terms of the EIR. Most of the testimony has been on
whether someone liked or disliked a proposal.. Those cannot be further
remised or analyzed.
S.uperVsor Dolan stated the ao=ents raised abut it appears that
the goal or project objective is to protect prime agricultural land and
from that shouldn't we start with what is prime and most important map
is the soils map. She assumed the analysis was many other goals and object-
ives and note the one is an agreement with the City of Chico responding to
the cOnnuunity desires to direct grown to the extreme part of town and the.
need was expressed and given the name of greenl,ine since Chico passed a green-
14ne,in 1575 of urban growth boundary for the western edge of the urban area.
Given these goals and others outlli.ned, they are far more or just as important
as the maps, a circulation map or potetatial drainage problems. There are
many other maps that need to be taken into consideration% She did not think
there was a suggestion that the Only factor taken into consideration was
just the soils character, but par.:el sizes, zonings circulation, if there
are land use changes or density prublems, drainage problems that may or
may not happen, urban services, the demands that occur, and all other
issues that occur with growth. They have been dealing with the soils
map of 1925. She keeps remembering what somentie said to her is that
actions created hundres or thousands of years ago are not going to change
except for cultural practices, She had questions if staff relative to
:the direct relationship to the housing E1.ement aw,
capacity' statistics given
on the holding p ty quoted from the Housing F;, W and the numbers
Of new dwelling units to be needed She asked whore density wins the:
.holding capecity based on as far as what land use trap was used! F7as this
prior to the Commission's motion to expand the urban area?
Mr. Woods stated that the density on the Land use map for
the holding capacity was based on the draft then ,n effect. It was prior
to, the Planning Commission's motion.
Supervisor Dolan questioned whether the statistics. of 11700
new dwellings pier year was a couniy-t4ide fie a or a Chico figure?
Mr. Woods advised that th`e figure was a cottnty�wide average of
the annual housing needs There is not nectstari.ly a mix in areas.
Su ervisor
,pg � p =er inairt questions: Being ac;`are
t is a valid oint that i 9
Dolan stated those were h
f the count emends one portion;,
df the Houera.Y. plan t. p
sxn Elemen
Portion -
of the Gen he other arts must be consistent, vhith brought the,
county to changing the Chico urban area in the rgviae7 process. Th t~ Housing
til dt .aUP,tMf180t1S MINUTES � Hebruavy 3 1082
s �s
(Element statistics were based on the proposals. She noted that on Page 2
under project objectives, the county did not list the implementation of
the greenline. The objective is the designation of the urban growth
boundary. Since it has been stated, it obviously will b,? added.
Just because it is not in the document un to this point does not mean it t
won't be.
Mr. Woods stated that the EIR in various insulary parts are in
draft for -t. What, will be before the .Board will be in final form for
certification:. and action.
Supervisor DcLAn stated she had reviewed state la.s and court
cases. There has been court cases and a teat teal of state law brought
been
up over and over again. that the county must'b-y, law legally take into account.
the potential economld-viability of a parcel of land. All the laws she read
show the number one criteria as the. land use policies and if it fits with
the community desires, where growth should he and where"it should be
accomodatcd with services; roads, schools and enought drainage: Is the
Board mandated'to take into consideration a person's belief of the potential
profit of the land before zoming.
Mr.'Woods was not aware of any case or law to that effect apart
from regional housing needs. There have been; efforts to require economic
issues.. Theta is very little -agreement on 0hat that means.
Supervisor Dolan skated iL�was a factor. There could be an increase
or decrease for the land. The cases she had read show -the decisions going
against the
g government if the action results in no use :of the landatall.-
rathLt than the actions resulting in anticipated change 61 the land. The
City of Cerritos zoned a zone for shopping canters to a zoning for
residential use and were on the winning side.
16. Frank Bennett. Dr. 'Bennett stated there was a recent decsiox
by the State Supreme, Court involving Costa Mesa and the roan who handled
the case is at; the tearing, This has pertinent implications for all cities
and
the cerins of in case.ounties
He would like for the Board to ask him to explain
I!:. tddhAtd Hempi:L Mt r Iiempil stated ha did 'participated in the
Arnel vs City of Costa Mesa. His firm also participated in briefing the
Cerritos, HFA case. More recently the California Supretite Court made a
ruling in the Agens ;case on inverse condemriat16n, The federal courts have
made decisions on
inverse condemnations; The, .Arnel case is really an
Of 5i ive type Ofl27ssin The city approve a aassive kind of development
Initiative G
tingle fsu►ily units. The citizens of Costa Mesa
Home Owners Association, after the council Approved circtlated. an initiative
and the ihitiatve d&4hzoned the property to oni,rig to preventtheArnel property from being developed. The Court 7f Appeals came nut with
a sl0deping, decision making all toning aduiinistrative and not legiA lati:ve.
130ARD OV 51,TTtMMISORS NUN-UrE8 - 'Vebxtjaxy s, 1082--
�,'.
4
r
They took away the initiative process. The Supreme Court reversed that
portion of the decision. Their decision was to treat rezoning as
legislative and goes into the allowing of' the use of the initiative in that
context. They will scrutinize the use of that initiative, The sent it
back to the Court of Appeal to apply to the Livermore case.to see if they
took away the economic viability. The Court of Appeal struck down the
initiative as arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. That is the
final decision. The city has elected not to appeal:.
{ As far as HFA and Akiiis and other cases that all share a potential
of what the Zoard is considering. These are California cases that, if, the
property is zoned so it cannot be used for the purposes it is suppose to,
for the ;zone, the property owner can persue inverse condemnation proceedings.
Supervisor Dolan stated that was partially true that economic use
does not coiistittste a change and inverse condemnation, Inverse condemnation
does not occur every year a crop does not produce like it has:
Mr. Hempil stated that the cases do say and this is why it is
important to get a factual EIR, is that if property that is not agricultural
is put into an agricultural zone and there is no Agricultural pot.ential,'
you can staru a cause of action for inverse condemnation, The same y
California cases filed in federal courts, show that federal rules; are
ones of economic viability. The federal courts are willing to final there
has been a t;icing if it is an uneconomically viability :use: Any person
can file in federal court by baslAo,their case on the 14th amendment.
In terms of comments and including all responses to the comments section
by staff, cases are uniform in saying that when an EIR is so deficient as
to not get the project description right, the agency cannot redefine the
project and pretend there is an adequate rIR. S'upetvsior Dolan pointed
out the county did not get the description as the greenli.ne. The reason
this cannot be done is because the 'draft is sent to agencies for reviews and
if they are not interested they are not going to comment on it. But an
adequate definition of the project in this case when the EIA was sent to
HCb, he felt would have iiterest in ,knowing what Butte. County is doing by
drastically dowrizoning, He was sure they would be very interested in giving
their comments, so would air pollution. and water quality. The same may be
said of the citizens throughout the county. Goverufaent Code 65860 W ndates
that you zone consistent with the General Flan. As soot as the density is
reduced, you must within 90 days put, the. zone consi8tent with the 'Ceneral
'tan and that zone mould be drastically downioning. Agetis went to the
n separate opinions made it
ery clear that lifornia timent Court, ejustices
the federal rulehaveaneeffect. San Diego Gas and Eidetric
-vent to the Federal. 5uprament Court against the City of Palo' Alto. A number
of cases have been f4l:ed in federal court:. The resolut:ton waa that the city
backed away from dou .-otlitig and decided to purchase the topert 68 that
were dewnzoned because of the potential liability in invers�t condemnation.
The current trend is to go, to the federal courts and they do not just sue
the cities and counties but the individual councilmen And Board members
carp be held indivi.dual.l.y at fault in civil rights„ actions, lie was not
advocating 'that The court is `not definitive i hn "the Ban Diego Gas gad.
Zldctri.c case.
8OA91) OF, SUP]MVISol tw MINtyrts - i~ob uu'ry 3 1982
�, Chairman Wheezer stated there were issues raised that by law
must be addressed. She felt what they would have to do and what is
necessary is to redraft the EIR and she would see it being using the
dead project as the Planning Commission plan and using the coalition plan
as the scheduled alternative because of the compounded issue. There
are two different sets of issues to deal. with.
Mr. Woods stated they could take one of two approaches. They
could continue to prouuce ad4,_ndums or could step back from it, witch he
thought would be more helpful in addressing issues, and put togethtr
another draft that more clearly addresses the Planning Commission
recommendation to the Board and the coalition project and no project
alternative also. Ee fialt this would clarify the matter.
Supervisor prolan felt, that the many issues wee pretty clear
whether there is a redraft on the EIA or not. There are Planning Camm3ss L#=,
and coalition recommended lines. Those two choices were very sharp and
in focus for her. They could not say they were not given the information
on the soil conditions in south Chico area, the drainage district in the
north, existing zones, land uses, plans of property owners and desires
of neighbors. There is not any engineering on traffic, circulation and
drainage. Those are issues that are pretty clear. What else could be
done to sharpen the picture for the coalition and Planning Commission
lines to consider. She felt the Board should ask County Counsel as to
whether the Board could take legal action.
Mr. Goods stated after listening to Mr, Hempil describe some
of the deficiencies in the EIR, he would have to share some of those
concerns. Being involved in the project, he understood how the project
evolved. Even if the end result is the choice of the Planning Commission
or coalition proposals, that environmental dodument is important to have.
on the concerns about the level of detail to each and every property: They
are dealing with a General Plan and tha plan is y e policy°
p genera in th
sitatment and occurrences r, et a hong period, of tiVe. It would 'be adviseable
to have the document go kactt through the state clearing house: That is the
purpose of the hearirig,an the draft is to either p,ut together in additional
supp"lement"s and,tespond and make further recommendations on the project,
Rathdt than doing that, it 'would 'be 'mote, aderstandab:l.e and comprehensilie
to the Board and public to ,r?egin with, the Planning Comnl.ssion recommendation
and put together another draft.
Del Sietmsen, county d unser advised the Board that it is
ultimately their 'decision whether they consider the IR adequate for
the project with th,,' dddendums, if the Board feels the document should
be brought Up to tht standard they want, and it is the Board's -feelings
as to whether this is an adequate ddcdment with all info:x-matiofij and if 4
the Board thiaks it is &dequat¢, ;they could proceed without sending it
back. It sotethi'tig is coutpletel.y lacking them the EtA would have to be
BOARD or, 8VPtR'4"`,X$ORS M1AXtJ'rMq - VcbrudTy Sj 1.982
a
updated. The Board will be making the determination of whether this
meets the requirements' of CEQA. Certainly, if the staff is recommending
that this is not complete,, the Board should listen to that but make the.
decision. It would depend on how extensive the changes were as to whether
this would have to go back to the clearing house.
Mr. 'Moods felt the baly way to make the EIR understandable would
be under a new revised ETR. They could respond to the comments and that
is not to say it would.be understandable to everyone including the public.
He felt a matter of confusion had been pointed out and that was due to the
Way project went to the Commission and how the recommendation came through:
They attempted to show the changes and he was not sure that was done in
a clear enough version;
Supervisor Dolan stated they all knew the reason. the draft ETR
was written was because the project went forward in a certain manner to
the Planning Commission as it is to be done. it almost seemed as if
there was the suggestion that this was something else for the commission
Line and now there is the need to write a new FIR. The commission made.
aiendments and the coalition made recommendations and the people asked
for amendments. She did not have a prohlems with supplements and addendums
They will be back with the same 'issues.
Chairman Wheeler felt that the issues raised justifiably needed
answers. That dues not mean this is going to stop the project. 'Let's make
sure the tilt is accurate because the county has seen working o.n this
issue for 20 years. It is not just a +.general Plan designation for Chico:.
As far as she was concerned, this was 'a document for the .entire county.
This is a pP'L�n to takecare of agricultural lands, Her greatest concern
was dZ-.I g it tigt%% She was concerned that: this was such an important
issue that -Mould have. range effect on the county that they sh ould,
make yore they thaw.-^ the there for them to stand on, she had
questions that needed to be answ4te. and, U staff feels there could be
problems in this area, then there should V, vom6thing done with the tM.
Supervisor 'Dolan stated she was also heap laig it was the Board's
decision to make if they felt the information was thetk to make the
decision then the Board could do to, it is up to the Boar.; t -n decide
if there is all the information necessary before them. This is ,,. Gerieral
Phan amendment for the Chico urban area. She knew the issues of prota.r..ting
fitml.and. The decision for Chico will not be used for Gridley and Paradise,
The tbard is not in a county -wide hearing. The policy statements may
inte�gAay for the other areas:
Supervisor Saraceni stated it did not mt ttar where it took
place in the county if it was hot clear and they did not have the
y
information necessary to back the IIR properly, the the whole county pays
the bill
Supervisor Moseley stated the Board was being asked to put
in a very permanent think into the General Plan, which is what it says,
just general. The -County started this proposal and put out the money for
an EIR and they are being asked to adopt a line by a group that had not
obligation to come up with an EIR for their proposal They have taken
what the county '-d and made recommendations.
18. Lloyd Heidinger. Mr. Heidinger stated that the Board would
have to make a precedent setting decision for the county. The recoimended
proposal by the coalition will have critical impacts on the economic sphere
in the Dayton Road area. Because of the intended situation, the coalition
line is setting up "A-20" zoning in the Dayton Road area, If agricultural
land is so important, why didn't these people purchase the property nex
to his that has been for sale for eleven years, Ir discussion of the
environmental impact, a large pas°t is the economical impact. No one askeo
them about the farming operations and values paid. and the interest into
it., They are expected to swallow decisions that will effect the economic
valuation of their property: The property he and his father owns is in
maintained agriculture and farmed at a loss and is in the "A-2" zoning.
The precedent was set for residential urban uses when the area was subdivided.
People for the 'past 25 years have not paid strictly for Agri ctrl tural land
when purchasing property. The Board would be asking them to uphold Agri-
cultural land to urban encroachment, There is more than agricultural value
Put. into the land.
Supervisor Dolan stated that if they wanted to discuss zoning`
that did not. conform to the General Plan, it is "A -B° zoning. The "A�2"
isn't residential or agriculture. To suggest that to follow the goal
statements; which are anything other than "AW21', ib a downzone is hard
to swallow. The "A-V is anything goes and the reason for the conflicting
problems now. 11
Mr, Heidinger stated that just because People come in and ask
for urban zoning does not mean they will have urban uses, He felt the
threatand misinforalation'spread through a free newspaper of the ongoing
situation of housing to the 'river and threatening people with the
possibility of urban uses going over agricultural land that robs the people
values of rorert' and the.. rvjert owner' 'co the city should be base»d on
of the value of their land -that live close
are sa ih lithe Proposed a riidultural resi:dentinitdemarka,4 The tionelineoWills 1
y g p 9
80ARD OI" $UPBR`G`1$OR8 �1it�,`�Tki� _� I e�+�t►ax�w �, �
they, as i ndi v i duals ,
set into ;a pattern of useage into the future thatonly
can yit be worked out
flan one at a time come and ask for a c ange.
ffected property owners on the line mhanVethousands vlorth
�rnen the e cross the street is worth Many thousands
and the one a small tracts of land. He had a large
der acre. The Board is inviting Ls aid for i,U. 1
at less than was p
armer offer to buy �helr prop Edgar stated
on behalf of Midway 9rchards; ^r•
19. Tom Edgar, in to deal with is whether the EIR is 'legally
re
the issue the Board is "trying the
VeS does it make the document
�efi ci ent. He would 1 i ke to walk eh ask hhemsel kinds of things e theat e .
discussed and asked that the people does not
sufficient by adding an addendum or whether it should be redrafted.i
legally the descriotian of the project#
he most important carts involving
ry
rred to as
he
adeq
,�ately describe the urban agricuituraaiaiuconflictsebetween t:hetchange
greenline. There are seriousandHousing n
e Land Use Element and � Element of the :General Plan. In }
in
the
esus increase in density
Parti cul ,r
the Housing Element specifically Sugg
for affordable k'ousing• Everyone is conscious. of the contrast and that
e proposed project reduces land .use .designation and denisty and consequently
the
There were many comments concern' the needs for coherent traffic u
downzones. ltrans has said that any
c;rculaton study in the south chino area• Ca
serious changes y i have ars impact on the ability of the road to work=
There is an industrial tractAOCal tratrat�notraffic.ncerned abThyout 1havetrepeated1y
usage because there is more time concen_
submitted technical data for soil analysis. it was his belief that the i
county had not properly responded'andel as relied on a a 925 soils Maareas.
it is their position that t;�e EIR
it It is generally true that toll dosubs°tantial the
was prepared in 1925, the e Were
1 evel i ng Operations i n that ,pard particular
hergraeenlii ne •di mother coe ral atoi onca
impacts on the property owners along.nrelates to whether drama tic.downzoni�ig.
is on the impact of the county as .t
will have a substantia] impact on the abiemtY1°hashdescrnbedttheraise
manyProperty
taxes and provide social service$. blr.; H p not
y. condemnation. When thous thate is ais'inversescondemnation.
instances of inverse condemn
cultural land, pit into agricultural prese.
iab
He did not think the EIR
a.ddxessed the def'i ni ti on of wh�eoaredvi Ll EIR9r� There
land Was. The decision should b draH,G� problemsl`nPthe north C}►ico area.
was other testimony on sewage an.
Mr. Morehead testified thet^e aerare1�tFyaampnctsrofnhaving cservicesalbceea
specifically natural gas. Whatse
there and then having a Generalso the ofr5UDAD andMud
used,? There were several
Creek Drainage District► There is no consensus of where the f�te.t
,esent. There were. many hours of 'testimony
ore located and what they rept
as to whether those da establish some type of urban usage.
it
C�p'EI`vI us i�trlVU'�)J� � V,obruar�� 5 � 1982 M
In listening to the exchange between Mr. Woods and Supervisor
oolan it appears it is appropriate to describe the alternatives. The project
has evolved. it is the Board's obligation to base their decision upon a
properly drafted EIR. There were some views discussed as to whether or
not it was appropriate to add an addendum to the draft,EIR or whether there
was a need for an updated draft EIR to be recirculated. It comes down to
how many bandages can be added to a"document toIget to the end result.
his position was that by adding a few more addendums to the addundum would
maks it a confusing document and circumvent the need for the clearing
hoL,e, circumvent the process to find what is said and would make it
dsificult for the avorage person to read, and understand.
Chairman Wheeler advised Mr. Edgar that was exactly what
staff was proposing by a redraft so there is a firm EIR to refer to
and support the project.
20. Bill Cottingham, Mr. Cottingham stated he worked with some
of the finest soils experts in California. During the last 100 years
in California ammonium sulfate was extremely cheap. Previous owners
of hi,s property put the fertilizer of ammonium sulfate on the land and
there is absolutely no way to reverse the process to change the current
ph factor. Ne felt itwas important to consider soil type, depth; ph
P , -�-----L_,-_ --- _.:LI,. J.:.........: ...,rf 1:;C..;4.k�,... +41A 1nn.4 nen wmmr%a+o nn
1GAW II41 , 1""ILA 4�Vy
the poen market, if aeople are forced to farm on soils there is no control
over; ans shackling them to nonproductive soils, it will change the
agridultural county attitude.
.Chairman Wheeler really believed in what the county was doing.
She certainly supported the concept of'takineg care of that. That is why
it is so important to get the issue right because they are dealing with
a long,timeAstud. It has long-range effects, She was born and raised.
in the agricultural lands. L It means a great deal to her. She probably
had a tenue greater in agriculture than the rest of the members of thie Board.
That does not mean they cannot make a valid decision in this matter because
they can. Her father came to 'this country from a dictatorship as an immigrant
and started as a dirt farmer with nothing. He came to northern California:
Slowly over the years; governmeht.through regulations and imposition of
restrictions, have reduced agriculture from an economic standpoint. Vow,
she is hearing people say that they have to dolisider people equally and.
if agri c"O tural land is purchased as agricultural 1 arid! i t should stay as
agricultural land: That statement frightened her: She knew it was
necessary, to impose ;certain geographic designations for the General Pla►7.
She supported that and at the Same time; asked why they are going to take
care of land for agriculture if they are going to go 'to Sactamento and
lobby agAihst the tools the farmers need to survive. She had some problems:
Boj>`itlJ Cela SUPPIR'VI S08 "eIZ1 UTt-S p 1. 34 ig6
4
ti
with the north Chico area. Once ana For all , everyone �, .s to .support
agriculture, not just the lend; iut �-lso support the tools. S;;ti ,zas heard
people hearing after hearing telling the Board it is their respon ibility
`o implement a geographic General PlAn designation to separate agricultural
land fro►n urban. land. It is the resconsibi l i'ty of each and everyone of
the citizens i n, the county. There as e so many experts in the agricultural
field she could not believe it but they are not an expert until they have
been out there and suffered what the agr ctuitural people have to contend
with on a day to day basis. If they cannot afford to spray and disc to
produce, then there is a problem. rf everyone does not support the
X
armer to do that, then they are bigger hypocrites than many people who
have come to the Board. There are supervisors who were responsible Yerars
ago for the mess there is and they tell her she had bettern do something
about it. She accepted that responslit!ility because the community wants
the Board to take special care of the needs of agriculture: When she
takes that vote; she is going to put x,11 r, f these people on notice, because
she had seen them wanting to split their sand when they are advocating.what
someone else should do, she will sem nd them of that fact. She ;would like.
to see it done appropriately. People ')ave said this could be a political
issue but she felt it had gone beyond that point. There is an initiative
hanging out there that may strip the dis,:tE.tion of the Board to t policy.
She had to ask thu: e types of question., and maybe people need to ask those
questions: Staff is suggesting to tree Board that the EZR should be re
drafted 'so that when they make the final decision they will, ave the
support to know what they have done. 04 ce this is done then they will be
on to other portions of the county. T',,,is is not just Chico. If it
takes the next two months to resolve ti issue in her mind, it is worth
it. It will effect future generations, do lei's do it right
115CE88: 2 O o,m.
AECONhNE 3:05 O.M.
Chairman Wheeler stated she hrW a great deal of information as
it pertains to SUDAD and would 'like c(;)ies made for the Board members
She knew Supervisor Dolan had the same- i 0forMati on . This i nforinati cin will
be made available to the public. The M seems to be the most glaring
issue which needs to go back to staf-0 its a redraft situation. The Board
is still dealing with deographic delfieclion on the General Plan as it
pertains to demarkation point between urban and agricultural uses, as
proposed by the coalition and the Plan;�a ig Commission, She afiked that
staff do whatever they had to to redraf- thn M starting with the
Planning Commi ss ion project and using t`:,r coalition as the scheduled
alternative.
SI-pervi sor Col an stated she wd,,4 going to express di sseotion.
it is at the Board level that the Boar+ii w.;.s to decide the adequacy of
the BIP, if there are mitigations are req;uietd and alternativot will
be there. The issue is what form that will physically take place for
BtlAitD OF Sl.l'PF.IZL 1'8Oit.s IMM rdbruar
the final determination, and whether the responses made to the comments
would take the form of an addendum or whether there were to be a redraft.
There is no dissention of whether the Board wants an adequate EIR. Her
belief was that it was There in the current draft. She felt it would
have a different physical form but would come back to the same issues
and discussions,
Supervisor Saracen was concerned that the Board would be
giving the proper direction to staff in the ndw Elk to cover what has
been heard at the hearing -,.`,ay. Would this be a draft that would be
submitted to agencies for .,,mment on the issues brought upon the
greenline, Housing Element, downioning, traffic, roads Jnr- drainage:
Ms. Blair advisee` the redraft would be recirculated through the
clearinghouse and will cover the concerns of Supervisor Saraceni. She
suggestd that the timing be a minimum of 90 days anticipating a short
time at the chearing Ntase. This would be May 5, 1982, She would try
and solicit requireme:;t, from Counsel on how far they have to go on the
economic 'Issues. She would like the Board to ask for that opinion
Chairman Wheeler asked that Counsel issue that opinion,
20• dim Estes, 2500 Estes Road. wIr. Estes was not familiar
witty the process being taken. If he wanted to subdivide his oruperty
wouldBoardnto have this do.ne7Wouldn'tto file an oheehave toappeal
come before the
ppealto have anything done.
Supervisor Dolan stated he might or Wight not have to do an
EYR. An initial study would be done. If there is a rezone, the hearing
would be before the Board. If there was a division of land, it would not
come to the Board excoot on appeal
on the General Plan amendment and further ' after the EIR is certified
Ms. 81air stated that under CE
cerci~f Ted on the 7rn3r,g, .there
is a greate possibility that the individual developments might be
categorically exempt on the basis of the Previously certified EIR„
Mr. Estes felt it seemed like it would be betters to study
when the area is developed than to go down the coalition or greenlire,
It did not seem -like they needed a problem like this,
The heari,►ig was continued to May, , l982 at 10;00 a,,M,
. 61D
A,R.b tl S Pr3AIIZS0Rglg
S ltzT S u Vcbtuary 3, 19B
z. _,... _
153 PUBLIC FEARING: CHICO AnA LAND USE PLAN (CREENLINE) GENERAL ?u's AiMENDUENT'
The public hearing on the Chico area land use plan (greenline) - General
'?lan Amendment was held as continued.
The fcllowing pieces'of correspondence ve been received regarding
the "Greenline" hearing, and read into the record:,
Sweet Nectar Enterprises - requesting exclusion from the "urban" side
Pr ttie Green Belt leleasure`.
Bob West, Chico - clarifying a statement in the newspaper.
California Park-, Chico - retention of existing designations.
^hair,,^„an Wheeler started when the matter was p reviou-.`,+ conta7ued the+r
were discussion the .language of the text. She requested staf to come back
yi.th intrepretations of the various peopo$als. Some are very similar. They
have put together an outline.
Copies or Planning Department summary distributed at tttis time.
r,
rha:rlie ;'foods, Manning department, staged, the differs;nce is between
,aha two policy--stateiaents. 'They tried td. refer to Planning Commission statement
,as approxina-ely the same oe corres5ooding reverences are indicated. They
;ettemrted to site �.khere the differences we-ke. He did not feel there was as
,:majora difference as Me, Bolster ,resented to the 30ard. The policy to define
.the "greenling" is to be attached as a supplei;ient to the Land tlso :blement, The
coalition has intrigated the Policy into varioux), parts of the Land UAze Element
by topi,ns. qtr. Woods set out 4he running Commissioh Draft, the Purpose and
Items, l through 10 from 'the outline as this time. .Mr, roods set out the
Zoning, consistency And tinning of the.PlanningCommission Draft. The coalition
kraft is similar. 'de addressed. the issue: of Circulation(. The two are;approx-
'�;nately the same. Regarding annexation the Goalitioh does riot specifically,
Address annexation. There it a large difteretce in the ;befin.tions and Criteria
cttegorye The Co41i'tion draft did 'not include definitions; fords on individual
parcels; did not conern itself with Lndi.vidual farm ec`oomics ani,woUld,not
permit the i to 5 acre parcels on the agriculture side as Plannin_;Commission
�Srtypcses.
r
the policy along the "greenline" is a buffer which is possibly the biggest
dif,eprence between the two:
supervisor Dolan felt it all sides were- dimilar, , 'why didn I t th► x
assume they agreed; She suggested they go through A to b the formate which
the Coati:tioii group Put toclutilery Thbre ate Eive major areat of diife'rende.
They could take thein subject: by stilject.
81OMW OP StZMV180AS MINUS januxty 20 � 108'1 (GrItdjIIbie
0
They are set out as follows
1. A -R on both sides.
2. Review period:
3. Buffer
4. productive definitions
5. Parcel sizes on agriculture side.
6. Separate or intregated with the. General Plan.
A -R on both sides
nr. Woods -stated the Planning Commission statement is set oi-It on
Number 4 of the auideline. A Part of the difference is.as it relates 'Co
Number, 3 and 4 in particular.
Chairman Wheeler stated they were talking about the discrepencies
ir, the language written by.. the Planning Commission and Coilition. The
+Coilition is saying they do not want to sed 1 to 5 acre desi?natiolis on
,mission said yes, it should be allowed.
the agriculture side: Planning Co
Review oerod
tdr. Woods stated' the differences in this area are very minor ones:
Planning Commission submitted policy and it is in the General Plan. `'The
CoilAtion is not objective 4o a review period.. There is a 20 year review
period.
Supervisor Dolan stated they are both close to being the same.
They came from the same draft. The review period for the General Plan is
a 20 year span.: I,- is a bone of contention. She set out the procedure
yo`roved and reviewed. The 23 more de£in:tions year period
whxdh General. Flan amendments are approved
has been mxsunddettood. Maybe some eoble are wantiri
Once the "greenline" has been approved it can be changed on a Tueeday to
Tuesday:
Chairman Wheeler did not think the Planning C:Ommission draft was
very specifici t%ybe it; should be 4ri.ttth ;lore clearly.
Vr. Woods stated one of the changes, to the text is they suggested
thecountyreview period be perhaps every five years and then reexamine
it-heating open to the public. Appear rig!
1► sill Cottingham, Chico, felt they were making a lot of assumpk
ions on the review period. This would deny -eegapl.e .on one side of the line
and into t��e uz. n side people would be alp' wed to zone their property and
limit then to acres latcger than five acus. The Coilitibn is not interested
itt one acre prL cels He el.t, they should 'review on both sidLat Agriculture
BOARD R1%IuOItS MIXOT85 jamidv)° 20, 1982 (0'reenj, te) �\\ ,
;is rapidly changing on a daily basis. People are paying tremendous fees for
property which is not agriculture. Certain lands are not agriculture viable
and certain parts of agriculture will not be able to compete. He has come
before the Board on a parcel of land that is not compete. He has a big i
compassion for all of the people living on the "greenline". There is the
cassibility that an individual might come to the Board for a review and
through changes utany number of different situations, that;
indiv dual�who sborderedonthe imaginary line may want to seek some r`lief:
He felt a review would not help, they would just be out and it is a fact.
&e felt the review was political rather than factual or an actual periodof
time. He felt every fact should be taken into consideration. He questioned
whether thebe should be amore definii;e Set of rules for the review period,
The Coiliton is asking for a dramatic zine be drawn. They need good hard
and last rules for the review period a: well as the "AR" toning. t
5up-�rvisor ;Dolan stated the review period is taking a harder line
and tone than i. needed. She sees it as a time where they will review and
putting a si:ateme,;�t and public comment on a notice: Saying that we till
have a review does not say an individual project could not be proposel at
some time. Tomorrow somebody could put en amendment and change the, area.
There is no guarantee it Will be approved or denied,. People do not want.
to be locked out. There is no they will say they will not take an
application. The review period is in and it will not leave, She did not
feel the Coa litirn implied, that, Planning staff has indicated in their memo
there should Lie'a review of part of the line rather than the total. sir.
cottingham feels south Chico should be a study area. She felt they should
not be locked out. They should keep it in the zoning it is now as long as
it is in "A-211' for a review peri.od less than 20 years,
2. Loyd Heidinger, Chico, stated he felt it was in the interest
sof the community to settlk the issue of review ,and reoarditl the Seneral Plan.
There is an ongoing review period looking in the futLre fat 20 years. It
is not in the best interest to have a constant: turmoil going on ch,!hgiz1q to
Urban uses far community support involving designated uses: People living
in the areas are making a 1800 turn- Whether to devalue the property and,
develop or stay in the family farming. People do not want to come back ih
a year or so and change this zone;
J. Bill Cottingham, Chico, stated he agreed. There is not a
specifwc time ,leriod on it. Every imaginary line which has been built: in
the past has been torn down by contractors and increased population
lie is in Eavor of the Commission line. The mayor of Chico is in Favor akd
feels it should remain for 20 years-
chai�rinan Wheeler stated the proposed line by the Planning Commission
is being dhailengpd bj iseVetAl property owners on the agriculture side.
BOARD Op 8UPtR'V18OR8 "�f'[NUTP'a � 'YtL1"-1i'Y 201 1982, (Gxc�ttl �n�?
4. Frank Brazell, Chico, was confused as to the three proposals
1,as it relates to the General elan. if it underwrites the General Plan, they
should go back and redo it or conform it to the General Pian. 'Fou cannot
set a 20 year gime period if it has no power.
SupervisorDolan stated this was a hearing on an amendment to the
Crene'al Plan on the urban area. The General Plan is still subject to review
and there can be three changes each year to amend the plan. They are not
underwriting it.
S. Frank Bennett, Keefer Road, Chico, stated when the Planning
omission considered the five year proposal by staf
Cmf, they rejected it
'because they felt there was no way they r.,puld comply to state law regardless
or what type of line 'was drawn, It is a .line 'bets. :in agriculture and
ural, 1,14 is jut a demarkation line which sari have no substance in law than
th,e General Plan permits. They are reviewing this line everytim6 a General
Plan change come to you for reviewing.
6. Herb Heidinger, khico, felt if you were making a policy you
should state what you were saying and not have to search further for what
you grant to know.
Supervisor Dolan stated the plan it developed for a 20 year period.
2t is fluid. There is nothing to stop them from Baying they want to develop
la specific portion.
Rr. Woods indicated the state law does not ;specify 20 Years, it is
by long range, The Hoard has indicated 20 years every year. When he sug5otted
the five year review period he did feel it stopped their ability to review
prior to that. on the part of the county it is an initial reekamination of
the particular policy. it is a commitment by the county, it is not an existing
polio: or state law.
supervisor D614n 'stated she felt the review period should be better
def-ited. There could be one policy statement in the General plan, finless
the community can understand the policy it'will not be 440116wed or accepted,
Chairman Wheeler suggested maybe chey cou,'i work with staff on
writing some language that has more clarity',
3ufzd e
eft', 1ioods set out the Plan ing Comnission draft under tafinitions
and Criteria bio. 6 on the last page at this time. It is a denaiL-7 threshold,
It 4t ossible only one carcel would be within the agriculture desl.gnation.
Ad Ustinq the "grpenline" mould provide The l to S acres, Then t},sere Would,
be an 100 foot area as a separation which Mould be resident etMe the
-
Coilition would be the same and provided for hch-residential usr;s for
MAI) OV WPER tfSORS MINUTPi8, Jahuairy. 20., 1982 (6rt&n1.:irie) ,,
parking and other type of storage. It is not necessarily a no mans land.
In the case of the Manning Commission there is no restrict,ons that might
be thoroughly expanded°,.
i
Chairman Wheeler stated the A5ticulture CoMm-issioner in the county
has difficulty dealing with the fact that they are goii`;g to allow planting on
the agriculture side and urban side. Where is the area which pesticides are
now allowed. They felt this was a lot of .:oo:1 to leave. When �you_ate crop
dusting there is. the problem with drifting,
7. Bill Cottingham,, Chico, felt there was a nuisance ordinance
which covered this area of pesticide t ray1nq,. He questioned what would be
done ri_sgarding the bird problem. There is a machine which is set to go off
every 15 minutes.. He felt a surgical cut was rather severe. He questioned
who would be paying for the 1.00 feet. if it was a large area it could cause
k"
a loss in tax revenues. Is a contractor going to pay for the loss of income.
He questioned .if this area would be in jungle grass. He has discussed this
with Jerry smith the Farm Advisor. Who would be responsible for keeping this
100 foot area clear. Who will pay the insurancze or be liable. ;what t��re of
storage is allowed within the buffer. Ile felt it was opening a can of�worms_,
,If the county is resronsibile, then he is responsible by VAying A-tiore tastes,
He felt there should be a materialbarrier rather than a propert"line; 11i
agreed with the t ocsris=,ion material barrier.
3. Tam LandO, City of Chico ?Manning Depart~gent, stated he felt
the buffer concept was a line for only"new development. And there would be
no disruption of agriculture. There is no great land otovis:ion,. `r.`e compared
the 100 foot buffer to a set back. He did hot see it at a big issue to solve:
Any development; plans are set back 000 teet.
Chairman Wheeler questioned if that was on the agriculture side or
the urban side:. The Coilition indicated it should be on the urban side. In
the text of the Commission it is either side according to the text.
Mr. Lando felt it made more sense to put it on the urban side.
Aae Whee..erplanning commissioner; stated the term „buffer cone"
L! not tied to,side of the line. It is a designation as a 'resident
free area; No Yale,, cions yjould 'be left if it was ageiculture. Thi l is his
feelings as he w4,ewd on it. He is not speaking for the entire Commission.
%t could contain planned aro:ast parking, or parkway if not developed further.
They tried to keep it as simple as possible and resident freei it the area
wS8 'not available on the agriculture side, it could be placed on the urban
side.
9. Jerry Bolster, representing Coil. tion tekt, stated this concept
Was aplanning concept and used all of the time. It has never developed ifito
;AhYthing Like this; It is 8 part of the policy and plan and it is olear It
,it is adJACdh't to 4gricultUkei uses, consideration should be given to uses.
Look at,6he design of the ptoject. can problems be worFed through mitigations.
MATO pP $LtPEPVj80P8 �JINO`t''CS � Jn��i�ry ZH, �g$� (Gx.enrilari�j
„t
•
Chairman Wheeler asked that Mr. Bolster explain the 100 foot set
back for higher density ofY the urban side as is relates to a planner.
Mr. Boaster set out the steps taken when proposing ,a project. They
look at the types of density and discuss with the Planning Departillent staff
how it relates to a development and they will address problems which right
arise. He felt this was what the buffer concept was all about. Should they
use a "PA -C11 all issues are conditioned. If this area is left open, it will
certainly not be left to weeds. They must address how they will maintain
an open area. All of this is given consideration before presented to the
Planning Commission. Their item No. 4 relates to smaller parcels that exist,
Chairman wheeler felt air. Bolster was clear in his previous pre-
sentation. the buffer land will still be useable; but a house will not be
able to be built on that line.
;Ir. Bolste.L veli: the set back area was established. It is a part
of, nrilate property. Cn scenic property there is a 350 foot requirement.
When making plans if you are going to use this, you will transfer your density
somewhere else. You are mitigating this issue all of the time.Many times
the Board hears requests to vary from the text.
10. Frank Brazell, Chico, stated there is a small portion of
projects placed into the "PA --C” zoning. They are responsible ;or the total
of the project. He planned a subdivision where people had one-half acre lots
and a lot of people gvew'gardens, but many left the space into weeds. They
do'not maintain it-; Tt is a matter of being responsible.
11. Bill Cottingham, Chico, stated; he did not feel the planning
process as described by Mr.. Bolster was so simple. He had severe damage done
by PO&E crews who came onto his property to do ropair work on the poles and
lite, The', caused $2,500 worth .of damage to the sprink41,:r system. This buffer
g 4; y,
zone.. is a reef concern of the i�r culture community,
12. Ernie Washington, Manchester :Road in Chico, stated if a farmer
does damage to pets or children it must be addressed. There ii nothing in
the text to addte8si neighbor rost.onsibil,itio$, He shuts off his spray when
he approaches his neighbors. Farmers and residents have gotten along for a long
time. He felt the Coalition text dealt with when someone now came in with
a new development plan.
13 Karen, Vcrcruse, , Aoi%te Sr Bost' 21, Chico, stated she felt the
buffer would hot gG9l-ng to create these problems. The law will, let a plahnor
knnw and choose how they are going to use the land.
l4; 8111 Cottingham; Chita, indicated item B excluded industrial-.
He Telt he was One of the few people agreeing with bit. Washington: Their
properties front on a major road.
15. Ldyd Heidinger, Chico, voiced his concern that tM General
Plan and zoni4l line all comply. Where the Kghnke property Line would be
set is tct;slly utadcoptabidi He folt there was an dzisting subdivision.
located there,
'BOARD 0V SUrBRVrSfl1iS ;4INMS - Janutqty 20, 1082 r ' nb)
�, ,
135 JEUBL'IC HEARING-: CnICO AREA LANA USE PlJkV (GRE--NLINE) -- GENERAL PLNN AMEND14ENT
The public hearing on the Ch to area land use plan (green+.ine)
General Plan Amendment was held as continued.
P Chairman Wheeler stated she would like to close the hearing at the
o of the day. Members, of the Board will be out of town next week and she (.
ould like to finalize the 'hearing the following week.
supervisor ,
p r M_ aseley stated this was fine. They had received a lar:
f information and the extra week would allow time to review.
The
3g hontinued to Vebruary 3, 1982 at 9:00 a.m.
airman Wheelerstated5l;hisr-,) not mean the public cannot be present. they
5 st discuss publicly the impact i!eport which can be handled on February 3rd.
-he expected the members to do thttir homework and be prepared to make a
ecision.
Superviscr Saraceni questioned if there would be an legal problems
if they do not make specific wording on the General Plan. He hoped questions
lie has will be discussed and answered a; the closed hearing. He Was unsure if
pecific findings could be placed in the General Plan and if the county would
e liable or faced with law suits.
Chairman Wheeler felt this was an issue that could be solved between
ounsel during the two week period. She also has legal questions to ask.
{
- roductive definitions
Charlie Woods, planning departmentr stated the. Planning Commission
n the first weeks of the proposea ,policy statement indicated the purpasebf the
greenline" was to protect agriculture land.For this purpose they inco'rp
4 rated the definition to 'protect the size; shape and how it relates to agricult-,
re, and as it relate to existing uses in zones allowing it. The Coi„lition
iffers in that they do not establish any individual text or focus on soil.
15. 7ekry Holster, Chic04 stated he felt his presentation to the
Board last week waw a notate cause.
Productive, coils seems to: limit the
preservation of the ground. The Coilition did not feel they could corle up
with a list of what the criteria should be. it would have to be on each
Application. They 'tdlt the text was narrowly defined and. gave no feasibility•
174 Peahk Brazell; Chico, set but,a number of properties listed
with Pean Sheldon 0,-a1 Estatein the area. They were capital inve6tMen;ts
which came out before the interest comes off. -it gay( an idea of what people
are faced wit'i when selling small acreages. Several Weeks ago he left data°
£ar the Sodtd regarding northwest Chico:
18 Mike 8dhtadetr Sever^ly OtiVt,i brasille� stated the findings
the Planning Commission made were ,frdm the definitions:) He set, out paragraph
1, subsectiotia at thiel time'. if the eoard should approve the origihal
proposal it would bd a conflict,
cJ BOAPW OF alJk MVISORS MINt:JM = intu'dry 20
19. Bill Cottingham, Chico, set out Productive Definition, paragraph
I from the Planning Commission proposal. Agriculture is changing to rapidly -
Productivity Will determine if land is left in families in the future. For
some it is a way of life. If you are going to draw a line, you must have the
person who is going to have to stay. He will not be able to pay the county
or his bills and he will become a debt to society.
Parcel sizes on agriculture side ,r
Mr Woods stated the Planning Commission speaks to this in two ways.
Policy 4 and 8 are linked together and speak to the orchard and field crops
with a 20 acre minimum, it involves those conditions which could take it
down to S acres. On the urban size it should not be less than 20 acres in I
size, it should be smaller. Some of the properties in the northwest area
adjacent 'to the River Road which are in "A-211 and "A-1011 should be retained
as acceptable to the 20 acre zone.
20. Loyd Heidinger, Chico, stated he would like to address parcel
size on the agriculture size. There is a difference in the Dayton Read
y area
between Planning and Coalition line. He did riot want to devalue the Property.
eay area there would be a buffer line between agriculture and
rural Asproposeddby the Codlition. The cOmmunity would like, an acceptable
agriculture none.
214 Bill. Cottingham, Chico, representing Midway Orchards, stated
when they purchased the property in 1515 it was zoned "A-211 and was in the
General Plan and predicated as EbUt U:�tts to the acre: This was one of the
reasons it was
g present it would be degraded and
the zoning
was Chan ed fromutheased. Knowin it had a severe nd lower. the value.
22 Frank Brazell,, Chico, stated the information he wanted to
share with the Board iwas regarding sr,1411dr acreage in the northwest Chico
area;. The area ata'r.ted at Flario went down Renshaw And past dlenn and continued
outside of the railroad and back at the end of the Coalition line. it cutis
out the whole northwest corner in that area. Mr. 9razell set out what was
located in that corner. There are 144 separate parcels of land and about
129 houses. There are one acre Parcels and 20 acre parcels in that area and
felt it ,should hot be separated.
Chairman Wheelee stated she would like to review that area wi.til
staff
Mti teazell voiced his ddhtdrh regarding A newspaper I ticle regard,
inr the stibAb, It has been a bone of cbntehtioh since AM Rd has in his
BOARD OP St MVx5OR5 xMMTta
personal filfss io some photostatic copies of all correspondence between the
dity, state an -J county. He has the copies of petitions signed by individuals.
The.amount of money contributed by the state and amount of money by property
owners. He &jex. not see how they can draw the "greenline" and isolate' the
people that ,aid :;heir fees. M last weeks hearing a sinned document by
-- erett McCain was entered into the record.* These assurances in fact were made,
Me can support that in writing.
Sup��rv!Aor.Dola'n stated without going into detail there were
comments ,adz at the hearings. She is aware of -what Mr. Brazell has in his
files.
Mr. Brazell stated he felt he had been fair of the rest of the
3oard. He, is willing to make comments and he has information. I€ Supervisor
Dolan has information, she should present it to them.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was in no was' trying to hide anything.
She Was told at the end of the hearing she should present her informationi
what she hart is the official minutes from 1964 Board of Supervisors meetings.
They are the official, record. There are petitions from property owners,
letters and PT. tions of protest. She also has newspaper articles which are
not in the official record. At the anpropriate time she Will: present the
informatton. They a, -:e not heir notes, but official rer_or'ds.
.Chairman Wheeler stated she has been looking at the same £nforrnatot
and has gone through stacks and stacks of files and they are not finding what:
4' y fel` the intent of Ehe Br�azd gas at that time. She telephoned Jack
It
e%c,Cilltyp :t former supervisor and .he indicated it was becau ae thy. 0 ple were
given the indication that yes you join and it would preclude the area to
future urban growth: Growth .should go to the north and for her to not
involve him in any of the political horangment. If'Rr. Brazell had anything
that cot. -It! help the Board; it would be appreciated.
Mr. Brazell stated the treason the district was formed by the state
..gas because thuy had to shut it off at the freeway. They contributed $92,000
to a $635,00d proiectj plus what was dona►.;ed to thr citys it will verify the
cotttit:ment between the t i;ty, county and state and Planning CoMittee and
everyon, involved in the project
22, H. Leslie fiuxhet, Chico► stated in the area of Hip"shaw Avenue
it some of the best soil. Allang Muir AveftUO there is adobe soil. Thexe are
a number of 20 acre parcels 3,h the area. There are smaller parcels which an
.individual could not make a living ori. The five acre zoning in the area was
about_ 1S years agog He is not ,in $TjbAbi They could put;) the sewage for drain-
age to the SacrameI0 Rivet,- 5mallei: parcels are putting in kiwi's and dwarf
trees'.,
$OAD Or, SUPr.,ltW� MINt�`I` 't Jatiu,a�ry d, x.08'? Cit an] ile
IM.-
24.. Serb neidir., er, Chico
an w_chard price. It was 41 years old�whenahedPurchasedhis eit. 1The9landnad.acdn
yt
was vacant for 11 ears before been
a vt felt lot size and g purchased. They paid a substantial price
IfOproduction should determine where the line was 1
placed. Wheiz he purchased the land was zoned "A,-2", in 1966 or 1967 it changed
to "A-5" ann in 1974 it was zoned to 1!a-10".
y
25. Mike Schrader, Croville, stated the Planning Commission did }
not have a change to discuss down zoning av it relates to parcel size
the Coalition came to Planning : When
was for 20 acre imini,-.wm zoning. They were
concerned about nassvve crown zoning in the .area. T,ey were; concerned about
A. legal rani,ficatiLl.
Chairman wheeler stated she has already'a
research the issue, 5ked County Counsel to
(Separate or intregated with the General, Plan
Mr. Woods stated of all the differences this is ono of the minimum
ones of substance. He referred to each individual request, tie discussed what
the county Land. Use Element was for Chico with planning staff. The Coalition
had a different approach and a different r,4ition of Where to place it. in the
text. In the end it would accomplish the same thing. It was a. matter of
format.. It Mould all be included in the Land use kook. Should the Coalition
formate be intregated into the existing 'tent it would 'make it clear it would
be policy only and applicable to Chico.
26. Prank Bennett, Chico, Planning Commissioner, stated they talked
with Counsel and they felt they were taking a r They felt there should
be a.separate addendum applying to Chico only:
Chairman Wheeler felt the language Was specific and spoke to the
Chico urban area. Would people in the county know the language enough to
separate them. She felt it should be segregated. 'The Chico area is not the
only area they will be addressing
RECESS. 2.32 p.m.
RECOWEVE' 2 -.46 p.m
Chairman Wheeler stated they will start with the Land Ode changes.
They have a summary and will take it item by item. It can be indicaged on
the map n
27. E3ill Cottingham, Chico; felt if they placed wdedinj in the
General Flan it would apply to the whole county and not just: Chico. He
questioned, what made the soil any better between the Coalition and Planning
Commission line and ;note val;aable than in other 4roat such as Aichvale, Paradise
and OebVille. Re questioned low ths,Vwould place A; 1*greenliheit around broville, '
itichvale and Paradise,
JMIU r)r zOj 1082 (Geeenjinb)
�Ur�lt A3 V� .a
y
Supervisor Golan stated she is asked this question all of the time,
The, history of Chico is unique.
28 Mike Schrader, Oro•.ill,e, Planning Commissioner, felt o;+ 4ti was
_ be a `i reenline" implemented in
an important issue .to Orovill.e. There Will g
this area. They are waiting to see what is done in this hearing. They are
looking at a vehicle to use.,
Mr. Woods set out the backgrO«And on the Land Use changes at this
time. Requests were made b� different individuals. He revitk-ied Inumbers 1
through 33+
h Chairman wheeler stated numerous times they have been Vestscned
made a dreision. The preientati.on by rtr. woods
as to why they have nct ofi themi
indicates the large number of requests. Staff has; .,OtTeOnted to all
25. Loyd Heid'inger,, Dayton Road, Chicof felt there were twoN,
friction points along Dayton Road. There is a large area which is sti, 1 itr
�� considered illegal by the JIttorney General.. He did
not feet there! was any cansideration fisc the past investments of the Kt. ep
tone. X t is c
anc' Heid nger families,_
Bob Hienman; Route lr Bidwell aven[te, Chico, ndicated on the
, 3D. _, • - signation.
map the general area of Glenwood. He.felt it Was ;4n appropriate de
Ms. glair indicated
there Would be nc need to propose a zoning change
as it become 16W density which is four units per acre: There is no reason to
chni�ge.
Mx. Hi.enman was concerned about maintaining animals. ie does not
want the zoning ch,1ged'. He still enjoys the pleasure of riding.
31• C1Iris Baldwin`, 7t & T, Tared and Toi4ne# Chicot stated to amend
of thestems referred in Number`
lany .' 5 and 6 could not` be consistent with
the
Land Ilse Elem
ent. Tt is all Industrial. Should the issue of chariain5
up he would like to,speak to
Hiexman Would like to be notified should there be -a zona change -
Ms. Blair stated in the event there was a toning issue that would
under the laW Planning and thon
e- toarid
frivolje more than 1, 000 t�roperty otmei w ad unl=: s there is sp _
would Only notice the public by a display They should watch
from the 9oard., they Would not notice people individually=
the ads in, the tewspa:pere
,h,
qA t QEF St'j��.ttV'lsw �`� Si�q, Jar►uh y 20 , � 4 82 `Qe nL r►e1
32. Steve goneycntit, project tmanagere Californa.a, pas'k
t3lked
Use changes. Iie 'vias no comment on No. '.
They havebdiscussedlsubEthe element.ndl" and there may be a problem. The dipper
They ole 1.i i3n .taed �M4 agriculture t
Where the p n There Was
is acceptable
questioned it it could be extended for deisitX
line is located is des'
residentia
open grating land. They
have ;educed the existingland use beti:ause t:taev agreed �
to annex to the City of Chico_, "
Mr. Woods stated they ';ace not certain what t3x� orig:.nal proposal
was to planning. When Mr, Crot7jngez made his request there was no dezink ;e
fans. At firsopposition to the low dens'tyf It was dealt with.
P t there was
He has discussed the issue with Counsel.
Pr. Honeycutt stated their request is for at least agriculture
residential, to the point where the pole line is Located. The "'�1�`�1° concept
is into that amount; of area. The; dehsities are juggled.
{
156 AbDITIONAt h TTtR BWhe0l� a4 nourlced the Landuso E,lcment b g i
rh..a; in was continues
t+ V
to Febt-Ory 3t lj$2 at 0.00 A.M.
'
5
E3C�Jt2l �3pR1/xSCI�iT�iCi`I'5 fi (Cecnrt'�
y
Vernal L. and Erma R. Dean, Chico. Mr. and Mrs. Dean vtita stipporting the
:q
107
PLiBLIC tiEg.RTNG:' CHICO AREA IND USE PLAN (GREENLIr?E) _ 6,6:4ERAI YLAN
_A'
The public hearing on the. Chico area. land use plan '(greenl.ine),
;C-eneral Plan amendment was held as continued.
I
Chairman Wheeler stated that this hearing was to consider the
policy statement and land use designation. Supervisor Saraceni will be
leaving at. 11:00 a.m. this morning ,and she did not reel that the Board
should go over the language with starf until he could be present for the
work- session. She will continue the hearing until January 20, 1982 at
'10:00 a.m. for the works session on this matter after the hearing is
concluded rhis morning.
Supervisor Sareceni stated that he had made a commitment fax in
advance of the hearing that was scheduled for today. If there was any way
1he could have changed that appointment, he would have done so,
IThe ;following correspondence was entered into the records
Mary D. Soares & family, support Coalition line
Petition from Metzger Ranch, support Piannina Commission line
Donna Metsget Mooberry, support planning Commistion line
Helen M. Roseman, support Coalition
Andy House, Chico Board of Realtors, Inc:, support concept Of greenline
Chico Chamber of Commerce, support Coalition line
l Ron Stewart, attorney; including declaration of Hverd A. McCain
regarding Fabian property and bearing on SUDAD
Patricia Fawcett, supporting KcCain's declaration of SUDAD
Supervisor. Dolan stated that at some point in this issue Shasta
Union Drainage Assessment;'District needed to -be discussed. She wondered if
lit would be a topic of discussion, by the Board.
Chairman Wheeler felt that IALeft the Board eateredbinto
diSsed '
j g g �.scussians
re ardin the placement o£ the greenline that issue should
Supervisor Dolan stated she was prepared to challenge some of
the statements that have been 'made 'faith the records,
Charlie Woods, planning departments statdd that comments from
staff 'were, contained in the staff report presented to the Board4
hearing open to the public. A:ppedting:
1.Tom aiidd ' y fChico planning director. Mx, Lando stated f.
tiVre are reasthatcon.cernthi.mregardl.ess of where the l�np is established
'age, 2, bio. 4 says that the gest side of the line, agrir tgyral iesidentialI.
uses shall be allokted; His impression 'wag that could be as little as one
acre lots 0n pag►
e 2 ho. 8 it talks about agrieditural zoning on the
west side of the line; On, page k, No. B, it talks about the basis for
amanding the. line it appears to say if the perimeter is abutting urban,
us&§ that would be j ustifieation for, Moving the line
WARD 6V 8UPt VT8QP,$ MINUTES Janutlry' 1S, 1982 011eehlirie)
2. Jere Bolster, on behalf of the Coalition.: Mr. Bolster Presented_
a chart of the outline he would be discussing. The text becomes an integral
part of the General ;Plan. The basic purpose expresses the Board's policy;
The five acre discussions between the Planning Commission Line and the
coalition line recommendations are somewhat different in policy. The
first one is concerning agricultural residential west of -the greenline
The PlanningCommission established a motion of intent and went into the
text. The decided to support agricultural residential land use west of the
line. Looking at the Caneral Plan, agricultural residential is primarily,
used for agriculture and rural dwellings of one acre lot sizes. He felt
this would eventually set the stage for the eventual urbanization of the
west side to the Sacramento River: The coalition is recommending the
establishment of a policy that there be agricultural zoning on thewest
side of the greenline which would allow only agricultural use:
The Planning Commission recommended that a 100 foot residence
tree beffer area be established along the greenline when agricultural uses
Are adjacent to the urban uses. The coalition recommendation is there
is agreement there should be at least 100 foot setbacks. The tecommena
larger than 1.00 feet for more intense urban uses. They are talking about
Agricultural soil and there is no sense 4,n wasting 'it in one or five adze
rots. The open 'space area c2n be utilized. The area that is 'left open
would have some development rights. There would be a transfer to the
other portion of the prope'rtyi Parcels adjacent to the greenline where
there is not a buffer zone will not work. In that case the concept of
the buffer does not apply»
The Board policy as recommended by the Planning Commission is_
to protect productive agricultural land. Lbdki`,ng into the definition of
productive agricultural land; thencoalit.on believes it .should be tightened
down as to what the county' is saving. For exampla, ;the policy speaks to
size of property. Some people farm small and some farm large and there is
never any agreement to a viable site. if production cannot be to close
to urban areas, they speak about surrounded by certain sides by urban,,
talking about buffer and urban lines, there will be intense agriculture
Adjacent to urban: The coalition could agree with soil character being
important,, Commercial production of agriculture was also a consideration.
Th,. Board heard; testimony for many people and he is wandering if there
�s any commercial production of almonds in gutta County at all. It appears
the commercial ;produc'r.i.oi of agriculture depends on the market. In sorrc
yeast money is made and in others money is lost. That is no basis to bail
tut of agriculture. (bice a deci4lion is made the land is gotd. The coalition
basis is that it is trot up to the Board to insure that agricultural land is
productive, that is up to the farmer. Sures land is available to work.In m,ariufatturing residential or dbtadercial zones does the 'Board policy
bake a provision fox• bai
;;Dr'nless the: failure is directly related to the land Mrd character, it is
d-probably not in the best inr;erest of the community to change the land trom
,;agricu11tural uses.
6' The commission recc.=endat.on is silent on -zonitig and parcel sixes.
It says that parcels west of the greenline should be zoned for agriculture.
T'he only clue is found on the land use plan of orchard and field crop five
r,scre minimum. The coaltion orchard and field crop "A-20" zoning west of
rhe green;ti.ne should be the smallest size to be considered. They are
recommending that the parcel sizes for land west of the greenline be 20
�4--ores. except the Bell-Muir area: which should be "A-5" and "A-1.0" zoning. I
lih.e rest of the area that is "A-2" that ends up on the west side should be
f
t„_ ni.nimum of ""A-20't par,;els. He was speaking of parcels and zones to "A-201'
"`fad the others would be legal. non-conforming parcels
G � i
The last thing he would be talking about would be the twenty-year
�I,culei There has been a great deal if testimony to the Board by people
I,vho thing that when the Board takes action this will'be for twenty years.
, h
"e greenline becomes an integral part of the text of the General Plan.
nOtLhe text does not mention how long the lane will surviverj He realized i
", as a mattei.4 for ""ze Board to decide. The cowai.ssion recormendation is saying
Erbe line will last for the ,.od covered by the; Gene..Lal Plan. The coalition
text is silent because state +iw has set oiit how General Plans are ainendod-.
; Sitdtvse the greenline is subject to general Alar` lav' jt is subject to the
:sate law. There is no way the 8frard can :deny a person the right to make
.plicaciun for a General plan amendment. The Board and the Planning
',commission have a right, to amend the plan when they fE el it sho"ild be `
amended. This has to do vi th how the co".inty can efiectz.vely administer
the gpreral pltni The 8oara cati always deny the application, but the
4 plicant hay t,e tight to make :the application and put on their case:
* ,.'be coalition when they made their rado:nm.endations telt that from all
,Indications the line as suggested is appropriate for today. 'i'here is no
xSa..on to believe it is not app'reprate for tomorrow. tie:urpc the Board ,
tai consider the coalition tett
3. Karl Ory, Chico City Coundi,l Mr: Ory stated that the General
° Pplan td-ad Use Plan is not only for the county blit for the city. The City' of
r.i co voted to support .the coalition text. The i.mpottance of one land use
;}an cannot be overstated,. This 4 perhaps the 'best opportunity for_agroement.
y; 4. Lloyd Heiairigers 1:590 Dayton Etoad. sir. Aeidinger addrassed two
hof the ftve, issues just m.zntioried concering the agricultural residential
4�jruatioit tflat could possibly occur west of the line., On Odyton Road the
si zttgrity of the line where it would be drawy by the coalition is already
violation of the integrity, There are 159 parcels on Startle;
in smaller p
arcels
P --
is actually a devaluation o: the land that has been
zonedThere are 3.5 acre
uis main conce,'I was witli the value of the property. ra ert' that is
t or aarcels across he street Situ er ee s notsthehfoundationthan his pfor that price'.
for sale for ;��.,.� 700. Ag --ied about the deva7,i�dtion
,e basically suppj, :ad a greenlir, « but was coni:
of his property il, `he future.
RECE5s: 9;411 3.m.
RECONVENE 9!58 a.m..
G .Bow ZAP, 'Bidwell Avenue. Mr. Heimann
5, Bob Heimann,, kt 2, t is probably a different
s.
but
f 4r
was cancerrnadh soarsa`e
He livesoalong BigtC!AdO Creek wt;ere there is a
situation
Itlie4Q -.boat roadway and the creek is50 thatto 80 fect Acnolsi to Oefeet. Thatdiately �ma'kes
creek: is a private 'driveway
r l04 feet or more of Alread established natural buffer xr-e so if they
fo y ext the total would
would have to establish another 100 Space trattis property
in the "AIe
be 200 feet. 'I,''hat would be wasting P ears ago thare was a great
zone.
xe has been in Chico since 1944. M"'�' years
houses by Vi_:;tec,
deal: of disseution relative to the building of apartment
project was denic�i. At that t Rr:e, the Board and plauniug
At that time, the p 3 et together to come up with a
- requested that the neighbors g „ �I was eStabl:ished in
Codi scion req resent zone of AS -k
zone they could live with. `he p
1972.
speak on behalf of seven property owners
6, Jahn Morehead, 'p the Chico City limits in the
Who own ten or five acres or less adjoining , Morehead stated he was
Rose Avenue and Craig hall. dormitory unreasonable encroachment on
to protect the property against any o into ten acte parcels
speaking was subdivided 50 years g
dir rights. The landego it and for
tr less, tt was viable fad land at anddtdoigreent^elt, tThey efarmed and
cad0
was a rural area. There was no zone an
use the land to what. they thoughts Was the best use. ?' the next two ar
the haul 'became bass viable for farm. +g. There were 4fi
tee decades art b'6devToped. The extra adddining ten
cotmetcial ventutes of Rancho Aire
acres of, the Morehead ;Ita.Ath is now a school. after being condemned by the
Acreage again
schoolA, The neighbors arundntothem
m nybs lestalld into
homesi tos on viva loam, The
fid`again,
This area. is
� ervices ftirther and further �,*est. the law�as one the zoned
city is p r� 1r he greenble water
,. or'�hezei13 s commercial warehouses an the south: Cas ,
prof
along the creek and t
�n,d 5R--.. y
away to ..he west• rorath of Chien and C5LtC. Lhre
and sewer have been Pt because of the �; o e tY Oa
residential areas east of their pr p x In the
have been. more high density residences .
ro esti-es ar' for high densi"ty ;
the ea•et;, the adjoining P P had cherished becatt completely and
last decade; the gro,wd that they' dexis4 ty urban areas. To the
tern acre subdivJ.sion �.th hbtiiies
thoroughly not viable because of the high
ro erty there is l.ow adn-sity--
frj,('9t of their pp
{Y
BOA D OV 5t;MVIO
S Mx'NUTSa" •. A'arivat� 13; ZDE2 Wreeri:litte)
W
for thirty families. There is more land north along.Big Chico Creek that
I in five acres with twelve homes on the north• �o the west there are two
five acre parcels divided fot four or five more homes. There are four
highly traveled acess roads to the city and school. that were improved by
the city and county. There are stop slegns and warring signs instilled to
south,
east and west to protect the increased' traffic. In the
the north,
last decade the Board of 5upernrisnr,s zoned the land ��� 7-0, rights an notice of the meeting to 'je able to defend the property r_o
sere given a lesser use designation. The property adjoins the city limits
in rhe sphere of influence. They are now an island surroundea by highs
medium and low density dwellings. To have any designation than the lesser
designation of the property on, both sides of their property is unjust.
. Reno Ricci, Rt. 2, Box 1.23, Mr. Ricci stated he lived square,
in the middla of Santa Clara Avenue. He felt that Mr. Morehead had pretty
well covex'e,d what has been going on for twenty year's. He owns 2; acres
in thild
s area. He has two children n and w uT�terekist�iabeenbac7es inle to Vthis
em
build
their homes n.L door to 1'i
area. There are two parcels of five acres each and one 9•5 acres • Pe would
Like to have his property out of the greenline.
g. 3i11 Cottingham, Rt. 3, Box 130. gr. Cottingham spoke relative
to the chart that had been presented: He hoped there was some type of
compromise There are eight or ten ow-necs on property east of :2idway.
0n Midway Orchard the natural bufreof h is 4
sknowledge00 feet � land owned b
in the pastsevencBaliwin
Contracting Company. To the best
yearsthe Tittle League Field was nester ;seeded. 'it has come up 'with-
natural grass .and hay. This area also harbors ground squirrels. Th�ty are
ninon the rbun,3 squirrels on B`aldwa.n's propexty=
not. allowed to go over and p g _
gs. the
There is not h better buffer In certain ateas of "ththere2arezonly about
1parcdlt noG even conform. In southeast Chico., would for
three or four of the parcels khat cou�.d meet thld�bettheamidway wwhich uffOtG
acre parcels. He felt a better buffer zone woo and the power and
a 450 foot buffer wihhsCof-way'toa�� Heihadaa question-asyto who would maintain
electric company rig maittonaricO
a ,buffer zone. If the buffer' is inn. eWhoowhald be responsible there cculd
be a p robl
em of fires clang the line.
liability of that buffer izsnnct Hw1e.�b]a rAgrjcuJtural land, There ista that
the southeast Chico area id 19$1. He set out the problems
difference of competing in 1900, 1925
of the frost in flokida that elim�;nated''about 30 >ra�ersttak � �eover oranges
for
juice and the concern for out of country
orange j" is not 1,L`ke other industries where people
mark dt. The ;farmi�tg industry s
ran be ),dyed off if the money is ',Owl Trarrams.e is gt'Two-�thirdtpof thefmoney
irrigation, fet-Alization and spraying p g
they will taise or the
in, , culture is spun befthe re they Planning of Seven acxer
Ow how machte
�' iOn
cost for the crops, �it�n thereJ�
dates with parcels which makes an average e size
s
0 _ � farmers;. TY av�arage
1� J 50 � petitiv�.
daoehe4thd avexaeetarmermany n�,5ysoayearsoofcage for rhe pexsa► who ow.�s''lnd
�OARD OV, r t y � 19$2 0`rdenialjho
Ar
glll-r
•
These people will reach a point of not wanting to farm 'their land. Land
is the ortly invuAtory foi the farmer. When he first moved to this area
20 years ago, he was informed that if a grower had financial problems, he
could sell one acre and continue to farm 20 acres without refinancing the
whole project: What would have happened last year if the fairer was forced
to refinance his *;.,,hole operation. When there are two alternatives for
the farmer, they are both bad. He doubted if one single property owner
p could er"-fact a,change in the General Plan regardless of the circumstances
The coalition and commi.ssiori'have stood fast to their lines and in the
middle are 2,000 people. If there are two or three bad years in agriculture,,
there will not be just one single individual but 2,000 angry individuals.
?n the Of
hearing before the Board on this matter, the :`mayor of the
I� City oz Chico admitted that if the Board adopted the Planning Commission
line there would be land available for twenty years so the line should
pe
tightened. The thingthat coneetris him the vast is that rose of the
people who have been concerned with the coalition line do trot have the
problems, there are 2,000 people that will have the problems. He felt
that the most logical place for th-.: greenling would be the one formed by
the ten monthG of the finest democratic hearings he has ever seen.
,All through the Proposition A hearings, the leash law concerns and any
controversial situation the Board room was packed.' With the few e:rception
there are no.real farmers here today. The people Oho most survive this
k line, have been before the commission and it appndrs to be one of the best
copromises in his twenty years in Butte County.
9, John, Morehead, Chico. Y, -c, Morehead staged he would like to
address. the buffer aced west of town. The. Planning Comna.ssibn recotunended
that the line go a;ong Oak Park, Rose and River Road.Tose are natural
bufferr. + He did not thi,
n'- a buffer was necessary Lin that area with the
commission line. .With r' roads and the creek, this has worked in the
past and does not socrixace land.
10. Rick Cinquini, Rt. -; Box 204. Mr,. Cir►quini stated the
Board had heard many pros and cons. There teas a gLeat deal of hard work,
for both sides.
The coalition line was a corxpromise line from the very
beginning. He urged th% Board td,consider the coalition line when making
i" their decision. bio one has ever come together to support anything like
f this in the past. He could like to tkle then eoalitiorc line and text adopted,.
ll, , .iohn Mdndonxa. lir. 144hd6jaza stated that he and his t,ns boys
farm togethtt, his fat%jer was, one of the earliest fataers in the area.
The wrest side farmers tr.,,- to farm but if something is not done about the
leap frog development there will be dao property £armed east of the Sacrametto
Cover, 'There. are plenty of hmnes today. Ile mid his bays dera in favor
of the coalition line.
12. Chris -Baldwin, representing Baldrsin Contracting and .Tarred
and Towne. Mr. Baldwin stated he would like to speak to the Nand t!se
de:�i.gnations. As fat as the land use west of Highway 99, he caotlii like
to amend what they had in the south Chite, area to be c-=ensurate with
the industrial designation fr►�m the comm
otx .line trtli the previous
acta,c�n of the Board in 1971 to W4. They had suggested that approximately
220 Adzes of industrial desl.gnat-ion in that ates would be for the welfare
BOAn 0V O'P'rI VI""50tt8 t`tTh{tJ't S January , 1582 'Greeny a r►e 1
C
andc'OmY of the count),-,. There was a request for Caltrans I to Initiate
connectiona road on Highway .99 and Eatlat, with the
uses in the area. Based an ghat request I t�e64dentjaj
they improved both sides of
Highway 99 and included a left turn f:COm Highway 99. In the backup for
that residerLtial project, was tZIG inLent to have about 250 acres of
.industrial development ',in that, area. Ja Southgate #1 there are some 30 acres.
He requeste,,l that AP- Board i,ave industrial $,esignatioft assigned -
0 -0 include
Southgate 7ndustrial Park #1 and the 250 acres. This does not include
the two gubdivisioris of 80uthgate Unit #1 and #2.
13.' Lloyd Tle1dinge I r. Mr. Heidinger staged he would like to speak
to the land use designation of the Dayton a -Road area. This area has been,
A-V, "M=A" and industrial zones and now the, request is to change that to
'IA -2011 zoning, The property is ",k-Vy zoning now. Th- Planning Commission
did leave this Property as zoned.
Bettye Bl�lir, Planning ditdctori stated that the Planning
COmmill;sion did not lea,7e within the 11A -_%V
designation.
"Ir- H64dinget set Out the location of this property on the mat),
Mr. Woods stated that this property would be agricultural
residential with the zoning as yet UnSPecified with the Pletn_Ltg COtmmission
recommendations_: The Coalition- recottendAt"ion it to have agriculture
designati,on leaving Marian and Stanley areas an island of retidential
designation.
Xri Heiditget stated that it 1974 this Property -wq8 it the
li,A-1011 clai-.,silication, and prior to the toA -)it
it wa!, it, "X"A" zoning,
1':Lq* Blair stated that there has not been any instance e:
cczoning where a toning went from something specific to "A�V . cept,
toning*
Mr. :Haidinger stated, he was talking about the two Proposals for
this property. Under the coalition designation the ptdperty would be
agricultural property, Under the Planning co,;mjtsion proposal, it ybuld,be agtitultutaI residential: That
ptopoety has effected real ettste
in the area. There was d five acte subdivisiot approved t4ithill the last
tik Or seven Years, He was talking about devaluation of
where: vithib the, last tventy y the PtoPorty values
ea:rt �hay have had POOPle coming into tho-
area buying agticulturaj land with teal estate values, To dome in twenty
to twenty five y6drl later and rezone those areas to a greAtat land area
designAtibft would have the effert of retroactive. zoning,
14, Httb Heidinger; 1370 114anzan't44 \fr. Reidjhgdr stated that
he owns the land with his son, TIM ProOetty was zoned "A-211 Until 1072
And was that zoned "A -P until4X,4 iohai! 'it was zoned "k-1011 :toning.
P
t) OV SO' MVISOU MIN( Tt$
The Planning Commission held the he for the "A-10" ?onin0 in early s
3cpcemher, 1.974. He was away on vacation the Friday before the Planning
Cota®ission!eet3ng for the hearing held on Tuesday when then i,otice had
been received on Friday before the hearing on the downzoniag from "A-5"
to "A-10" zoning.
15 Bill Cottingham, Rt,-3, Bow 150B, Chico. Mr. Cottingham was
speaking to the southeast Chico area. Ere felt there ware too many problems
lezns
in that area to address pdtt c:jlar zoning. He felt the drainage v roblera
would have to be solved, before any: attempt is made to set the specific ,
parcel sires to be allowed. There are also traffio problems to be
considered. There are also water quality control problems to be addressed.
There is a Saeed for a stvidy of the southeast Chico area to address the
problems. There is it need for the area to be studied to specifically
protect agricultural laird to th,e gesti ire felt the costs for any districts
that might need to be formed should be borne by the people who live in the
area and not by the t=tpayers in the county or city: The irforIen to regarding
these problems could be then brol:ght to the Board and perhaps then they
would be able to solve arty of the doubts about the agricultural Soil in the
area. die felt that the people itt they ares. should abide by the. results of
the :study, i•c the study is done bj, an independent study, If the s-.wsiy ptaw'es
th;y are wrong as to what he has presented they would abide by that, study
they are correct thdn"the a`oard should abi6e by the stite'y-.
and if pr.5g
It- that t°�x;e, they could try to come up with equitable la:td area size
because there are so 'many parcel °si.zes in the area. Baldwin Contracting
mi
ad Int y g «tion. To. mix
Company hr�s already ,remendous
g
industrial with a rit+ultureeortx esidences cool& have. some tt of tits :ears
problems for tha area. He felt them should be a time 1r!ni y
for the study to bd O pleted.
supervisor Dolan wanted to undersand t1r. Gottirighant's. propt'Sal.
;she was wondering if they had not come full, circle. Leoki.ig' at that
area as a study area was something discussed when the Pl dni.l`tg Cotmmilsion
toot a look at the sotctheast Chico atda for the General Flan and zoning.
hen the P,oa d and Citi;t of Chico appofated a committee to do a study, they'
+: left this in a Study ak'pa of "A-610 zoning. Was lit, Cottingham saying that
all the testiinoriy previously about the area should be on the ut'ban side should
be sex aside?
Mr. Cottingham stated that Baas r,dt ghat he was saying' EIe bad no
doubt that the testitony he hid p:'ovided to the 104td w76dld be proven. Ede
felt s committed should be chosen to study tmembers Onthetcoal3tioneto
planning cotnmissjonr residents, of the area;
come tip with findings
Bann or, ;SLtISBR C SCa S txriu`� s w ,ianua.ry 1 , 1 J8 Cyi�ot~n Anel
F
„
Supervisor Wheeler stated there was a great deal of conflict
be-,,;een resilving the line and designation between the Planning Cormid.ssion
land Coalition as to the placement of the greenline. She felt Mr. Cottingham,.
was say that, there may be the possibility cf a compromise for that area.
Mr. Cottingham stated that if in fact the coalition is sincere
about saving agricultural land, h= felt a study would show that they cannot
compete biecaus.e of production being limited because of soil problems. The
solving of the problems in the area should be borne by the people�.aho live
in the area. Farming is an investment and theta are no guarantees. He
Asked that the Board consider the south Chico area including the Baldwin
propetty for a study of_th,i problems that include, severe traffic problems;
drainageproblems and water quality control prcblems. He was asking, for
a study that would come from outside the county by people really qualified.
to give the answers' thcf' are looking for. There is no way to address the
problems at this time. Hr' was drilling to abide by the study 100 percent.
Supervisor Dolan stated that what she was hearing is that the
identifying of problems such as traffic., drainage and water gLality, are
problems created by urbanization.
Mer. Cottingham stated that the study might cost $20,000 to $25,000
And should be paid for by the people, in the area. He was willing to open
his property to test holes, geologists and agrieul:tur' al business people.
If they could compete, he would wal.t to compete In agriculture. He felt
there should "bit a study done over a period of two yeas and the property
should be pub: into orchard and field crops until that sutdy is completed
and if what they have presented is not right, the hoard could put the
greealine down Highway °9 to protect agricultural land , If, the Board is
r_aall, suttous abort protea --Lig agricultural land then a study should be
dmiC *
i
Supervisor Dolan stated that she. did not want to nisinttepret
wha.. Mr. Cotting:zam was saying. it was her understanding that lir.
CottitSham was saying the Board should draw,the greenline on Entler Avenue
and study the araa and that is wha;� he is suggesting flow.
Mr.' Cottingham stated that was not cthat he was saying. He was
suggesting that the area be left as it is now. There is no tray for, people
to devdlop under the eurrexit xoaea '1iere are areas of Gridley and R, chvale
without a grpenline. There is a subdivision on Entler Avenue. South of
that are open fieldsx east is Miclwry and ripen with no thin, dxtepting the
'Little %eaVo- field. There i, frothing proposed or planned. They have
discarded their subdivision plans because they realioe the seriousness
of what could take place in that area:,.
Chair= wheeler fait the', mitigation issues vdttld ifttIsde that
Tb,Qre arty any 'number of ir,sues to be address and the one that is pataitount
is circuUtion.
BOARD OV SUPERVISORS MINUTt8 - Jhnuaty
MWA
Superviso'-' Dolan stated that there were many things that could
be studied and gi.vin;g direcrion to the study it defining what you designate.
Circulation in that area if it is urban is a poble�,,
Ckasrman Wheeler stated she had heard the argument, time and
time agail, about the tremendous problem as it relates to ciroailation. That -
argument is part of the record on r,ntler ?,venue. One of the :,zsues people
placed on. the subdivisi=011 was the fact that circulation was so bad that
the subdivision would increase the problem ten fold. To say that ;(.s only
going to happen to urb�aization is erroneous. It is there today.
Mr. Cottingham felt there was a problem if a p?tsou met a
school bus on Butte Greek bridge. He felt the first thing to solve was
g
,nether this was viable agricultural land, He felt
ll. that if the Board was
reinterested in saving viable productive agricultural land there should
be a. study of the entire area and maybe after that study it would show that
the greenline should go down kiLghway '�94 If the area is found to bt viable
agricultural land then those that live in thvt area will live with that
finding, He was not talking about the Baldwin property. if it is found
at that point in, time that the 'property is nut viable agri iltural land;
the next step would be to solve the, many pro'llems with Out forcing the rest
f1, He ;pelt- the area should remain orchard
Of the county to pay for that bi.� He answered Chaittlam
and field crop until after the study has Seen wade;.
Wheeler relative to application for withdrawal; from, the Williamson Acta
renewal. and the property will be out of the
They have applied far non--
contract in 1989. Even though 4ney have proposed the window clause, he
h tri not look into any action gaverntnent is
felt anyar� wou�.d be -foolish �(
1
prw,posing. Ile would ab%dE, by the study even if "thee. greenline should
go down Highway 99.
an f
SupervisorhattDolwordestudyIt aisMa•►xeaurac�a�ewAs not, kerin that can
yes or`
now: She felt k can be
defined any number of ways by people. She has many books ren agriculture
,and the term viable agricultural Land seems to be iindividiia.'Ay defined
SUPEIVXSoR sARAcEgi ABSENT Ai THIS TIME.
Nit: Cottingham' felt they had some of t4d finest people at the
University of California, Davis: They have nrt: oitly provided guidance and
information to the people in California bul have transported that information
to other countries.
Ms. Blair felC ehe Board in the hearings held have been confronted
Frith what they envision is land use designation, not oningj She called
the Board's attention to 'the package the Board had r�.�eived� particularly
regdtdi'hg 18, 20 and 21Those should be taken into considoration tai.;th
tho Chico urban area.
BOAAD OF 80,PMV18M bMTM:1T:58 _ January 15, 198 (areehnrid7
.jr. Woods stated he could not give the requests from peopl&
could did not agree. He Lginal
plannin requestsok, the ommissiorawithrthe existing circumstances
)roposalr and prcwided the g art of the package 18,
and gave the recommendations. They attempted as p
20 and Zi to sho agreement and differ��rces of agreement.; If that is
impori ,nt he could assemble a report fox the Board.
Chairman Wheeler felt that the Planning Commission should assemble
the list,
Mr. Moods stated that the ,fa:ngrove issues were discussed by the
commission and so was the East avenue area.
Het anted tou now orae la p
of list the Board was requesting. 0 ig Y,
proposal in the areas, the request, the differences of opinion and the
recoimuendation He felt that for the most part 85 percent of the
-requested changes that were examined atdiffere�cessidn werewinMthetagricultural
resolved at the commission leve density hind uses.
residential. land rather Chan the medium or hi g.� Y
planning Deparr'men to put together a 1i:=� f, 6�
i8. Tom `Uando; planning birector for City of` Chico'
�2r+ i.�liido
advised that for the benefit of the Board they nave forwarded recommendat�or
to tAVCo regarding �.�`� sphere of influence._
17. 'Lloyd Heidinger. `jr, geidinger stated that the last notification
he 'had received from the planning pile a arjzoning in effect t on land use �igtheyOnlyon as
in .1974;, but what is being considdixe
d is notification he received was for the three mee"tirigs held by the goatd.
Tie still doubted the awareness of the Da�jtori "Road area residents.
18 John prandonza. 'Lir. iendonza stated there was discussion
on devaluation of land, Agricultural 1,1nd is beim; devalued when it
is put into too many homes in an agricultural area. It raises the prices
of agricu?tural land 'How sisomeoneeasid,
nghetwanted ahgreenline. He would
agricultural products This
like to stay in agricu�:ttire and keep the homes where tti:ey belong•
"lair commented on the notifications dor tkFe planning
,. this mattar; The legal points were covered by a
Commissi,nAheat.inKneo a er' As a result of the hearings, the commission which display ad in thep p
asked the "Board to to,direct mailing of not'ices for the Beard hearings, vrn
the Board did,
$OARO OV SUMVISOAS MINIOT88 Januar; . 13, 1982 (GrtdA iI10)
14. Herb Aeidi.nger,
1370 Manzanita it. Heidnger spoke regarding
the notification on the hearing. This hassel was originally for north and
northeast Cilico. Thti: only time he re,ei�red a notice was in 1974 fcr the
rezone from "A5" to `'A-10", which was received four days prior to the
hearing. He has received no notice since except for the notice from the
Board on December C, 1981. There was so much hassel about north and
nort,hwest Chico that he never paid any attention to the issue. When a�omething
as important as this OsuG comet up he tilt the property owners should be
notified.
Chairman Wheeler advised she GoO*
r t,j.� Board to spend time
as presexu. by
ssion on January g � y=-til ;t,
planning Cbmmi 20 1482. and go t"hrotj h the text
is finished. She felt the language would be the establishment n-# where
like to go over the text ah`+
the line oil d
occur. She would nal resolve
Afferences and vote+ point by point
and try to find one ground. She telt
the public hearing 'should remain open during the word` Session on the teX�
language so that as the 1:oard discusses areas, people are allowed to
comment on ahat the)" w=lt =
Ms; 131air stated it would not be proper to close tie hearing'
since the EIR bad not .been discussed;
The hearing was continued to January 10, 1982 at 10:00 a.m
for a work session between the Bck `rd, plannir►g staff and the Planning,
Cotrmissio$