HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012082January 20, 1982
8 2-
a
lsa
2ECONVENE: The Board of Supervisors reconvened at 10:10 a.m. pursuant to
recess. Present: Supervisors Dolan, iKoseley, Saraceni and
Chain~an ~4heeler. Clark A. Nelson, county clerk_recorder, by
Nancy Wilson, deputy clerk.
~DBITION~~L hIATTER PRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN LQHEELER - CLOSED SESSION
Chairman V7heeler announced the Board had gone into closed session
it 9:30 a.:... regarding a personnel matter. There were no decisions made.
151 CONTINUE TO JANUE~RY 26, 19x2 - ITEi~SS FROiY JANUF.RY 19, 1932 P.GENDA
Chairman Wheeler continued items from the January 19, 1982 agenda to
January 26, 1982 on the following items:
1. Consideration of amending Policy and Procedure Manual Section 1.10
concerning Chairman/Vice-Chairman selecticn.
2. Recruitment processes for County Administrative Officer.
3. Discussion of County Clerk's office hours.
152 ANNOUNCEi`?ENT REGARDING CSAC MEDIA TOUR
Chairman Wheeler announced there would be a media tour of the state
sponsored by CSRC from January 25, 1982 through January 28, 1982. As a Board
f Directors they will be invited to discuss the mandates. She will discuss
it next Tuesday and supply the press with packets.
153 UBLIC HEFRING: CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN (GREENLINE) - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The public hearing on the Chico area land use plan (greenline) - General
lan Fu:~endment was held as continued.
The following pieces of correspondence have been received regarding
he "Greenline" hearing. and read into the record:
Sweet Nectar Enterprises -- requesting exclusion from the "urban" side
f the Green Belt Measure.
Bob West, Chico - clarifying a statement in the newspaper.
California Park, Chico - retention of existing designations.
Chairman Lflheeler stated when the matter oras previously continued they
rere discussion the language of the text. She requested staff to come back
ith intrepretations of the various proposals. Some are very similar. They
ave put together an outline.
Copies of Planning Department summary distributed at this time.
Charlie ;floods, planning department, stated the difference is between
the two policy statements. They tried to refer to Planning Commission statement
~s approximately the same or corresponding references are indicated. They
attempted to site where the differences were. He did not feel there was as
najor a difference as f+ir. Bolster presented to the Board. The policy to define
the "greenline" is to be attached as a supplement to the Land Use Element. The
~oalition has intrigated the policy into various parts of the Land Use Element
~y topics. Mr. Woods set out the Planning Commission Draft, the Purpose and
items 1 through 10 from the outline at this time. Mr. woods set out the
coning, consistency and timing of the Planning Commission Draft. The Coalition
craft is similar. He addressed the issue of Circulation. The two are approx-
imately the same. Regarding Annexation the Coalition does not specifically
address annexation. There is a large difference in the Definitions and Criteria
;ategory. The Coalition draft did not include definitions; focus on individual
parcels; did not conern itself with individual farm economics and would not
permit the 1 to 5 acre parcels o~,the agriculture side as Planning Commission
broposes. Page' 121.
January 20, 1982
8 2-
a
The policy along the "greenline" is a buffer which is possibly the biggest
difference between the two.
Supervisor Dolan felt if all sides were~.similar, why didn't they
assume they agreed. She suggested they go through A to D the formate which
the Coalition group put together. There are five major areas of difference.
They could take them subject by subject.
They are set out as follows:
1. A-R on both sides.
2. Review period.
3. Buffer
4. Productive definitions
5. Parcel sizes on agriculture side.
6. Separate or intregated with the General Plan.
A-R on both sides
blr. Woods stated the Planning Commission statement is set out on
Number 4 of the guideline. Apart of the difference is as it relates to
Number 3 and 4 in particular.
Chairman 49heeler stated they were talking about the discrepencies
in the language written by the Planning Commission and Coilition. The
Coilition is saying they do not want to see 1 to 5 acre designations on
the agriculture side. Planning Ca-nmission said yes, it should be allowed.
Review period
NSr. Woods stated the differences in this area are very minor ones.
Planning Commission submitted policy and it is in the General Plan. The
Coilition is not objective to a review period_ There is a 20 year review
period.
Supervisor Dolan stated they are both close to being the same.
They came from the same draft. The review period for the General Plan is
a 20 year span. It is a bone of contention. She set out the procedure
cvhich General Plan amendments are approved and reviewed. The 20 year period
has been misunderstood. NSaybe some people are wanting more definitions.
Once the "greenline" has been approved i.t can be changed on a Tuesday to
Tuesday.
Chairman Wheeler did not think the Planning Commission draft was
very specific: Maybe it should be written more clearly.
Nir. Woods stated one of the changes to the text is they suggested
the county review period be perhaps every five years and then reexamine it.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1.. Bill Cottingham, Chico, felt they were making a lot of assumpt-
ions on the review period. This would deny people on one side of the line
and into the urban side people would be allowed to zone their property and
limit them to acres larger than five acres. The Coilition is not interested
in one acre parcels. He felt they should review on both sides. Agriculture
Page 122.
Januarp~20, 1982
8 2-
a
• _______=====J_an_ua_ry_20,=1982==-_-______________
is rapidly changing on a daily basis. Feople are laying tremendous fees for
property vrhich is not agriculture. Certain lands are not agriculture viable
and certain parts of agriculture will not 6e able to compete. He has come
before the Board on a parcel of land that is not compete. He has a big'
compassion for all of the people living on the "greenline". There is the
possibility that an individual might come to the Board for a review and
through economic changes due to any number of different situations, that
individual who is bordered on the imaginary line may want to seek some relief.
He felt a review would not help, they would just be out and it is a fact.
He felt the review was political rather than factual or an actual period of
time. He felt every fact should. be taken into consideration. He questioned
whether there should be a more definite set of rules for the review period.
The Coilition is asking for a dramatic line be drawn. They need good hard
and fast rules for the review period as well as the "AR" zoning.
Supervisor Dolan stated the review period is taking a harder line
and tone than is needed. She sees it as a time where they will review and
putting a statement and public comment on a notice. Saying that we will
have a review does not say an individual project could not be proposed at
some time. Tomorrow somebody could put an amendment and change the area.
There is no guarantee it will be approved or denied. People do not want
to be locked out. There is no way they will say they will not take an
application. The review period is in and it will not leave. She did not
feel the Coalition implied that. Planning staff has indicated in their memo
there should be a review of part of the line rather than the total. Mr.
Cottingham feels south Chico should be a study area. She felt they should
not be locked out. They should keep it in the zoning it is now as long as
it is in "A-2" for a review period less than 20 years.
2. Loyd Heidinger, Chico, stated he felt it was in the interest
of the community to settle the issue of review and regarding the General Plan.
There is an on-going review period looking in the future for 20 years. It
is not in the best interest to have a constant turmoil going on changing to
urban uses for community support involving designated uses. People living
in the areas are making a 180o turn. Whether to devalue the property and
develop or stay in the family farming. People do not want to come back in
a year or so and change this zone.
3. Bi11 Cottingham, Chico, stated he agreed. There is not a
specific time period on it. Every imaginary line which has been built in
the past has been torn down by contractors and increased population.
He is in favor of the Commission line. The mayor of Chico is in favor and
feels it should remain for 20 years.
Chairman Wheeler stated the proposed line by the Planning Commission
is being challenged by several property owners on the agriculture side.
4. Frank Brazell, Chico, was confused as to the three proposals
as it relates to the General Plan. If it underwrites the General Plan, they
should go back and redo it or conform it to'the General Plan. You cannot
set a 20 year time period if it has no power.
Supervisor Dolan stated this was a hearing on an amendment to the
General Plan on the urban area. The General Plan is still subject to review
and there can be three changes each year to amend the plan. They are not
underwriting it.
5. Frank Sennett, Keefer Road, Chico, stated when the Planning
Commission considered the five year proposal by staff, they rejected it
because they felt there was no way they could comply to state law regardless
of what type of line was drawn. It is a-line between agriculture and
Page 123.
3anuary 20, 1982
January_ 20 ,_ 1982
82- rural. It is just a demarkation line which can have no substance in law than
~ the General Plan permits. They are reviewing this line everytime a General
Plan change come to you for reviewing.
6. Herb Heidinger, Chico, felt if you were making a palicy you
should state what you were saying and not have to search further for what
you want to know.
Supervisor Dolan stated the plan is developed for a 20 year period.
Tt is fluid. There is nothing to stop them from saying they want to develop
a specific portion.
I9r. Woods indicated the state law does not specify 20 years, it is
by long range. The Board has indicated 20 years every year. When he suggested
the five year review period he did feel it stopped their ability to review
prior to that. Qn the part of the county it is an initial reexamination of
the particular policy. It is a cor„mit:nent by the county, it is not an existing
policy or state law.
Supervisor Dolan stated she felt the review period should be better
defined. There could be one policy statement in the General Plan. Unless
the community can understand the policy it will not be followed or accepted.
Chairman Wheeler suggested maybe they could work with staff on
writing some language that has more clarity.
Buffer
Mr. Moods set out the Planning Commission draft under Definitions
and Criteria No. 6 on .the last page at this time. It is a density threshold.
It is possible only one parcel would be within the agriculture designation.
Adjusting the "greenline" would provide for 1 to 5 acres. Then there would
be an 100 foot area as a separation which would be resident free. The
Coilition would be the same and provided for non-residential uses for
narking and other type of storage. It is not necessarily a no mans land.
Tn the case of the Planning Commission there is no restrictions that might
be thoroughly expanded.
Chairman Wheeler stated the Agriculture Commissioner in the county
has difficulty dealing with the fact that they are going to allow planting on
the agriculture side and urban side. There is the area which pesticides are
now allowed. They felt this was a lot of room to leave. When you are crop
dusting there is• the problem with drifting.
7. Bill Cottingham, Chico, felt there was a nuisance ordinance
which covered this area of pesticide spraying. He questioned what would be
done regarding the bird problem. There is a machine which is set to go off
every 15 minutes. He felt a surgical Cut was rather severe. He questioned
who would be paying for the 100 feet. If it was a large area it could cause
a loss in tax revenues. Is a contractor going to pay for the loss of income.
He questioned if this area would be in jungle grass. He has discussed this
with Jerry Smith the Farm Advisor. Who would be responsible for keeping this
100 foot area clear. Who will pay the insurance or be liable. What type of
storage is allowed within the buffer. He felt it was opening a can of worms.
If the county is re5~onsibile, then he is responsible by paying more taxes.
He felt there should be a material barrier rather than a property line. He
agrees with the Commission material barrier.
8. Tom Lando, City of Chico Planning Department, stated he felt
the buffer concept was a line for only new development and there would be
no disruption of agriculture. There is no great land brovision. He compared
Page 124.
January 20, 1982
8 2-
a
Rae wheeler, planning commissioner, stated the term "buffer zone"
is not tied to either side of the line. It is a designation as a resident
free area. No questions vrould be left if it was agriculture.. This is his
feelings as he worked on it. He is not speaking for the entire Commission.
It could contain planned areas, parking, or parkway if not developed further.
They tried to keep it as simple as possible and resident free. If the area
was not available on the agriculture side, it could be placed on the urban
side.
Mr. Lando felt it made more sense to put it on the urban side.
9. Jerry Bolster, representing Coilition text, stated this concept
was a planning concept and used all of the time. it ha s, never developed into
anything like this_ It is a part of the policy and plan and it is clear. If
it is adjacent to agriculture uses, consideration should be given to uses.
Look at the design of the project. Can problems be worked through mitigations.
Chairman Wheeler asked that Mr. Bolster explain the 100 foot set
back for higher density on the urban side as is relates to a planner.
Mr. Bolster set out the steps taken when proposing a project. They
look at the types of density and discuss with the Planning Department staff
how it relates to a development and they will address problems which might
arise. He felt this was what the buffer concept was all about. Should they
use a "PA-C" all issues are conditioned. If this area is left open, it will
certainly not be left to weeds. They must address how they will maintain
an open area. All of this is given consideration before presented to the
Planning Commission. Their item No. 4 relates to smaller parcels that exist.
Chairman Wheeler felt Nlr. Bolster was clear in his previous pre-
sentation. The buffer land will still be useable, but a house will not be
able to be built on that line.
Mr. Bolster felt the set back area was established. It is a part
of private property. On scenic property there is a 350 foot requirement.
When making plans if you are going to use this, you will transfer your density
somewhere else. You are mitigating this issue all of the time. Many times
the Board hears requests to vary from the text.
**
January_20, 1982
the 100 foot buffer to a set back. He did not see it as a big issue to solve.
Any development plans are set back 100 feet.
Chairman Wheeler questioned if that was on the agriculture side or
the urban side. The Coilition indicated it should be on the urban side. In
the text of the Commission it is either side according to the text.
10. Frank Brazell, Chico, stated there is a small portion of
projects placed into the "PA-C" zoning. They are responsible for the total
of the project. He planned a subdivision where people had one-half acre lots
and a lot of people grew gardens, but many left the space into weeds. They
do not maintain it. It is a matter of being responsible.
11. Bill Cottingham, Chico, stated he did not feel the planning
process as described by Mr. Bolster was so simple. He had severe damage done
by PG&E crews who came onto his property to do repair work on the poles and
line. They caused $2,500 worth of damage to the sprinkler system. This buffer
zone is a great concern of the agriculture community.
12. Ernie Washington, Manchester Road in Chico, stated if a farmer
does damage to pets or children it must be addressed. There is nothing in
the text to address neighbor responsibilities. He shuts off his spray when
Page 125.
January 20, 1982
8 2-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =January ~0 ~ 19$2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
he approaches his neighbors. Farmers and residents have gotten along for a long
time. He felt the Coalition text dealt with when someone new came in with
a new development plan.
13. Karen Vercruse,: Route 5, Box 21, Chico, stated she felt the
buffer would not .going to create these problems. The law will let a planner
know and choose how they are going to use the land.
lA. Bi11 Cottingham, Chice, indicated item 3 excluded industrial.
felt he was one of the few people agreeing with 1~Ir. Washington. Their
perties front on a major road.
15. Loyd Heidinger, Chico, voiced his concern that the General
lan and zoning line all comply. Where the Kohnke property line would be
et is totally unacceptable. He felt there was an existing subdivision.
ocated there.
154 AUTHORIZE LETTER BE SENT TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE CHTCO DEPOT BEING USED SY AMTRAK
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
carried, a letter to K. A. Moore, Division Supervisor, Southern Pacific
Transportation Department in Sacramento supporting the use of the old
Southern Pacific depot in Chico for use by Amtrak was authorized.
RECESS: 11:58 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m. '
155 PUBLIC HEARING: CHICO AREA LAND US& PLAN (GREENLTNE) - GENERAL PLAN AMF'NDME
The public hearing on the Chico area land use plan (greenline) -
eneral Plan Amendment was held as continued.
Chairman Wheeler stated she would like to close the hearing at the
nd of the day. Members of the Board will be out of town next week and she
ould like to finalize the hearing the following week.
Supervisor Moseley stated this was fine. They had. received a lot
f information and the extra week would allow time to review.
The hearing is to be continued to February 3, 1982 at 9:00 a.m.
rman Wheeler stated this does not mean the public cannot be present. They
discuss publicly the impact report which can be handled on February 3rd.
expected the members to do their homework and be prepared to make a
Supervisor Saraceni questioned if there would be an legal problems
f they do .not make specific wording on the General Plan. He hoped questions
e has will be discussed and answered at the closed hearing. He was unsure if
pecific findings could be placed in the General Plan and if the county would
e liable or faced with law suits.
Chairman Wheeler £elt this was an issue that could be solved between
during the two week period. She also has legal questions to ask.
ve defini
Charlie Woods, planning department, stated the Planning Commission
in the first weeks of the proposed policy statement indicated the purposgbf the
"greenline" was to protect agxcu~,ture land. For this purpose they incorp-
~rated the definition to protect the size, shape and how it relates to agricult-
ire. And as it relate to existing uses in zones allowing it. The Coilition
iiffers in that they do not establish any individual text or focus on soil.
;?age 126.
January ~20, 1982
8 2-
-==-=T===== W=January20~1982_________________
16. Jerry Bolster, Chico, stated he felt his presentation to the
Board last week vras a noble cause. Productive soils seems to limit the
preservation of the ground. The Coilition did not feel they could come up
with a list of what the criteria should be. It would have to be on each
application. They felt the text was narrowly defined and. gave no feasibility.
17. Frank Brazen , Chico, set out a number of properties listed
with Fran Sheldon Real Estate in the area. They were capital investments
which came out before the interest comes off. It gave an idea of what people
are faced with when selling small acreages. Several weeks ago he left data
for the Board regarding northwest Chico.
18. Mike Schrader, Beverly Drive, Oroville, stated the findings
the Planning Commission made were from the definitions. He set out paragraph
1, subsection B at this time. If the Board should approve the original.
proposal it would be a conflict.
19. Bill Cottingham, Chico, set out Productive Definition, paragraph
1 from the Planning Commission proposal. Agriculture is changing so rapidly.
Productivity will determine if land is left in families in the future. For
some it is a way of life. If you are going to draw a line, you must have the
person who is going to have to stay. He will not be able to pay the county
or his bills and he will become a debt to society.
Parcel sizes on agriculture side
Mr. Woods stated the Planning Commission speaks to this in two ways.
Policy 4 and 8 are linked together and speak to the orchard and field crops
with a 20 acre minimum. It involves those conditions which could take it
down to 5 acres. On the urban size it should not be less than 20 acres in
size, it should be smaller. Some of the properties in the northwest area
adjacent to the River Road which are in "A--2" and."A-10" should be retained
as acceptable to the 20 acre zone.
20. Loyd Heidinger, Chico, stated he would like to address parcel
size on the agriculture size. There is a difference in the Dayton Road area
between Planning and Coilition line. He did not want to devalue the property.
in the Dayton Road area there would be a buffer line between agriculture and
rural as proposed by the Coalition. The community would like an acceptable
agriculture zone.
21. Bill Cottingham, Chico, representing Midway Orchards, stated
when they purchased the property in 1975 it was zoned."A-2" and was in the
General Plan and predicated as four units to the acre. This was one of the
reasons it was purchased. Knowing it had a severe problem. If the zoning
was changed from the present it would be degraded and lower the value.
22. Frank Brazen , Chico, stated the information he wanted to
share with the Board was regarding smaller acreage in the northwest Chico
area. The area started at Alamo went down Henshaw and past Glenn and continued
outside of the railroad and back at the. end of the Coalition line. It cuts
out the whole northwest corner in that area. Mr. Brazen set out what was
located in that corner. There are 144 separate parcels of land and about
129 houses. There are one acre parcels and 20 acre parcels in that area and
felt it should not be separated.
staff.
Chairman wheeler stated she would like to review that area with
~1r. Brazen voiced his concern regarding a newspaper article regard-
ing the SUDAD. Tt has been a bone of contention since 1965. He has in his
gage 127.
January 20, 1982
January 20, 1982
6 2-
personal files 60 some photostatic copies of all correspondence between the
city, state and county. He has the copies of petitions signed by individuals.
The-amount of money contributed by the state and amount of money by property
owners. He does not see how they can draw the "greenline" and isolate the
people that paid their fees. P.t last weeks hearing a signed document by
Everett b9cCain was entered into the record.' These assurances in fact were made.
He can support that in writing.
Supervisor Dolan stated without going into detail there were
comments made at the hearings. She is aware of•-.what Mr. Brazell has in his
files.
bor. Brazell stated he felt he had been fair of the rest of the
Board. He i.s willing to make comments and he has information. If Supervisor
Dolan has information, she should present it to them.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was in no way trying to hide anything.
She was told at the .end of the hearing she should present her information.
What she has is the official minutes from 1964 Board of Supervisors meetings.
They are the official record. There are petitions from property owners,
letters and petitions of protest_ She also has newspaper articles which are
not in the official record. At the appropriate time she will present the
information. They are not her notes, but official records.
•.Chairman Wheeler stated she has been looking at the same information
and has gone through stacks and stacks of files and they are nat finding orhat
they felt the intent of the Board was at that time. She telephoned Jack
McKillop a former supervisor and he indicated it was because the people were
given the indication that yes you join and it would preclude the area to
future urban growth. Growth should go to the north and for her to not
involve him in any of the political horangment. If NIr. Brazell had anything
that could help the Boar d, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Brazell stated the reason the district was formed by the state
was because they had to shut it off at the freeway. They contributed $93,000
to a $635,000 project, plus what was donated to the city. It will. verify the
commitment between the city, county and state and Planning Committee and
everyone involved in the project.
23. E. Leslie Turner, Chico, stated in the area of Hinshaw Avenue
is some of the best soil. Along Muir Avenue there is adobe soil. There are
a number of 20 acre parcels in the area. There are smaller parcels which an
individual could not make a living on. The five acre zoning in the area was
about 15 years ago. He is not in SUDAD. They could pump the sewage or drain-
age to the Sacramento River. Smaller parcels are putting in kiwi's and dwarf
trees.
24. Herb Heidinger, Chico, purchased his. property in 1965 and paid
an orchard price. It was 41 years old when he purchased it. The land adjacent
was vacant for 11 years before being purchased. They paid a substantial price
for it. He felt lot size and production should determine where the line was
placed. When he purchased the land was zoned "A-2", in 1966 or 1967 it changed
to "A-5" and in 1974 it was zoned to "A-10".
25. Mike Schrader, Oroville, stated the Planning Commission-did
not have a change to discuss down zoning as it relates to parcel size. .When
the Coalition came to Planning it was for 20 acre minimum zoning. They were
concerned about massive down zoning in the area. They were concerned about
the legal ramification.
Chairman Wheeler stated she has already asked County Counsel to
research the issue. Page 128.
January 20, 1982
8 2-
January 20, 1982
~parate~or intregated with the General Plan T - -
Mr. Woods stated of all the differences this is one of the minimum
ones of substance. He referred to each individual request. He discussed what
the county Land Use Element was for Chico with Planning staff. The Coalition
had a different approach and a different position of where to place it in the
text. In the end it would accomplish the same thing. It was a matter of
format. Tt would all be included in the Land Use book. Should the Coalition
formate be intregated into the existing text it would make it clear it would
be policy only and applicable to Chico.
26. Frank Bennett, Chico, Planning Commissioner, stated they talked
with Counsel and they felt they were taking a risk. They felt there should
be a separate addendum applying to Chico only.
Chairman wheeler felt the language was specific and spoke to the
Chico urban area. Would people in the county know the language enough to
separate them. She felt it should be segregated. The Chico area is not the
only area they will be addressing.
RECESS: 2:32 p.m.
RECONVENE: 2:46 p.m.
Chairman Wheeler stated they will start with the Land Use changes.
They have a summary and will take it item by item. Tt can be indicated on
the map.
27. Bill Cottingham, Chico, felt if they placed wording in the
General Plan it would apply to the whole county and not just Chico. He
questioned what made the soil any better between the Coalition and Planning
Commission line and more valuable than in other areas such as Richvale, Paradise
and Oroville. He questioned how they would place a "greenline" around Oroville,
Richvale and Paradise.
Supervisor Dolan stated she is asked this question all of the time.
The history of Chico is unique.
28. Mike Schrader, Oroville, Planning Commissioner, £elt this was
an important issue to Oroville. There will be a "greenline" implemented in
this area. They are waiting to see what is done in this hearing. They are
looking at a vehicle to use.
Mr. Woods set out the background on the Land Use changes at this
time. Requests were made by different individuals. He revievred numbers 1
through 33.
Chairman Wheeler stated numerous times they have been questioned
as to why they have not made a decision. The presentation by Mr. Woods
indicates the large number of requests. Staff has commented to all o£ them.
29. Loyd Heidinger, Dayton Road, Chico, felt there were two
friction points along Dayton Road. There is a large area which is still in
the "A-2" zone. Tt is considered illegal by the Attorney General. He did
not feel there was any consideration for the past investments of the Konkee
and Heidinger families.
30. Bob Hienman, Route 1, Bidwell Avenue. Chicor indicated on the
map the general area of Glenwood. He felt it was an appropriate designation.
Ms. Blair indicated there would be no need to propose a zoning change
as it become low density which is four units per acre. There is no reason to
change. Page i;29,
January 20, 1982
8 2-
3
_ January 20, 1982_ _ _ _ __
Mr. Hienman was Concerned about maintaining animals. THe does not
want the zoning changed. xe still enjoys the pleasure of riding_
31. Chris Baldwin`, C~i & T, Jared and Towne, Chico, stated to amend
any of the items referred in Number 5 and 6 would not be consistent with the
Land Use Element. It is all industrial. .Should the issue of changing come
up he would like to speak to it.
IIr. Hienman would like to be notified should there be a zone change.
156
1s7
Ms. flair stated in the event there was a zoning issue that would
involve more than 1,000 property owners, under the law Planning and the Board
would only notice the public by a display ad unless there is specific direction
from the Board. They would not notice people individually. They should watch
the legal ads in the newspaper.
32. Steve Honeycutt, project manager, California Park, talked
about Number 9 and 10 of the Land Use changes. He has no comment on No. 9.
They have discussed sub element "I" and there may be a problem. The upper
is acceptable. Where the pole Line is located is designated as agriculture
residential. He questioned if it could be extended for density. There was
open grazing land. They have reduced the existing-land use because they agreed
to annex to the City of Chico.
Mr. woods stated they are not certain what the original proposal
was to Planning. When Mr. Croninger made his request there was no definite
plans. At first there was opposition to the low density, it was dealt with.
He has discussed the issue with Counsel.
Mr. Honeycutt stated their request is for at least agriculture
residential to the point where the pole line is located. The "PA~-C" concept
is into that amount of area. The densities are juggled.
RECESS: 3:32 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:45 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 3:45 p.m. to hold a closed session
on personnel matters.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 4:57 p.m. after holding a closed sessien
on personnel matters. There were no announcements at this time.
ADDITIONAL M~?TTER BY BOARD MEMBER
Chairman Wheeler announced the Land Use Element hearing was continued
to February 3, 1982 at 9:00 a.m.
The Board is scheduled to meet .at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 26,
1982 to hold a closed session prior to the regular meeting. They will discuss
a personnel matter.
COUNTY COUNSEL TO BRING BACK RESOLUTION REGARDING LEGISLATION FOR COURT
REPORTER FEES
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated there was a problem with the
legislation regarding court reporter salaries.- The county failed to ratify
their pay increase. It has to be by statute or be terminated. He questioned
if the Board wished to have legislation enacted that would take care of the
problem. They are asking for the Board's concurence to take care of the
problem.
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, stated the court reporters salary
is set out by statutes and only the state legislature can enact it which would
Page 130.
January 20, 1982
B 2-
a
January 20, 1982
give them the same increase other county-employees received. _ Because of 1980
legislature written the raise was null on January 1, 1982. They have talked
with Senator Ray Johnson who will put the legislature through. He will be-
meeting with the court reporters tomorrow. There is no. county direction or
policy to tie in, only the cost of living raise. They would certainly not
take away something they got two years ago. They would like to get legislation
attached to a Glenn County bill which would modify. the language. This would
then allow the Board to set their salary and they would have local control
through an ordinance. ,The benefits are set and covered by the Governor's
rules. He felt the Board should indicate what kind of legislature to write.
He was asking the Board to request County Counsel to write legislation to
have Senator Johnson present. They will come back to the Board once it has
been approved and they will prepare an ordinance.
County Counsel instructed to bring back a resolution fnr consider-
ation on Janaury 26, 1982 regarding the legislation for court reporter salaries.
RECESS: There being ho further business, the Board recessed a.t 5:10 p.m. to
reconvene on Tuesday, January 26, 1982 at 8:00 a.m. to hold a closed
session regarding personnel matters.
Page 131.
January 20, 1982