HomeMy WebLinkAboutM010682January 6, 1982
RECONVENE: The Board of Supervisors reconvened at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to
recess. Present: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and' Chairman
82- ~ Wheeler. dark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant
b clerk to the Board..
57 ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BX CHAIRMAN WHEELER-
_ Chairman Wheeler advised the Board that she would be working with
staff reviewing committee appointments and the continuance of some of the
committees. She will report back to the Board in two weeks time. If the
Board members want to stay on a committee or want a committee abolished,
please advise her.
58 PUBLIC HEARING: CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN (GREENLINE) - GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
The public hearing on the Chico area land use plan (greenline),
General Plan amendment was held as continued.
Chairman Wheeler stated that the meeting would go until 12:00 p.m.
today and be continued to January 19, 1982 at 9:00 a.m. and at that time,
tree Boatd should be pretty well into the matter. She would hope the Board
could make a decision on the issue. The Board will be continuing the
discussion on the south Chico area.
Charlie Woods, planning department, stated that they had received
correspondence addressed to the Board. Copies of the minutes have been
provided to the Board.
j
Correspondence received relative to the greanline were set out 1
at this time:
Mr. & t~irs. Raymond Salo, support Coalition line
Mr. & P1rs. James CV. Dunn, support Coalition line
Manuel V. Azevedo, not happy with either line
Roy C. Uhl, Mr. Halcomb-estate manager, support Coalition line
Nadine S~Ieber, support preservation of agriculture land
Dr. Schiffman, support Coalition line
Louis G. Chrysler, Jr. & family, support Coalition line
Andrew J. Colmerauer III, regard for establishment in south area
Dr. & Mrs. William Coats, support Planning Commission line
Supervisor Dolan asked if Chairman Wheeler was wanting to only
hear from the people until noon and then continue the hearing to January 19,
1982, which is a regular Board day.
Chairman Wheeler stated she had meant the meeting would be
continued to January 20, 1982. If at noon there are several people who
still wish to speak, the Board could come back after lunch. She would
like the people to try to not be repetitive.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Steven B. Miller, 1362 Magnolia. Mr. Miller was in sympathy
with the Board's position. He would be speaking on three items: 1. values;
2. what is the meaning of zoning; and 3. a quote from Gribeams the Prophet.
The Board's decision will come down to a value decision and the Board's
determination of what values are. He set out the history of the country
going back to Plymouth Rock. The Indians could have stood out and asked
who are the people and what did they do before they came to America. There
are people in our country who are willing to break their bonds to get out
from under obligations. The people who came to Plymouth Rock made a pact
that they would act for the general good of the colony. The reference to
the general good for all runs throughout the history of the country. He discussed
Page 39.
January 6, 1982
8 2-
January 6, 1982
the Bill of Rights. -The Civil War was fought over the argument of private
property rights. The Union was willing to go to war to say that, individual
property rights were not the most important. He discussed what is meant
by zoning. He felt the community had a right and responsibility to
specific usage. He felt that the argument raised at the Board meeting
relative to the handcuffing of people with the coalition line was not
against the coalition line but against zoning. He realized that zoning
was necessary. He read a quote at this time relative to children not
being your children through you but not from you and theough they are
with you they belong not to you. He felt that children applied to everything.
He felt that the quote was that his property possessions were not his property
and though it is with him, it belongs not to him.
Biscussion of South Chico area
2. Gwen Coates, 2036 Oro-Chico Highway. Mrs. Coates was trying
to find out what the coalition line was. The Board, who is elected,
appoints the Planning Commission. The commission put in long, hard hours
and came up with as concise a plan as they could. She was speaking of
the problems in the south Chico area. She wanted to prevent cutting across
property. That type of line is not defensible. To have a line that cuts
across boundaries will be open to controversy from now on. She was in
favor of the Planning Commission line for the south Chico area. She thought
that most of the property owners in that area were in favor of the commission
line. She could not speak for the west side area.
3. Bob Wes t, 1316 Arbutus. Mr. West stated he farmed on the Chico-
Oroville Highway. He was in support of the line going dow the Chico-
Oroville Highway, primarily because the south side of the highway is
already developed. He set out the homes, four-plex and apartment house
that has been built in the area. He felt this was a natural boundary.
4. Michael Dixon, 10063 Lott Road, Durham. Mr. Dixon set out
the location of his parent's property. They are located one-half mile south
of Oro-Chico Highway on the east side of Butte Creek. Although, there
are currently about three land owners controlling about 250 acres in
almonds, he has been talking with land owners the last few days and was
a little confused as to what was going to happen on the other side of
the highway. He would prefer to see "A-5" zoning. Currently, they are
trying to split their land under the "A-5" zoning and this would allow
for three-five acre and one-fourteen point five acre parcels. Five acre
parcels would allow individuals to grow their own food and stock. He was
a little concerned on the orchard and field crop portion of this area.
He wanted to know if it would remain "A-5" zoing or go to "A 40" or "A-20"
zoning. He felt the Planning Commission line was more realistic than the
coalition line because the commission line encompasses the Lott Road
area into urban. He felt that if the property was kept in large parcels,
the children who are raised in the area will not be allow to build a home
on the property. Five acre parcels would allow for a green area surrounding
residences and allow for some breaking up of property. He felt maybe the
line should go down Butte Creek to encompass the Garden Esquon area. If
they are going to have residential development for the Durham area, it would
be wise to have some type of land broken up. He set out his property on
the map.
5. Tim Marble, living on the west side, Rt. 2, Box 6615, Chico.
Mr. Marble stated he owned seven acres of land. He felt that the coalition
line had the overwhelming support of the majority of the people. He has
farmed this seven acres for about six years and is viable farming. This is
a long term issue for years to come. He was totally in support of the
coalition line.
Page 40.
January 6, 1982
8 2--
d
_ January 6, 1982
6. Emma Roney, Rt: 4, Box 456. Ms. Roney spoke for the west side
area. She wrote a letter for the last meeting since she was unable to
attend. There were a great many people involved and many hours were put into
this project, not only by the Planning Commission, but by the Board and people
in the community. She keeps hearing people saying there are houses built
beyond their place and so why can't they be involved in subdividing and
housing. Just because a mistake was made and the houses were allowed beyond
where they should have been allowed, that. does not mean the county has to make
more mistakes. The ground is very valuable. She was in support of the
coalition line and text.
7. Dave Lantis, 1616 Oak Park Avenue. IDr. Lantis stated he has
been looking at the state for forty years. He was unhappy that Kern County
remains a disaster. In Ridgecrest for 25 years, people did their thing.
He was the architect. of the Chico greenline after looking at fifty states
in 1968 and 1969. The original line was goad and in :the pas t: seven years,
they have lost hundreds of acres of land. Two or three acre farms with a
steady job saves farmland. Fred Montgomery has commented that a person does
not have to have 200 acres. The average farm size in Belgium is two acres.
There is a great deal of talk about oak root fungus. The ground in Chico
will grow about 250 crops, some that are not affected by oak root fungus.
He read an article from 1969 relative to the failure of cities and counties
to reserve lands. He urged establishment of the coalition greenline. He
set out his property on the map.
8. Hugh Santos, 8394 Durne11 Drive, Durham. Mr. Santos stated
he was the president of the Butte County Farm Bureau. The map does not
contain his property. The Farm Bureau was involved in the coalition and
John Roney was the chairman of the Farm Bureau's land use committee.
The policy of the Farm Bureau has also had as a number one priority, farming.
The saving of prime agricultural land and soil is farming. He felt the
coalition did a great deal of good work in researching. They worked months
and months the help with input to the Board and Planning Commission. He
felt the Farm Bureau offered expert opinions and testimony. The Farm
Bureau agreed to endorse the coAlition line as drawn as well as the
coalition text.
Chairman Wheeler asked Mr. Santos to tell the organizations
that were involved in the coalition group.
Mr. Santos stated he would defer to other people for the answer.
He knew of three principle organizations representing a broad spectrum
of people and that is the Farm Bureau, California Women in Agriculture,
and the Greater Chico area Chamber of Commerce. The Farmers Ad Hoc
Committee also worked on the coa~.ition. The coalition came about with
the defeat of Measure A relative to the preservation of agricultural land.
Tt was born with the recognition of the need to solve a problem that is
not a new issue. The greenline started next to Chico and mistakes were
made in the past by other Boards. There is a need not to duplicate and
compound those mistakes at this time. There is an excellent opportunity
to set a precedent for agricultural, industrial and urban areas. if the
Board misses this opportunity, they may never gent a chance like this
again. The coalition is the key because people are finally working together,
who have warred in the past. These people have unofficially put aside
their difference of opinion, both political and economical, to work for the
betterment of the total community in Butte County for growing and continual
growth.
Supervisor Saraceni asked Mr. Santos how the Farm Bureau arrived
at their vote on the coalition line.
Page 41.
January 6, 1982
January 6, 1982
82
Mr. Santos stated that the Fax`m Bureau Board of Directors voted
on the coalition line, This is a 56 member board. The issue has been
discussed. The land use committee discussed the issue and brought the
information back to the board of directors for a decision. The Farm Bureau
is fortunate to have a group that works in land use matters that has a
Planning Commissioner on their board of directors to give them an overview
of all the problems. The decision to become a member of the coalition was
acted on by the board and the decision to go with 'the coalition view and
line was acted upon by the board of directors.
9. Mrs. Coates. Mrs. Coates asked if the Board in their
discussions about the greeliheowere involved in zoning today as well.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the Board was only discussing the
greenline. The Board is not involved in the zoning process of the areas.
10. John Roney, Rt. 4, Box 455R, Chico. Mr. Roney advised that
the Board had received a letter about tine coalition membership which
includes the Butte County Farm Bureau, California Women in Agriculture,
the Farmers Ad-Hoc Committee, and the Butte Business Alliance. They support
the coalition line. The Chico City Counsel and Chamber of Commerce have
supported the coalition line. The Chico Board of Realtors, Chico 2000,
and the Chico League of Women Voters have also supported the coalition line.
Mr. Roney submitted an aerial map of the south Chico area as an exhibit
at this time. He asked that the Board look at the map and the agricultural
land it represents. What is at stake is hundreds of acres of agricultural
land that comes down Midway and is farming land. There has been talk about
including this in the urban designation. The overriding criteria used to
establish the line was soil. He set ovt the dredger tailings, rocks and
Baldwin Contracting Company. There was other criteria used for establishment
of the coalition line in addition to soil, which was parcel size and
zoning. They did not want to downzone property. The Baldwin property is
zoned industrial. The Soard of Supervisors in 1978 made the statement that
urban development in south Chico would stop at Entler Avenue. The Board
now has a chance to fuifill that commitment. The Board in 1979 refused
to allow Midway Orchards to withdraw from the Williamson Act indicating
at that time that the area should stay in `farming. There are about 750
acres in that area. Mr. Dixon indicated the line should go down the
middle of Butte Creek, up Esquon. This goes to show that the line is being
continually extended out and the line is coming up against new property
owners. He felt the coalition line was defensible in this area.
11. Tom Edgar, representing Midway Orchards. Mr. Edgar stated
that last summer they presented the Planning Commission with information
relative to Midway Orchards. He has sent a copy of that letter to the
Board. They presented financial data on the orchard. The people who
live in south Chico have almost universally said there are serious physical
problems with the soil in that area. The people who live to the west of
Midway have said the land is good land. He agreed that the land west of
Midway was good land. The land east of Midway Orchards and north of
the Oro-Chico Highway is not good land. That is the former creek area
for Butte Creek. It was used for dredger tailings. The Butte Creek
Rock area is the same. He set out photos of the area showing that this
is not viable farmland and is reflective of the area. The soil is very
shallow on Midway Orchards with two and three feet of cover over rocky
base. On Midway Orchards the rocks are literally on the ground. The soil
has a low ph factor. There is advanced infestation of oak root fungus.
Some farmers are able to contend with these problems. In the case of
Midway Orchards, the previous owner removed the trees because of oak root
fungus but did not remove the roots. To this day, a person can pull out
huge roots that are heavily infested with the fungus. Years ago there
Page 42.
January 6, 1982
January 6, 1982
8 2-
a
were herbicides to fight the fungus and many are not legal to use at this
time. Many things used in farming are no longer available as they were
ten years ago. There is a serious problem of bacteria canker in the orchard.
It is indicative of the soil being poor in nutrients. The other areas of
the orchard to the ast have serious problems with drainage. He set out
Exhibit A relative to the productivity of Midway Orchards and Lone Pine
Orchards. Exhibit B indicates the differences in incomes on the two
orchards. Exhibit C show the number of trees lost on the property.
They have had the best technical services available for both orchards.
The debts for Midway Orchard have grown from 1978 to 1980. This is an
operation that in spite of alI the things they have tried to do that is
not successful. Exhibit E--2 shows the information furnished by Monarch
Laboratory. He read the findings. Bi11 Molan of the agricultural
extension service described mole canker. The trees in the orchard are
about one-half the size that they should be. The almonds never came to
maturity. He presented an updated petition at this time. The petition
was originally signed in March 15, 1982. Baldwin Construction and
Dan Drake signed the original petition. They are supporting the coalition
line now. Since that date there are several other people who have signed
the petition. He referred to the back page of the petition which has
a map. The yellow color are those that signed in March, 1981. The green
is property that signed after that date. He was of the belief that Mrs.
Smith sent a letter to the Board in support of the Planning Commission line.
What is listed in this petition is virtually 100 percent of the land area
in that area. They people are saying they do not want to be in an
agricultural preserve. He set out the area of the signers of the petition.
The greenline is not a development line. Tt is not a line that says that
two days after the drawing of the line that a bulldozer will appear on
the east side. What the line does say is that this is the actual line
for agriculture. There are people in the. community saying they want
a commitment for a twenty-year line for the zoning processes. He asked
if the Board wanted to maintain land in agricultural preserves when there
is no one out there who are able to maintain an economically liable
agricultural operation.
RECESS: 10:17 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:39 a.m.
12. Bill Cattingham Rt. 3, Box 130B, Chico. Mr. Cottingham stated
that the property he lives on and farmed for twenty years is not on the map.
He will be presenting information relative to part of the southeast Chico
area and data as it applies to Midway Orchards but extensive walking of
the entire area results in the same type of information. He felt the
land in the Oak Avenue area was prime agricultural land and should be kept
as such. He has been involved in farming and has complted courses at
the University of California, Davis and the University of California
extension service. He assisted in the design and construction of the
almond harvest equipment in 1962. He helped to form two farmers co-ops
in Chico-and Wheatland. He stated he has struggled with 225 acres of
ground known as Midway Orchards. He is part-owner of Midway Orchards
and owns only five percent of the 110 acres. He also has a contract to
manage the orchard. The orchard was purchased as a joint venture with
other farming people. He is going to be making a presentation based
on cultural practices, soil disease and the land east of Midway and the
problems involved in that area. All the information is documented and he
will provide photos taken in the area to show that this is nonproductive
land. Over the past 60 years the average ownership for the orchard has
been 4.2 years. The Patrick Ranch across the street has been in their
family for over 100_-years. He felt that the only time agricultural land
was threatened was because the individual owner is not able to function
financially on the land. He fe~.t the coalition line was drawn to be
age 43.
January 6, 1982
S 2-
*~r
January b, 1982
controversial because he did not see the greenline around Durham-Nelson or
Richvale. Mr. Cottingham set out the definition of viable from Webster`s
Disctionary. He submitted information relative to the cost of farming
equipment as an exhibit at this time. He showed rocks from the orchard.
£hese rocks cannot be put through rapid pieces of equipment. Oak root
fungus was not a problem until irrigation was put in to have better and
uniform crops. Small farmers cannot afford to purchase equipment to farm
small parcels and therefore are at the mercy of the big commercial farmers
to help harvest their crops. Based on the latest figures from the University
of California for Butte County based on 108 trees"per acre on class ane soil
and based on borrowing money at 14 percent, it would cost $5,025 per acre
to produce one acre of almonds. When you get into class two and class three
soils the figures are higher because of the higher costs involved in the
farming. It would take a selling price of $1.83 per pound to break even
on class three soil. In 1978 the average production in Butte County from
the statistics provided by the California Almond Board show 831 meat pounds
per acre. In 1979, the figure was 1,000 meat pounds and in 1980, 2,080
meat pounds. For the three years this is an average of 885 meat pounds
per acre. On class one soil it costs $5,025 to grow the crops and takes
$1.40 to break even. In 1978, the were not receiving $1.•40 per pound
and only made $1,163 per acre and would have to come up wi th about $1,500.
He has been sitting with the Bank of America fox the past week and there
are plenty of growers with problems. They are trying to find out how much
land they will be able to farm for people on repossessions. This is why he
called the coalition line the poverty line. He is a new member of the
Farm Bureau and they have good magazines. There is an article that says"
80 acres are not enough. There is an editorial from Jack Pickett in
January 82 that reflects that forty tons of top soil is flowing downstream
every year on the Mississippi River. There is soil conservation for five
billion tons of top soil per year. If the erosion figures are correct,
the conservationists are spending money for things that are not done.
Jack Kendrick of the University of California says there are no severe
erosion problems. This is from the California Farmer and the Farm Bureau.
Mr. Santos stated that the California Farmer and the other farm
journal are not the official Farm Bureau publication.
Mr. Cottingham stated that people have made reference that they
do not want to see Butte County become another Fresno County. He would
love to have the sales from Fresno County in agriculture because they are
number one. From data from the Department of Agriculture Commerce Census
Bureau 21 of the 100 leading counties in the United States in agriculture
are in California. Riverside is the fastest growing county in California
and is involved in farming. This same magazine shows that the almond crop
'for this year will be 27 percent larger than last year. The California
Almond Crop Association estimates that 1b0 million almond crap will be
,produced by 1987. That would be about 58 percent larger than the current
410 million estimated crop now. There is nothing that looks easy for
marketing almonds. Clark Biggs of the California Farm Bureau Federation
',says that the myth that farm land is gone in southern Galifornia is not
right because very southern California county ranks in the top 18 and
there are some of the biggest farmers still in that area. California is
number three in the nation for agricultural production with Iowa being
number one and Illinos being number two. The country is glutting the
market with agriculture. They have to limit the poppy farmer because he
competes with the commercial farmer. The overseas countries are now
producing agriculturally. As a result the market has been glutted.
That is why the United States is not selling overseas today. He set out
what is happening with the avacado crop, pear crop, cheese production,
peach crops, and the dairy industry.
Page 44.
January 6, 1982
B 2-
January 6, 1982
Mr. Cottingham stated that almonds are now grown in Arizona and
Texas. The University of California, Davis in reasearch shows-that the
average size farm in California over the past. thirty years has gone up
and now the average size farm is 459 acres not seven acres along the
coalition or Planning Commission line. Jack King, spokesman for the
California Farm Bureau, at the October meeting in Bakersfield stated that
if you want to increase agriculture in California do so by taking care of
water and increasing water to the farm thirsty areas. He did some
research on soil and called Mrs. Shephard at the Soil Conservation Service.
Mrs. Shephard advised him that the soils maps were drawn in 1925 or 1926.
In the past, the Board of Supervisors has been approached by farm groups,
the Farm Bureau and Soil Conservation Services to provide newer maps
because of the inaccuracy of the existing map. He set out the information
for the university cooperative extension services and the Farm Advisor relative
to the explanation of different soils. Vino loam soils are in category 6
and are considered very productive, except for very gravelly types. In
places prunes are affected in vina loam. With oak root fungus the only
way to plant is plum root stock and in vina loam gravelly soil it will
not do very well. The information goes on talking about Butte Creek as
alluvial areas of problems in the county. '
At another time before the Board he submitted a soil report
on Midway Orchards done by Dr. John Hart, PHD from the University of
California, Chico. This report shows there are three different types
of soil shown on the map and the water movement to these different areas
is hard to control. The report also shows there are many cobbles from
three to ten inches in the soil. He presented pictures of the cobbles
at this time. He contacted Sacramento Northern to find out why the
railroad track was placed where it was. The records showed that the
railroad track was placed in the area because it never flooded west of
that line and at that particular curve it was from eight to twelve feet
higher. He presented a map drawn up by Dr. Hart showing the different
soils in this particular area. He presented a report by George Post from
Yuba City relative to the soil, oak root fungus and plum trees dying
from the fungus. He went to Monarch Laboratories. He submitted the
information at this time. He set out the way the orchard is irrigated.
The laboratory also reported on the cankers and ph factor of the orccard.
With the low ph factor there is a great deal of salt in the soil and when
there is a heavy winter water table, this stunts the trees. Dr. Roland
Price of the University of California, Davis advised that the solutions
for the orchard would be very costly. It would take three years and
cost $250,000 to do as suggested by Dr. Price and there was no guarantee
that this would solve the problem as it was only a guess. Mr. Cottingham
showed thirty-two picture slides depicting the soil conditions in the
south Chico area and Midway Orchards property. This were entered as
exhibits. He also presented polaroid pictures of areas in Midway Orchards.
He referred to a letter from Lloyd Sloan who stated it was his opinion this
orchard was no prime soil. The coalition and Board have talked about a
buffer zone. The natural buffer zone for the south Chico area would be
down Midway which would give a total of 150 feet of buffer zone counting
the Midway, railroad and rights-of-way. The coalition forgot about people.
He did not know how someone could tell a person on one side of the greenline
that his property was worth $660,000 and tell a person who cannot farm his
land that the property is worth $100,000. He felt there was a meeting of
the minds among the people along the greenline. He did not £eel the Board
should force people into bankruptcy. He did not feel that the professional
farmer should be forced to farm his land if it is not profitable.
Supervisor Moseley questioned Mr. Cottingham relative to the
ing of trees between other trees.
Page 45.
January 6,.1982
B 2-
3
January 6, 1982
Mr. Cottingham stated that everytime one-tree was removed it
was replaced by three trees. Close planting and hedge row planting brings
trees into production. The reason they are planting this way is so they
do not take the area completely out of production. In his figures, he did
not count-the trees from bacteria problems. He planted an additional
10,000 trees in there for that.
Supervisor Aolan questioned Mr. Cottingham relative to the
pictures that had been submitted. Were they the same as those presented
in the request for withdrawal from the Williamson Act?
Mr. Cottingham replied that they were. On the older plants
from last year, some are sprouting up well and some are not. They do
not show in the pictures because they were taken before the trees were
planted. Some of the trees in Midway Orchards stopped growing some three
years ago because of the ph factor. They got into a financial problem
with the orchard and petitioned the IRS for tax relief. They were permitted
to escalate the depreciation from thirty years to ten years back to 1976
because the IRS agriculturalist said there will be nothing in the orchar_.d
in 1986. He thought this orchard was known as the Mary Belle Ranch in
the 1970s. There was a dairy in the back.
Supervisor Moseley stated that her family bought from the Mary
Belle Ranch.
Chairman Wheeler stated that people in the community would drive
to the ranch and buy milk on Sunday. The slides that were presented are
valid representations of the fact there is gravel riff that runs through
the southeast sector of the county but that is not to say there cannot be
some type of agricultural endeavor accomplished in the area.
RECESS: 11:58 a. m.
RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m.
Mr. Cottingham stated he had been asked a question by a gentleman
in the audience as to why they purchased the orchard knowing it was in bad
condition. He was aware that when they purchased the orchard there were
some problems.
Chairman Wheeler did not feel that this information was pertinent
to the issue being discussed. Reasons for people buying land are personal
reasons.
Mr. Cottingham stated there has been some indication that they
purchased the property strickly to develop the land and that was not the
case. The property was purchased for farming. Had they purchased to
develop the land, the climate on the Board at the time of purchase was more
prodevelopment. They did not approach the Board to develop until after
they had had the property for three years. They did not know there were
soil problems until 169 soil samples were taken. The zoning on the property
was "A-2" zoning which allowed four houses to the acres. They felt this
was a good investment since the orchard was Gloss to previously developed
land and to land developed for industrial purposes.
13. Al Houseman, Rt. 3, Box 30A, Chico. Mr. Houseman stated
he owned twenty acres just north of the Cottingham property and verified
what Mr. Cottingham had said. There have been several different committees
who have driven down the road to see his trees. Last time he took a count
there were over 360 trees with fungus growing around them If the trees
last another five years, he will be lucky since this is a twenty year old
orchard. His soil is a little worse than Midway Orchards. He set out his
property on the map. page ~6• •
January 6, 1982
January 6, 1982
82
a
14. Raymond Jans, 9595 Jones Avenue. Mr. Jans was interested in
property on River Road. He owns ten acres on River Road. He has farmed
this property since 1956. It is good land. It is a very sad orchard and
probably as old as he is. Tfie orchard should probably be taken out but he
has hesitated because he did not know the pleasure of the Board with
regard to development in•the area. Ten acres is not very profitable.
He has battled oak root fungus since he starting farming this land.
It is very expensive to fight oak root fungus and he removed about 50
trees before the rains came. He would be willing to support the coalition
line as long as the Board will stick with the line. Tt if the Board is
going to change everything continually., and iff development is across
the street from his property, he would like to be placed in the urban side.
He is already surrounded by people not favorably inclined toward the things
he does in his orchard. He set out the location of his property on the map.
15. Nina Lambert, North Graves Avenue. Ms. Lambert submitted
petitions at this time. She read the petitions at this time relative to
the request for "A-3" zoning. She prepared and circulated that petition
that was presented to the Board in 1969. Either the Board should hold
the line or she also wants out of the greenline. The purpose of the
greenline is to preserve agricultural soil. The policy needs to comply
with the General Plan. She did not want her property included in agriculture
if theBoard is not going to hold the line. If the area is to be preserved,
it should be done now. She believed in equality for everyone. ii ;.
16. John Morehead, Chico. Mr. Morehead stated he was speaking
for 90 percent of the landowners of concern immediately to the City of
Chico. who have owned five or ten acres for up to fifty years. They want
to protect their property from the greenline that has always been west
of them. This land is west of town and not prime agricultural soil
ground and not viable farmland. The soil might be classed as vina and
Columbian loam. The land has been in the family for over 107 yeara and
was subdivided over fifty years ago. He has farmed the property for thirty
two years. The land completely around his property has become more and
more urban and less agriculture. The property adjoins the city limits
to the east with subdivisions of high, medium and low density to the east,
south and to the west. The property enjoys almost all the amenities of the
city. It is impossible to farm this land because it is too close to an
elementary school and adjoins the city limits and high density dwellings
of the city and Chico State. There are hundreds of people who must drive
around his property and sometimes trespass through the property. Farming
practices in the area put people in danger because of dust, dirt, mud, wet
roads and sprinting water. This makes dangerous and hazardous road
conditions. There are poison sprays that are used and traps and poison
for eradication of rodents. There is light and heavy farming equipment.
Because of heavy population and traffic there are problems with pruning,
burning, cutting of brush, frost control practices, noise. At harvest
time, it is impossible for the orchardist to protect their crop. The
property has electricity, sewers, schools, roads, stop signs and cable
television. He felt the Planning Commission had made a correct and logical
appxaisal for all the people involved. He was speaking for seven property
owners on the west side of Chico.
17. Nick Bertagna, Rt. 3, Box 188, Chico. Mr. Bertagna stated
he farmed from five acre parcels on the Morehead property up to a 125 acre
parcel on Hagen Lane. He farms acreage that covers different areas and
soils. There is property with rocks in it. They have a heavy soil orchard
and a new variety on plum root that is very successful. A lot of this has
to do with cultural practices. The go through a process of pulling out
the old orchard with the bad oak root fungus and replanting with plum
root marianna plum. He was in ~avor of the coalition text and line.
age 47.
January 6, 1982
8 2-
~~*
q January 6,.1982
An economic unit is what a person wants to make it. He was not here to
discuss what types of crops should be grown in what areas but to protect
farmland. He was speaking for more than himself. His father was a farmer
in business for 45 years. They have land payments to make. Everything is
not paid for. He was in favor of keeping all the land that is formable
in farming.
Chairman Wheeler felt it was a matter of choice for the agriculturalist
to farm and what he wants to farm if there is water. Two years ago, she and
her family went on a vacation through five western states. It vias exciting
to see the different ways of farming.
18. Fred Nottleman, Rt. 3, Box 60, Chico, Mr. Nottleman
stated he was verifying some of the things, Mr. Bertagna said. He set
out his experience with oak root fungus. He pulled an orchard in 1969.
He spent about $350 per acre to treat the soil and this year there was
3,440 meat pounds per acre. He did not think someone could say the ground
was not good for anything. When he was a boy the Mary Belle Ranch and
the Morehead Ranch supplied practically the entire area of Chico with
vegetables. Same of the property farmed by Mr. Bertagna•has rocks.
Tn order to get an economic crop using marianna root stock the trees have
to be planted closer together and more per acre because that type of
tree is smaller. His production was based on peach root trees. He was
successful in replacing the oak root fungus trees. His property is
not located on the map. He lived on Hagen Lane. He has an orchard on
Meridan Road close to the orchard he understood PSr. Cottingham was considering
buying in the future. He is 71 years old and has been farming most of
his life. He was on the Chico City Planning Commission and the County
Planning Commission for years.
Chairman Wheeler stated this was an emotional issue the Board
is dealing with. She wished there was some way there was to determine what
is agricultural and what is urban land. One of the serious concerns is
that the line be drawn so that the farmer is not put out of business by
urban development.
Mr. Nottleman stated that .it was his understanding that any planning
or zoning has to be done under the police power of the jurisdiction. As such,
that should be for the good of the public welfare and held and general
welfare of the people not for the Iand owners along a particular line.
He hoped the Board would keep in mind some of the people a long way away
from the line have a stake in that line.
19. Bill Cottingham. Mr. Cottingham stated that Lone Pine
Orchard produced 30.4 pounds per tree while Midway Orchards produced
13.2 pounds per tree. He was not buying any land anywhere.
20. Hester Patrick, Midway junction with Oro-Chico Road. Ms.
Patrick stated she lives on the Patrick Place which was settled in_1850.
This property has been actively farmed for 131 years. The Patrick Place
that starts at Hegan to the Chico-Oroville Road has been farmed by the
same family all of this time. What was known as the Compton place adjains
that. Originally, it was the North Graves place. She set out the history
of the North Graves place from 1850. It was originally settled by William
Northgraves as a land grant. It was a section of land. 3ames Marshall
lost this land to Mr. Northgraves and it was purchased for $1.25 per acre.
It was a little less than 640 acres. In 1895 her aunt Bea Patrick married
Mr. Compton. William Northgraves dies in 1898--and the property was put
up for sale. Bea Patrick Compton watched the house built on that: property.
Adam and Henry Compton bought the property. Henry bought another piece of
progeny which was the Mary Belle Ranch. Both places were planted in
Page 48,
January 6, 1982
January 6, 1482
8 2-
almonds the same time. The Mary Belle Ranch. produced ~eforethe Compton
Ranch, There are 100. acres still in production on the Compton Ranch. There
are some old dead trees but it is still producing. The orchard was planted
some 80 years. ago. The orchard on the Mary Belle Ranch has changed hands.
The Chinese place was just north of the Little League Park. Irrigation
is out of Little Butte Creek. That land was in production by Henry
Compton and was sold several times. This was named for the daughter and
son of Mr. Lorenz. Portions of the land were dredged. The-area that has
the cement ditch went over the ditch portion of the old Little Butte
Creek. The water light on that particular irrigation ditch is the oldest
in the State of California. Mr. Wright acquired the 'water rights out of
Little Butte Creek. The channel has been changed a little. The reason
the cemented area was done was because this was the area where the dredging
was done and theg were not allowed to move through Little Butte Creek. Before
that portion of the ditch was cemented, the places of the rock piles would
fill up with water. Mr. Christensen had a bumper crop in 1945 when they
tood off 45,000 worth of almonds. In addition, the land had a dairy and
some was in falghafa. There was a very good offer for the property and it
was sold. Leo Michael made good money from this property and sold it
to Mr. Levy. Mr. Levy felt all you had to do was live on th e land. Young
Mr. Levy decided to do something about the orchard and set a match to the
orchard. Mr. Sloan tried to buy the property and. he put it back into shape.
That orchard was some 60 years old at that ime. Mr. Henaman bought the
property and leveled it and bought new trees. After that Mr. Cottingham
purchased the property. Mr. Cottingham brought a plan for a subdivision
for the property later one. He assured us it would be a beautiful subdivision
and an asset to Midway. No subdivision would be an asset to Midway or
farming operations in the area. If there are 200 houses with families who
had children and dogs there would be problems for the orchards in the area.
There cannot be dog. droppings in the almonds or the entire amount is
discarded. Children cannot be running over the sprinler system or there will
be no system. The orchard on the Patrick Ranch is now older than the
orchard on Mr. Cottingham's property. There are 400 acres opposite Midway
orchards. When there is a subdivision in the area, the people will be
subject to dust, odor for pesticides, spray rigs running all day and all
night. She heard the spray rig on Cottingham's orchard which is one-half
mile away. When the spraying is done by helicopter, they come in at dawn.
When Midway Orchards petitioned to get out of the Williamson Act she wrote
several letters to the Planning Commission and evey had pictures. They did
not want to go out of agriculture and there were several offers made to
buy this property so the acreage could be retained in agriculture. There
were three offers, she was aware of where people in farming went to try
to purchase Midway Orchards and were told that the place was not for sale
for less than.. .$25,000 per acre. That price was for subdivision land.
To say they intended to farm and then have plans for a subdivision and
will not sell the property for farming purposes, she felt they had something
else in mind for the property. Bob West now owns 46 acres of property that
she and her husband purchased from the Compton property. Part of the
property was in old orchard and part was in green fields. The property
was full of rocks and had not been leveled. They gulled out the old orchard
and leveled the property and planted a new orchard. It was a little
inconvenient to farm but was a good looking orchard. Mr. West purchased
the property and in three years paid for it with the crops from that orchard.
To say, the Soard is willing to have this area included in urban land
means that because people are across the street as allowed by the Board,
would be to allow land to be put into small areas everywhere in this area.
There is something like 1,400 acres of good €armland. Midway Orchards has
the same type of soil as that orchard owned by Mr. West. They all know the
area has big rocks. There is a de rocker on every almond 'huller in the
area because the rocks have to be taken out. She has not asked the media
for any interviews although she has more acreage than people who have.
Page 49.
January 6, 1982
January 6, 1982
8 2-
3
She felt the Board should use common sense in protecting this area. Tf stock
is purchased and does not pay-off, that stock will eventually be sold.
If a person purchases a ranch, they can sell it and b.uy some other area.
If a person is a sub.diroider, they figure they will make money quick. The
next thing they know, this will be a San Jose. She felt the Board should
understand the value of agriculture and agricultural land must be taken
care of now. Mr. Cottingham quoted some things but did not quote how
many acres of farmland were lost to development. She reminded the Board
about the Entler Avenue Subdivision and the portion that had been in orchard
was lost. There were about one dozen pistachio tress on the Midway and
pecan trees on Entler Avenue lost. The man who was farming that orchard
was toad not to take care of the orchard, he had the right to harvest the
orchard but not to do anything to maintain it. She knew if the land was
not maintained a person did not live. The promise was made that if the
subdivision was approved there would be $150,000 for a person's land.
A widow was pressured into signing the petition and a threat was made to
close a right-of-way. Supervisor Winston was on the Board when the
Entler Avenue Subdivision was approved and the Board was wined and dined
and Supervisor Winston sated the Board would let the subdivision on
Entler Avenue go through but they would hold the line. She felt that.
prime agricultural land south of Entler Avenue would be the line. The
City has made plans to move the population to the east of Chico. That
move will take care of the population for twenty years. It would seem
a shame for the Board to consider putting another area into urban
development that would condem the orchards next door to the those areas.
Sure there is oak root fungus in the area. It has been in the areas for
many years. Her husband's grandmother had the Chinese chop out the oak
root fungus and the wood was used to supply the hotels in Chico during
the 1870s.
The coalition line and the sphere of influence came through. at
Speedway and went up to and around the industrial area. If that line is
moved south of Entler Avenue, it will be taking more agricultural land.
There are some almond orchards being pulled out that are listed as 40
year orchards. Perhaps some of the almond trees at 40 may be old trees.
Her orchard, which is not the best in the world, is 80 years old. There
is a row of Bidwell almonds. The orchard she has should produce another
40 years but at least 20 years. She felt the Board was elected to serve
the interest of Butte County and not the developers. She has keen in
farming all her life. She lived on North Glenwood Avenue which is the
demarkation of the line now. The loam was 20 feet.
Chairman Wheeler thanked Ms. Patrick for her information on
the history of the area. She knew Ms. Patrick's. family took an active
part in the growth of the area. She advised that no one wined and dined
her on this particular issue.
Ms. Patrick invited all the Board members to come out and drive
around the area. There are some small houses on small acres on the
south side of Midway. She did not feel this should be done on the north
side of Midway. She did not feel the Board could vote on an issue when
they did not know what they were talking about.
21. Art Gilman, 5498 Ord Ferry Road. Mr. Gilman was in support
of the greenline. He is the fourth generation on the property. His
children are the fifth generation. He felt that anyone who thought
that he did not have a stake in the line because he did not live next
to the line was not right. He has watched development continually march
out to the river on Sacramento Avenue. Eventually development will get
to him if the line is not drawn and a commitment on the part of this
Board and future Boards to mak a hard a fast line. Never before in his
Page 50.
January 6, 1982
8 2-
°__-_______= Janu_ar_y-6, 1982__________________
recollection have so many diverse interests come together and done something.
He felt it was a great opportunity to once and for all settle this on-going
battle. He supported the proposed coalition line bec~use~~. he was aware
of the many hours private individuals have put into that decision. If the
greenline is drawn, it will preclude many of them from selling farmland.
He heard reference made to oak root fungus in orchards and if that was used
as a criteria 80 percent of the orchards would have to be opened to development.
He has a problem on his property called Little Chico Creek and occasionally
Sacramento River: His family will probably all be farmers, not because
they could not do something else with the land.- He owns property in the
Dayton area where the Board had an urban development in an agricultural
area 1,200 feet from his property line. He supposed he could make a good
case for .withdrawing that property from the Williamson Act and allowing
development but because he has principles, he did not even consider that
alternative, even though his accountant advised him he could never plant
an orchard again. The development selling price for that property would
be from $350,000 to $2.5 million. That is a pretty big incentive. He had
no qualms with people that attempt to make money. He did have qualms with
public officials for allowing the people to do things that may not be in
the long term public interest. He urged the Board to seriously consider
the coalition greenline and text.
22. Jerry Brandstatt, Rt. 2, Sox 172._ Mr. Brandstatt stated that
his grandfather farmed in the west Chico area in 1920 and 1930. Primarily
the crops were prunes, peaches, etc._ His concern was that the greenline
is the agricultural viability of the land and hoped the Board would consider
not only the present crop but the future crops. As soil becomes more
important, they will probably see newer crops were it is no longer feasible
to grow almonds. An example of this is in the kiwi crops. This crop grows
best in class one soil. His first crop of kiwis was on one-third acre
and was planted five years ago. The crop had four tons of kiwis. He has
no problems with his neighbors. In looking at the whole concept of soil
conservation, this is a unique situation in Chico because of the soil class,
water and climate. There are landowners next to the greenline who are
concerned about small parcels and do not want to replant in almonds. He
felt these people should consider growing kiwis .or leasing to kiwi farmers.
The cost of planting the kiwis is $8,000 to $10,000 per acre and it is
easy to get $10,000 to $15,000 per acre after five-years of growth.
He supported the coalition greenline. The city sits on the top of an
alluvial fan. He would be in favor of any line as close to the center of
land as possible. He set out his property on the map.
RECESS: 3:07 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:28 p.m.
23. Lloyd Heidinger, 1590, Dayton Road. Mr. Heidinger felt that
the ground seemed to be the issue. There are numerous people supporting
the coalition line and are telling the property owners they cannot do
something with their land for twenty years. With this, you have cut off
the alternatives to the property. In 1964, he and his father received
$1,464 per acre and in 1974, $1,000 per acre. The time between these
ten years when many innovations were made in agriculture are now effecting
the country, state, county and city. There has been discussion of alternative
crops but these things will take time to prove out. He intended to pursue
the alternatives but who knows what will happen in twenty years. He was
hard pressed to se a policy decision that effects people on the bordering
line that is telling these people that for twenty years in the future they
are part of the economic system that they cannot participate in. He .and
his father neither supported the coalition nor the commission line. Their
property is located one-half mile from the railroad tracks, one-fourth mile
from the city limits and they are being told they cannot have a possible
subdivision. Page 51.
January 6, 1982
January 6, 1982
82- 24. John Chamber, 9726 Lott Road. Mr. Chamber stated he was
b speaking on behalf of Jim Estes. This property is in the Comanche tract
railroad and is a small area. No one seems to object to this piece of
property within the urban area. There are trucks trying to go through the
orchard and joggers going through it. No one is debating the quality. of
the soil. With Stanley Avenue being in this area it is an unfortunate area.
25. Bob Hartman, Rt 3, Box 30 C. Mr. Hartman stated he lived
on the Midway. He has lived in Chico for over fifty years and at his
present address for twenty four years. He has heard testimony about the
marginal soil but over the years has watched new orchards being planted
in peaches, pistachios, walnuts and almonds which are growing and producing.
The problem with having the greenline go down Midway is that according to
the Director of Public Works all the highways and bridges in that area are
substandard for the present.development, Should the Board add 700 acres
of subdivision, he would like to know where the money will come from to
upgrade the highways and bridges and solve the problems of children
riding Bikes to town down Midway. There have been some serious accidents
within one-fourth mile of his." driveway. During the time he has lived
on Midway, he knew of about fifteen to twenty people killed between Chico
and Durham. He has no intent to subdivide his property. He wanted to
know if the people who were planning to build the subdivisions going to
put up the money to upgrade the highways and bridges.
26, Tom Edgar, representing Midway Orchards. Mr. Edgar stated
that the name of Cornelia Dixon had been included on the petition. This
is the person Ms. Patrick had made reference to. Mr. Mendeltoltman wrote
a letter in favor of the Planning Commission greenline. He is the attorney
for Mrs. Dixon. He has submitted findings on behalf of Mrs. Dixon for
cancellation of her Williamson Act contract. He has discussed the easement
many times .with Mr, Mendeltoltman. He verbally and in writing assured him
that Mrs. Dixon had the right-of-way. She was not threatened, she signed
on the advise of her attorney. Midway Orchards has never received an
offer to purchase the property. If an offer had been received for farming
purposes, it would have been accepted. It is true that small vegetable
gardens were in the area many years ago and made sense in 1930 and 1940,
but does not necessarily apply to times now.
Chairman Wheeler stated that the Board is considering a land use
issue and people have made comments about other things but they are not
tools by which the Board makes their decision. The decision will be based
on the facts and what is good for the puBlic health and welfare.
27. Jack Meline, 10331 Midway, Durham. Mr. Meline stated his
property was part of the Patrick Ranch. The other part of his property
is south of the Patrick property on the west side of Midway. He has
been farming as a second generation of three families. Their ranch was
purchased about 1927. He has seen this coming. No one was involved
until Midway Orchards decided to subdivide. Mr. Cottingham has made
comments about the rock problems on his orchard. Mr. Meline stated he
had walked to the west side to the Patrick property and had seen the
same rock problems. He would not discuss the fungus or diseases, because
everyone has the same problems. Mr. Morehead spoke regarding the problems
of trying to farm against the city limits of Chico and the vandalismn,
sprinkler and beer can problems. If a subdivision is allowed on Midway,
he will have the same problems as Mr. Morehead. He did not want those
problems. He supported the coalition line and text.
Chairman Wheeler felt it was important to recognize that the
roperty being discussed is still in the Williamson Act and has been
etitioned for withdrawal. Development could not happen tomorrow.
Page 52.
January 6, 1982
8 2-=
January 6, 1982
Mr. MelineTfelt that development was possible on that property.
Pii.dway Orchards would have to have a subdivision map to use the Ioophole
that has been provided under the Williamson Act. They already have that
map. It is still possible that a subdivision could go through.
anything
Supervisor Dolan stated it would take three votes to approve
Chairman Wheeler took exception to Supervisor Do1an's reference
to three votes for approval. There are very specific criteria to allow
withdrawal from the Williamson Act.
28. Bob Vanilla. Mr. Vanilla stated he was a farmer but maybe
one of these days he will be a developer. Everyone has been talking about
groperty rights. One of the rights as a property owner is that the
owner gets-to pay taxes. The only real right you have in progeny is to
plant whatever you want. The property cannot be built on unless they go
to someone for approval. There is a hearing on January 12, 1982 relative
to additional rules. The Board has never said people and development
cannot grow out. In the 1960, the Board did not stop Sacramento Avenue
from doing so. This will change to five acres and then it cannot be
farmed. The Board never turns anything down.
Chairman Wheeler advised Mr. Vanilla that the Planning Director
has months of work to do regarding each application for changes.
Mr. Vanilla stated that very few were turned down. The greenline
can be set today and tomorrow a person could come back to the Board and all
it takes is three votes to change that line. The Board is now talking about
changing the Entler Avenue boundaries after a couple of years. He wanted
to know what the people who want to develop are going to do about roads,
fire protection and public services. The Fabian property was put into a
drainage district. He has yet to see anything in writing that shows that
the property has a clause that says it can lie developed.
Chairman Wheeler advised it was her understanding there was.
There was swoxn depositions and the record does speak to the fact that
people were told that if they formed the district it would be for future
growth to the north Chico area. This will be submitted for the public and
put into the record. She was talking about government making commitments.
Mr. Vanilla felt that if there was a document it should be brought
out into the public at this time. He was talking about trespass problems.
In town, he farms ground and also further out on Nord. Last year, there
were 500 sprinkler heads taken off with over $2,000 worth of damage.
The trespassing problems. will be there regardless of whether you are close
to town or not. He felt the line should be drawn as close to town as
possible. He has talked to many westside farmers who have 5, 10, 15,
20, 30 and 40 acres, but collectively have 300 to 400 acres, are saying
that the line should be drawn real tight. His property is not on the map
but is just outside this area. If the line is drawn out from what it is
presently being proposed, he will be restricted further in his farming and
so the line will have to be moved further. People in the area of Santa
Clara Avenue and on Reno Ri.chey's orchard there were sewer lines put in
and he did not even harvest his property. Mr. Richey was told he would
be able to put houses on the property and hook up to the sewer that went
through his orchard. He submitted a map setting out the property he is
representing and who want the coalition greenline. The red area shows
the college farm. If the line is not put in tight, they the Board had
ibetter include all the people so they have the same rights.
Page 53.
January 6, 1982
8 2-
a
_ _ _ _ January 6, 1982 _ _ _ _
29. Betty Nottelmann, Hegan Lane. Ms.-Nottelmann stated she was
speaking as a member of the California Women in Agriculture. She felt it
was very misleadking to take production costs projected by the University
of California and the extension service for future costs and use it in
connection with rates from crops three years ago iiecause it does not fit.
The inflation factor does not fit.
30. Nelsyne Turner, Rodeo Avenue. Ms. Turner was concerned about
the sewage system and the drainage if the area was developed. The area
available fox development along East and Henshaw Avenues will put a terrible
strain on their soil for septic tanks and drainage. If someone wants to
sell their property and as soon as one or two develop their property, the
entire area will be drawn into a drainage district. Then all the property
in the area will. have assessments on their property in order for one person
to divide. She asked that the Board consider this in their decision.
31. Letetia Sanchez, Rt. 3, Box 289. Ms. Sanchez was in favor
of the coalition greenline. They are not just talk-ng about almond land,
but agricultural .land. No matter where people want the line drawn there
will still be the same problems in regard~~o agriculture.
32. Marie Cinquini, west of Chico. Ms. Cinquini stated she was
in favor of the coalition line. She agreed with Ms. Patrick relative to
the discussion about the Mary Belle Ranch. 1t was one of the best orchards
at one time. If property is developed the sewer and drainage systems should
be designed before the property is allowed to develop. They should not
have another Sacramento Avenue Assessment District where the people are
taxed $7,000 to $30,000 for small parcels. It was the Board who caused
that to happen. If good agricultural land, such as the Morehead tract,
is allowed to be developed that is the last crop that will ever be grown
on that land. If the Board goes for development, they should go for
high density. If they do not go for development, they should hold the
coalition line. If the coalition line is not held, she would like her
property excluded from the agricultural side.
The hearing was continued
to consider policy statements, land
text and making this a work session
allow comments from the audience.
to January 13, 1982 at 9:00 a.m.
use designations and hopefully the
for staff and the Board and
1982 at 9:00 a. m.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being nothing further before the Board at this time,
the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, January 12,
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors ~
irman Board of Supervisors
By
Page 54.
January 6, 1982