Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011382January l3, 1982 8 2- 3 RECONVENE: The Board of Supervisors reconvened at 9.:00 a.m. pursuant to recess. Present: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board. AUTHORIZE HIRING OF ATTORNEY FOR ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD: INITIATE ACTION AGAINST APPEALS BOARD ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSOR TO RESTRAIN THEM FROM REOPENING HEARING on motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded sy Supervisor Saraceni and carried, legal action against the Assessment Appeals Board on behalf of the Assessor to restrain them from reopening hearing was initiated and the hiring of outside legal counsel was authorized for the Assessment Appeals Board. 105 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-11 DETERMINING THAT UNDERTAKINGS ARE SUFFICIENT AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ADAMS ESQUON WATER DISTRICT FORMATION ..106 On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, Resolution 82-11 determining that the undertakings are sufficient and setting a public hearing date of March 2, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of the formation of Adams Esquon Water District was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 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. 107 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 feel that the Board should go over the language with staff 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 work session on this matter after the hearing is concluded this morning. Supervisor Saraceni stated that he had made a commitment far in advance of the hearing that was scheduled for today. If there was any way he could have changed that appointment, he would have done so. The following correspondence was entered into the records: Mary D. Soaxes & family, support Coalition line Petition from Metzger Ranch, support Planning Commission line Donna Metzger Mooberry, support Planning Commission line Helen M. Roseman, support Coalition Andy House, Chico Board of Realtors, Snc., support concept of greenline Chico Chamber of Commerce, support Coalition line Ron Stewart, attorney, including declaration of Everd A. McCain regarding Fabian property and bearing on SUDAD Patricia Fawcett, supporting McCain'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 it would be a topic of discussion by the Board. Chairman Wheeler felt that when the Board entered into discussions 'iregarding the placement of the greenline that issue should be discussed. Supervisor Dolan stated she was prepared to challenge some of the statements that have been made with the records. Page 77. January 13, 1982 B 2- a January 13, 1982 Charlie Woods, planning department, stated that comments from Gaff were contained in the staff report presented to the Board. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: . 1. Tom Lando, City of Chico planning director. Mr. Lando stated were are areas that concern him regardless of where the line is established. ?age 2, No. 4 says that the west side of the line, agricultural residential. is es shall be allowed. His impression was that could be as little as one acre lots. On gage 2, No. 8 it talks about agricultural zoning on the nest side of the line. On page 4, No. B, it talks about the basis for smending the line. It appears to say if the perimeter is abutting urban uses that would be justification for moving the line. 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 General Plan, agricultural residential is primarily used fox 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 the west side of the greenline which would allow only agricultural use. The Planning Commission recommended that a 100 foot residence free beffer area lie 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 l00 foot setbacks. The recommend larger than 100 feet for more intense urban uses. They are talking about agricultural soil and there is no sense in wasting it:in one or five acre lots. The open space area can be utilized. The area that is left open would have some development rights. There would be a transfer to the other portion of the property. 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. Looking into the definition of productive agricultural land, the coalition believes it should be tightened down as to what the county is saving. For example, the policy speaks to size of property. Some people farm small and some farm large and there is never any agreement to a viable size. If production cannot be to close to urban areas, they speak about surrounded by certain sides by urban, talking about buffer and urban lines, tircere will be intense agriculture adjacent to urban. The coalition could agree with soil character being important. Commercial production of agriculture was also a consideration. The Board heard testimony for many people and he is wondering if there was any commercial production of almonds in Butte County at all. It appears the commercial production of agriculture depends on the market. In some years money is made and in others money is lost. That is no basis to bail out of agriculture. Once a decision is made the land is gone. The coalition basis is that it is not up to the Board to insure that agricultural land is productive, that is up to the farmer. Sure, land is available to work. In manufacturing, residential or commercial zones does the Board policy make a provision for bailing out of an operation that fails. If the farmer fails, the land remains as it is and that is the way it should be. Page 78. January 13, 1982 8 2- January 13, 1982 Unless the failure is directly related to the land and character, it is probably not in the best interest of the community to change the, land from agricultural uses. The commission recommendation is silent on zoning and garcel sizes. It says that parcels west of the greenline should be zoned for agriculture. The only clue is found on the land use plan of orchard and field crop five acre minimum. The coaltion orchard and field crop "A-20" zoning west of the greenline should be the smallest size to be considered. They are recommending that the parcel sizes for land west of the greenline be 20 acres except the Bell-Muir area which should be "A-5" and'-"A:10" zoning.. The rest of the area that is "A-2" that ends up on the west side should be a minimum of "A-20" parcels. He was speaking of parcels and zones to "A-20" and the others would be legal non-conforming parcels. The last thing he would be talking about would be the twenty-year rule. There has been a great deal of testimony to the Board by people who thing that when the Board takes action this will be for twenty years. The greenline becomes an integral part of the text of the Ceneral Plan. The text does not mention how long the line will survive. He realized it was a matter for the Board to decide. The commission recommendation is saying the line will last for the period covered by the General Plan. The coalition text is silent because state law has set out how General Plans are amended. Because the greenline is subject to general plan law it is subject to the same law. There is no way the Board can deny a person the right to make agplication for a General Plan amendment. The Board and the Planning Commission have a right to amend the plan when they feel it should be amended. This has to do with how the county can effectively administer the general plan. The Board can always deny the application, but the applicant has the right to make the application and put on their case. The coalition when they made their recommendations felt that from all indications theNline as suggested is appropriate for tioday. There is no reason to believe it is not approprate for tomorrow. He urged the Board to consider the coalition text. 3. Karl Ory, Chico City Council. Mr. Ory stated that the General Plan Land Use Plan is not only for the county but for the city. The City of Chico voted to support the coalition text. The importance of one land use plan cannot be oversta[ed. This is perhaps the best opportunity fox agreement. 4. Lloyd Heidinger, 1590 Dayton Road. Mr. Heidinger addressed two of the five issues just mentioned concering the agricultural residential situation that could possibly occur west of the line. On Dayton Road the integrity of the line where it would be drawy by the coalition is already in violation of the integrity. There are 159 parcels on Stanley and Marian Avenue area and past that is a mobile home park of about 75 to 100 mobile homes. The mobile home park is further to the west than his property is. To suggest that the property west of the coalition line be zoned "A-20" is actually a devaluation of the land that has been zoned in smaller parcels. His main concern was with the value of the property. There are 3.5 acre parcels across the street further west or south than his property that is for sale for $200,000. Agriculture is not the foundation for that price. He basically supported a greenline but was concerned about the devaluation of his property in the future. RECESS: 9;40 a. m. RECOI3VEI3E: 9:58 a. m. 5. Bob Heimann, Rt. 2, Box 202, Bidwell Avenue. Mr. Heimann was concerned about the buffer zone-comments. It is probably a different situation in his area. He lives along Big Chico Creek where there is a Page 79. .Ianuary 13, 1982 January 13, 1382 8 2- a 40-foot roadway and the creek is 50 to 80 feet across. Immediately across the creek is a private driveway that would take in 15 to 20 feet. That makes for 100 feet or more of already established natural buffer zone so if they would have to establish another 100 feet into the property the total would be 200 feet. That would be wasting space that is utilized in the "AS-R" zone. He has been in Chico since 1944. Many years ago there was a great deal of dissention relative to the building of apartment houses by Vistec. At that time, the project was denied. At that time, the Board and Planning Commission requested that the neighbors get together to come up with a zone they could live with. TIie present zone of "AS--R" was established in 1972. 6. Sohn Morehead, speaking on behalf of seven property owners who own ten or five acres or less adjoining the Chico City limits in the Rose Avenue and Craig Hall dormitory area. Mr. Morehead stated he was speaking to protect the property against any unreasonable encroachment on their rights. The land was subdivided 50 years ago into ten acre parcels ox less. It was viable farm land at that time and for two decades. It was a rural area. There was no zone and no greenbelt. They farmed and used the land to what they thought was the best use. In~the next two or three decades the land became less viable for farming. There were 46 commercial ventures of Rancho Airport developed. The extra adjoining ten' acres of the Morehead Ranch is now a school after being condemned by the schools. The neighbors around them subdivided into small acreage again and again. This area is cut into many small homesites on ulna loam. The city is providing services further and further west. The land became zoned "A--$" and "SR-2" or "S-2" along the creek and the greenble was one mile away to the west. There is commercial warehouses on the south. Gas, water and sewer have been provided because of the growth of Chico and CS[FC.~:There have been more high density residential areas east of their property. On the east, the adjoining properties are for high density residences. In the last decade, the ground that they had cherished became completely and thoroughly not viable because of the high density urban areas. To the west of their property there is low density-ten acre subdivision with homes fox thirty families. There is more land north along Big Chico Creek that is in five acres with twelve 'homes on the north. To the west there are two five acre parcels divided for 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 signs and warning signs installed to the north, south, east and west to protect the increased traffic. In the last decade the Board of Supervisors zoned the land "A-10" zoning without notice of the meeting to be able to defend the property rights and they were given a lesser use designation. The property adjoins the city limits in the sphere of influence. They are now an island surrounded by high, medium and low density dwellings. To have any designation than the lesser designation of the property on both sides of their property is unjust. 7. Reno Ricci, Rt. 2, Box 123. Mr. Ricci stated he lived square in the middle of Santa Clara Avenue. He felt that Mr. Morehead had pretty well covered what has been going on for twenty years. He owns 28 acres in this area.. He has two children and would like to be able to have them build their homes next door to his home. There is no ten acres in this area. There are two parcels of five acres each and one 9.5 acres. He would like to have his property out of the greenline. 8. Bill Cottingham, Rt. 3, Box 130. Mr. Cottingham spoke relative to the chart that had been presented. He hoped there was some type of compromise. There are eight or ten owners on property east of Midway. On Midway Orchard the natural buffer is 400 feet of land owned by Baldwin Contracting Company. To the best of his knowledge, in the past seven years, the Little League Field was never seeded. Tt has come up with Page 80. January 13, 1982 B 2- _ .Tanuary 13, 1982 natural grass and hay. This area also harbors ground squirrels. They are not allowed to go over and poison the ground squirrels on Baldwin's property. There is not abetter buffer. In certain areas of the "A--20" zoning, the parcels would not even conform. In southeast Chico; there are only about three or four of the parcels that could meet the criteria for twenty acre parcels. He felt a better buffer zone would be the Midway which offers a 450 foot buffer with the road, railroad right-of-way and the power and electric company rights-of-way. He had a question as to who wauld maintain a buffer zone. if the buffer is allowed to have no maintenance there could be a problem of fires along the line. Who would be responsible for the liability of that buffer zone? He has demonstrated through documents that the southeast Chico area is not viable agricultural land. There is a difference of competing in 1900, 1925 and 1981. He set out the problems of the frost in Florida that eliminated about 30 percent of the oranges for orange juice and the concern for out of country growers taking over the market. The farming industry is not like other industries where people can be layed off if the money is low. There is still the expense of irrigation, fertilization and spraying programs. Two-thirds of the money in agriculture is spent before they know how much they will raise or the cost for the crops. In the Planning Commission recommendation there are 1,500 acres with 230 parcels which makes an average size of seven acres. As a result the are many non-viable non-competitive farmers. The average age of the average farmer is 55 years of age for the person who owns land. These people will reach a point of not wanting to farm their land. T.and is the only inventory for 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. farmer was forced to refinance his whole operation. When there are two alternatives for the farmer, they are both bad. He doubted if one single property owner could effect a. change in the General Plan regardless of the circumstances. The coalition and commission 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. In the first hearing before the Board on this matter, the Mayor of the City of Chico admitted that if the Board adopted the Planning Commission line there would be land available for twenty years so the line should be tightened. The thing that concerns him the most is that mose of the people who have been concerned with the coalition line do not have the problems, there are 2,000 people that will have the problems. He felt that the most logical place for the greenline would be the one formed by the ten months 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 exception there are no real farmers here today. The people who must survive this line have been before the commission and it appears to be one of the best compromises in his twenty years in Butte County. 9. John Morehead, Chico. Mr. Morehead stated he would like to address the buffer area west of town. Tine planning Commission recommended that the line go along Oak Park, Rose and River Road. Those axe natural buffers. He did not think a buffer was necessary in that area with the commission line. With the roads and the creek, this has worked in the past and does not sacrifice Land. 10. Rick Cinquini, Rt. 3, Box 204. Mr. Cinquini stated the Board had heard many pros and cons. There was a great deal of hard work for both sides. The coalition line was a compromise line from the very beginning. He urged the Board to consider the coalition Line when making their decision. No one has ever come together to support anything like this in the past. He would like to see the coalition line and text adopted. Page 81. January 13, 198-3 January 13, 1982 S 2- 3 11.,. John Mendonza. Mr. Mendonza stated that he and his two boys farm together. His father was one of the earliest farmers in the area. The west side farmers try to farm but if something is not done about the leap frog development there will be no property farmed east of the Sacramento River. There are plenty of homes today. He and his boys were in favor of the coalition line. 12. Chris Baldwin, representing Baldwin Contracting and Jarred and Towne. Mr. Baldwin stated he would like to speak to the land use designations. As far as the land use west of Highway 49, he would like to amend what they had in the south Chico area to be commensurate with the industrial designation from the commission line with the previous action of the Board in 1971 to 1974. They had suggested that approximately 220 acres of industrial designation in that-area would be for the welfare and economy of the county., There was a request for Caltrans to initiate a road connection on Highway 99 and Entler Avenues with the residential uses in the area. Based on that request, they improved both sides of Highway 99 and included a left turn from Highway 99. In the backup for that residential project was the intent to have about 250 acres of industrial development. in that area. In Southgate ~fl there are some 30 acres. He requested that the Board have industrial designation assigned to include Southgate Tndustrial Park ail and the 250 acres. This does not include the two subdivisions of Southgate Unit X61 and ~~2. 13. Lloyd Heidinger. Mr. Heidinger stated he would like to speak to the land use designation of the Dayton Road area. This area has been "A-2", "M-R" and industrial zones and now the request is to change that to "A-2i~" zoning. The property is "A-2" zoning now. The Planning Commission did leave this property as zoned. Bettye Slair, planning director, stated that the Planning Commission did not leave anything within the "A-2" designation. Mr. Heidinger set out the location of this property on the map. Mr. Woods stated that this property would be agricultural residential with the zoning as yet unspecified with the Planning Commission recommendations. The coalition recommendation is to have agriculture designation leaving Marian and Stanley areas an island of residential designation. Mr. Heidinger stated that in 1974 this property was in the "A-i0" classification, and prior to the "A-2" it was in "M R" zoning. Ms. Blair stated that there has not been any instance except interim zoning where a zoning went from something specific to "A-2" zoning. Mr. Heidinger stated he was talking about the two proposals for this property. Under the coalition designation the property would be agricultural property. Under the Planning Commission proposal, it would be agricultural residential. That property has effected real estate in the area. There was a five acre subdivision approved within the last six or seven years. He was talking about devaluation of the property values where within the last twenty years they have had people coming into the area buying agricultural land with real estate values. To come in twenty to twenty five years later and rezone those areas to a greater land area designation would have the effect of retroactive zoning. 14. Herb Heidinger, 1370 Manzanita. Mr. Heidinger stated that he owns the land with his son. The property was zoned "A-2" until 1972 and was then zoned "A-5" until F1.974 when it was zoned "A-lid" zoning. age 82. January 13, 1982 January 13, 1982 8 2- d ~~ The Planning Commission held the hearing for the "A•10" zoning in early September, 1974. He was away on vacation the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting for the hearing held on Tuesday when then notice had been received on Friday before the hearing on the downzoning from "A-5" to "A-10" zoning. 15. Bill Cottingham, Rt.-3, Box 130B, Chico. Mr. Cottingham was speaking to the southeast Chico area. He felt there were too many problems in that area to address particular zoning. He felt Che drainage problem would have to be solved-before any attempt is made to set the specific parcel sizes to be :allowed. There are also traffic problems to be considered. There are also water quality control problems to be addressed. There is a need for a study of the southeast Chico area to address the problems. There is a need far the area to be studied to specifically protect agricultural land to the west. He felt the costs for any districts that might need to be formed should be horne by the people who live in the area and not by the taxpayers in the county or city. The information regarding these problems could be then brought to the Board and perhaps then they would be able to solve any of the doubts about the agricultural soil in the area. He felt that the people in the area should abide by the results of the study, if the study is done by an independent study. If the study proves they are wrong as to what he has presented they would abide by that study and if it proves they are correct then the Board should abide by the study. At that time, they could try to come up with equitable land area size because there are so many parcel sizes in the area. Baldwin Contracting Company has already intimated they wanted industrial designation. To mix industrial with agriculture or residences could have some tremendous problems for the area. He felt there should be a time limit of two years for the study to be completed. Supervisor Dolan wanted to understand Mr. Cottingham's proposal. She was wondering if they had not come full circle. Looking at that area as a study area was something discussed when the Planning Commission took a look at the southeast Chico area for the General Plan and zoning. When the Board and City of Chico appointed a committee to do a study, they left this in a study area of "A-5" zoning. Was Mr. Cottingham saying that all the testimony previously about the area should be on the urban side should be set aside? Mr. Cottingham stated that was not what he was saying. He had no doubt that the testimony he had provided to the Board would be proven. He felt a committee should be chosen to study the area consisting of the Planning Commission, residents of the area, members of the coalition to come up with findings. Supervisor Wheeler stated there was a great deal of conflict between resolving the line and designation between the Planning Commission and Coalition as to the placement of the greenline. She felt Mr. Cottingham was say that there may be the possibility of a compromise for that area. Mr. Cottingham stated that if in fact the coalition is sincere about saving agricultural land, he felt a study would show that they cannot compete because of produc.tron being limited because of soil problems. The solving of the problems in the area should be borne by the people who live in the area. Farming is an investment and there are no guarantees. He asked that the Board consider the south Chico area including the Baldwin property for a study of the problems that include severe traffic problems, drainage problems and water quality control problems. Ha was asking for a study that would come from outside the county by people really qualified to give the answers they are looking for. There is no way to address the problems at this time. He was ~rilling to abide by the study 100 percent. age83. January 13, 1982 January 13, 1982 82- _ _ Supervisor Dolan stated that what she was hearing is that the b identifying of problems such as traffic, drainage and water quality, are problems created,by urbanization. Mr. 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 agricultural business people. If they could compete, he would want to compete in agriculture. He felt there should be a study done over a period of two years and the property should be put into orchard and field crops until that sttdy is completed and if what they have presented is not right, the Board could put the greenline down Highway 99 to protect agricultural land. If the Board is really serious about protecting agricultural land then a study should be done. Supervisor Dolan stated that she did not want to misintrepret what Mr. Cottingham was saying. It was her understanding that Mr. Cottingham was saying the Board should draw the greenline on Entler Avenue and study the area and that is what he is suggesting now. Mr. Cottingham stated that was not what he was saying. He was suggesting that the area be left as it is now. There is no way for people to develop under the current zone. There are areas of Gridley and Ri.chvale without a greenline. There is a subdivision on Entler Avenue. South of that are open fields, east is Midway and open with nothing excepting the Little League field. There is nothing proposed or planned. They have discarded their subdivision plans because they realize the seriousness of what could take place in that area. Chairman Wheeler felt the mitigation issues would include that. There are any number of issues to be address and the one that is paramount is circulation. Supervisor Dolan stated that there were many things that could be studied and giving direction to the study is defining what you designate. Circulation in that area if it is urban is a problem. Cb.airman Wheeler stated she had heard the argument time and time again about the tremendous problem as it relates to circulation. That argument is part of the record on Entler Avenue. One of the issues people placed on the subdivision was the fact that circulation was so bad that the subdivision would increase the problem ten fold. To say that is only going to happen to urbanization is erroneous. It is there today. Mr. Cottingham felt there was a problem if a person met a school bus on Butte Creek bridge. He felt the first thing to solve was whether this was viable agricultural land. He felt that if the Board was really interested 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 Highway 99. If the area is found to be viable agricultural land then those that live in that 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 not viable agricultural land, the next step would be to solve the many problems without forcing the rest of the county to pay for that bill. He felt the area should remain orchard acid field crop until after the study has been made. He answered Chairman Wheeler relative to application for withdrawal from the tdilliamson Act. They have applied for non-renewal and the property will be out of the contract in 1989. Even though they have proposed the window clause, he felt anyone would be foolish to not look into any action government is proposing. He would abide by the study even if the greenline should go down Highway 99. Page 84. January 33, 1982 January 13, 1982 82- Supervisor Dolan felt that kir. Cottingham was not saying yes or b now. She felt that the word study is a beauracratic term that can be defined any number of ways by people. She has many books on agriculture and the term viable agricultural land seems to be individually defined . SUPERVISOR SARACENT ABSENT AT THI5 TIME. Mr. Cottingham felt they had some of the finest people at the University of California, Davis. They have not only grovided guidance and information to the people in California but have transported that information to other countries. ' Ms. Blair felt the Board in the hearings held;:have been confronted with what they envision is land use designation, not zoning. She called the Board's attention to the package the Board had received, particularly regarding i8, 20 and 21. Those should be taken into consideration with the Chico urban area. Mr. Woods stated he could not give the requests from people would did not agree. He took the requests that were shown on the original proposal and provided the Planning Commission with the existing circumstances and gave the recommendations. They attempted as part of the package 18, 20 and 21 to sho agreement and differences of agreement. Tf that is important he could assemble a report for the Board. the list. Chairman Wheeler felt that the Planning Commission should assemble Mr. Woods stated that the Mangrove issues were discussed by the commission and so was the East Avenue area. He wanted to know what type of list the Board was requesting. Originally, they set out the original proposal in the areas, the request, the differences of opinion and the recommendation. He felt that for the mast part 85 percent of the requested changes that were examined at the commission were ultimately resolved at the commission level. The differences were in the agricultural residential land rather than the medium or high density land uses. Planning Departmen to put together a list for the Board. 16. Tom Lando, Planning Director for City of Chico. Mr. Lando advised that for the benefit of the Board they have forwarded recommendation to LAFCo regarding the sphere of influence. 17. Lloyd Heidinger. Mr. Heidinger stated that the last notification he had received from the Planning Department on land use designation was in 1974, but what is being considered is a zoning in effect. The only notification he received was for the three meetings held by the Board. He still doubted the awareness of the Dayton Road area residents. 18. John Mendonza. Mr. Mendonza stated there was discussion on devaluation of land. Agricultural land is being devalued when it is put into too many homes in an agricultural area. it raises the prices of agricultural land. How is someone going to raise the price of agricultural products. This is the reason he wanted a greenline. He would like to stay in agriculture and keep the homes where they belong. Ms. Blair commented on the notifications for the Planning Commission hearings on this matter. The legal points were covered by a display ad in the newspaper. As a result of the hearings, the commission asked the Board to to direct mailing of notices for the Board hearings, which the Board did. Page 85. January 13, 1982 January 13, 1982 82- 19. Herb Heidinger, 1370 Manzanita. Mr. Heidinger spoke regarding b the notification on the hearing. This hassel was originally for. north and northeast Chico. The only time he received a notice was in 1974 for the rezone from "A 5" 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 6, 1981. There was so much hassel about north and northwest Chico that he never paid any attention to the issue. When something as important as this issue comes up he felt the property owners should be notified. Chairman Wheeler advised she would like the Board to spend time on the text language as presented by the coalition, Planning Department and Planning Commission on January 20, 1982 and go through the text until it is finished. She felt the language would be the establishment of where the line would occur. She would like to go over the text and resolve the differences and vote point by point and try to find one ground. She felt the public hearing should remain open during the work session on the text language so that as the Board discusses areas, people are allowed to comment on what they want. Ms. Blair stated it would not be proper to close the hearing since the ETR had not been discussed. The hearing was continued to January 20, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. for a work session between the Board, Planning staff and the Planning Commission. There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 11:19 a.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, 3anuary 19, 1982 at 9:00 a.m. ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors rman, Board of Superviisors Page 86. January 13, 1982