HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020382February 3, 1982
8 2- 237
3
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 9;00 a.m. pursuant to recess. Present:
Supervisors -olan, Moseley; Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. Clark A.
Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
?UBLIC HEARING: CHTCO AREA LAND USE PLAN (GREENLINE)'- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The public hearing on the Chico area land use plan (greenline) general
olan amendment was held as advertised.
Charlie Woods, planning department, set out the EIR at this time.
The EIR was prepared in reference to the original draft proposal. There were
changes from the existing plan. He identified the impacts at this-time.
There will be loss of agriculture as a xather specific tyge of impact with
the acreage estimated at around 250 acres in south Chico with 150 to 200 acres
of what was in existing production. The remainder of the impacts are the
type considered in a General Plan amendment which are largely cumulative and
include the increase in services, ground water consumption, loss of surface
water, some loss of wildlife habitat particularly along particular streams.
The types of cumulative effects with development are the demands on schools,
traffic and services. -The original draft of the EIR focused on the original
proposed project. As a result of the Planning Commission hearings, the
Planning Department spoke with a few agencies to see if the changes were
of a sufficient magnitude to do an additional supplement. The agencies
contacted felt the significant changes in south Chico area would require
a supplemental impact report. The Planning Department prepared and circulated
the supplemental impact report in the proper manner. This provided an overall
examination of the population and land use. The identified the usual impacts
due to the loss of agricultural land for from 600 to 1,585 acres. ;,The
other impacts are largely the increase in the magnitude of the holding
capacity of from 140,000 up to the present 307,000 population. The impacts
in the south Chico area are rather specific and there were comments from
Caltrans and the City of Chico that related to the 415 acres of industrial.
and 660 acres of residential uses in this area. The Planning Department
responded to the comments from the agencies and determined there would
be approximately 20,374 trips per day in the area where south Chico does
not have a freeway. The Midway does not have the carrying capacity for the
proposed traffic. They have put together responses to comments and recommended
mitigation measures or a series of alternatives to be looked at as a
means to cope with the identified impacts.
One of the ways to mitigate the traffic impacts in the south Chico
area would be to scale down the proposed industrial development and increase
the agricultural residential which would be rural residential in this particular
area.- If the industrial designation were reduced by 75 percent, this would
change the figures on the trips per day from 20,000 to 14,000 trips. The
other alternative is to have a study area in the south Chico area, since
there are conflicts or soil related issues that are not found along the other
areas of the line. After the comments from the public on the EiR, responses
to those comments can be prepared for the Board's consideration of a final
document.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Leonard Hampil, representing Midway Orchards, Mr. Hampil stated
that the EIR as supplement by document referenced in his opinion was essentially
an inadequate document. He would like to emphasize the things missing and
important for the Board to consider in making a proper decision. The EIR
is an informational document to help the Board make a decision. A layman
should be able to pick up the EIR read it and understand the issues and
technical data well. The factor analysis should be in the appendices.~~~
There should be no ambiguity in the document. The original EIR sets out
under the project description that this project covered about 11,000 acres.
The supplemental EIR expands this to 75,000 acres. This is an increase of
over approximately seven times the original axea and there is very little
change in the description of the project. There is no data base to
supplement. Page 168.
February 3, 1982
82-
b
February 3, 1982
kir. Hampil asked what the EIR related to; a General Plan amendment?
To promote land use compatib.il-ity and preserve agriculture? That certainly
is a worthwhile objective. The problem. is that -the.~ost controversial
feature of the entire.Gener$1 Plan amendment is-the addition of the greenline.
It is not discussed anywhere in the EhR. It is not in the project description
of the EIR or the Supplemental EIR. The i¢ost important single feature of
the entire General Plan process and the most controversial is not even
mentioned in the project description.. How-can the general public understand
the alternative issues and impacts would be, specifically what they would be
on their property, if it was not evaluated in the EhR. This fundamental
comfusion in the EIR should not exist and should b~e resolved. This is
one illustration. In the Supplemental EiR on page 20 it reflects that if
the project is approved we are going to lose about 850 collective acres of
prime agricultural land. Going back to the original EIR on page 52 look at
the alternative of no project and the conclusion is that only several hundred
acres of agricultural land will be lost. The conclusion is that if this
amendment is to preserve agriculture, then the Board should forget about
the General Plan amendment and lose only several hundred acres. There are
several explanations for this, but they are not in the EIR. Going from
a 10,000 acre to a 75,000 acre project is partly due to the confusion.
In July 1980 Tom Edgar, counsel representing Midway Orchards, set a letter
to Earl Nelson with a copy to the Planning -epartment and the Board. In
that letter it essentially goes into the very things that are being discussed
at the hearing now, and, specifically on the greenline concept which is
set out in Page 2 of this letter that makes it clear that if the Planning
Department activities in working on the greenline to separate agriculture
from residential or commercial, there is no reference to the greenline
and shows no alternatives of what happens set out in the EIR. There is
still not a described EIR. If the county is trying to preserve prime
agricultural land and feel the greenline is necessary, which they do
not conceive, isn't the starting point to figure out-what prime agricultural
land is and what the county wants to preserve and what side of the
agricultural land the county wants to place the line. Isn't the analysis
of prime land potential and wouldn't the county need a basic soils
analysis of the lands in dispute. He was not suggesting this be done for
every single parcel. Planning concedes there are several parcels in dispute.
He felt the first thing he would look for in the EIR as a layman would be
when the prime agricultural land was established what kind of soils analysis
was done. He looked for that information in the EIR and on page 11 there
is a map. The map does not have a date. He asked Mr. Cottingham where the
map came from and was advised that Mr. Cottingham had gone to the Soils
Conservation Authority and they concluded it was a 1925-25 soils map. That
is what is being used in 1982 for the EIR.
He went to the Planning Department yesterday and asked what the
scientific basis was for the map. He was advised that their information
was that this is a 1925 map. He asked them if there had been any updates
since that time and was shown a new map that is not shown in the EIR. The
Planning Department advised him that the map was prepared in 1974 by the Water
Follution Control District. They took the map and called the Water Pollution
Control District and were referred to the Soils Conservation people in
Oroville. He spoke with Mrs. Shepherd and was referred to Mr. Graham
who advised him that the map was a 1918 map and has not been updated.
The EIR is a public entity document and there should not be any confusion
on the maps that are relied on. The most important information is the
soils map. The EIR should sho who it came from, when it was done and
if it was updated. Tf,"in fact, this is a 1918 or 1925-26 map that
has been represented as a 1974 map, and he suggested that was inadequate.
Many changes have taken place at Midway Orchards since 1918.
There is better information available that should have been used. The
Page 169.
February 3, 1982
February 3, 19.82
8~- information was made available to the Planning.Deparrment and Mr. Edgar
~ re-introduced the data in 1480 when he appealed.before the Planning
Commission in-June 1981 in letters to the Planning-Conugission. This is
scientific data that came from an EIR prepared..by the county in 1979 and
was prepared by:EcoAnalyst,.an agency recommended by Planning staff,for
the EIR on.Midway Orchards. That EIR deals with soil and the condition of
soil. Mr. Cottingham was invited to pay $4,000.for that data. He did not
select the person to do the study or the PHDs for that report. It contains
the information on soils from Monarch Laboratories; Dr. William Molar,
', UC Davis; Dr. Post and Dr. Hart. When this information was brought to
the Planning staff's attention yester, the conclusion was that they were
obviously on the payroll of 'Midway Orchards. He checked that"out and
Dr. Molar was not paid for the information and his report is unbiased.
Dr. Post and Dr. Hart were not known to Mr. Cottingham until the county
', made them known. Midway Orchards did pay the money which was paid to the
experts. The experts go into the marginal nature of the soil and evaluate
the economic data of Midway Orchards. He was referring to the ESR approved
by the county as a final report on the description set out on pages 5 to 8.
There is high gravel which retards growth, problems in equipment operation.
He referred to Dr. Hart's report in the appendix on page~30 with described
the soil and grading of the property in the past. Dr. Post described root
rot and bud failure on page 35 and his conclusions on page 38 is that
', Midway Orchards is beset with a number of cultural problems, and the
problems inherent in this orchard are difficult to rectify. He read
from the EIR at this time.
He wanted to know why this information was not in the current
EIR. This is information the Soard needs to decide whether Midway Orchards
should be on one side of the line or the other. It was referred to in the
appendix. Why use 1918 information when there is 1981 information an the
soils on the Midway Orchards property. The Planning staff did not overlook
this information because Mr. Edgar introduced the information. Staff,
he thought, failed to comment on it. The information was presented in
', June, 1981 again in a revised format that was summarized in the letter
from Mr. Edgar and was presented during the Planning Commission hearing
process. It is required that the information be commented on. The
agency is required to respond to the comments from the general public..
', The law says the agency should at least give the people the courtesy of
evaluating the information. The guidelines makes this hearing in its
entirety and all the Planning Commission hearings a part of the environ-
mental review. The EIR is part of the entire hearing process and is intended
to be finalized after the hearing process and coming up with the information.
', On page 13 there is a weak address of the need to reassess the viability
of soils. Do you draw the line first and then figure this out? Is it
done after the General Plan amendment? He would suggest that any kind
of decision says to research first not after the decision. The law in
California is very clear that the agency has to certify the EIR first and
use it as a tool in the decision process.
In looking at the remainder of the description and discussion in
the EIR of what the General Plan amendment really is, you will not find
it. Does it tell you what is going on with the amendment? What the project
is really doing is a massive downzoning of 10,800 acres originally in the
EIR. It is a change of land use category from low density residential, which
is one to six units per acre, and medium density, five to eight units per
acre, to agricultural and agricultural residential designations along with
a small amount of low density. The agricultural residential designation
is one unit for every one to forty acres. The Midway Orchards property
is correctly low density residential with an "A-2" zoning and one to six
', units per acre could be built. After the General Plan amendment there
can be one unit for every one to forty acres. This is a 2,400 percent
Page 170.
February 3, 1982
8 2-
~''.
February 3, 1982
reduction in .density. -He was not saying this ~,?as not appropriate. He did
not believe it was. He did believe that it was the duty of the .EIR to say
what is going on and at least tell them that a substantial part of the
economy of the property is .being taken from-them. The EIR does not do that.
In planning, thew are nine~inandatary elements to the General Plan. Land
Ilse element is only apart of the General Plan and should be compatible.
Equally important is the Housing Element. The county has a good Housing
Element, one of the best he has ever seen. The Housing Element was completed
in September, 1981 after an effort on the-part of staff, Planning Comm'ssion
and the Board. What does the element say? Tkie Housing Element uses the
existing General Plan Land Use designation not proposed by this amendment
on Page IIS. It forecasts meeting of housing demands in the future by
the existing General Plan, which we have seen will lie massively reduced
in density. If the General Plan amendment is adopted, there will have to
be a redoing of the Housing Element. All references to density are based
on the existing General Plan. In doing an analysis of the goals and
objectives of the Housing Element consistent with the General Plan amendment,
the principal goals and objectives encourages greater density for housing,
not less. The reason why greater density makes sense is that there will
be less agricultural land used in the future. The Housing Element lays that
out and recommends increases in density. Four months later, the county
comes in with a massive computation in reference to this downzone. There
is a need for 1,720 new units per year and there were many statements about
why the cost of housing is high and comments about affordable housing.
As the area is reduced for availability of new construction housing this
will effect the market place. If there are fewer places to build housing,
the price of housing will go up. If there is a new housing area created
on the west side of Chico, there is limited area for development and the
word monopoly can be used loosely at the density for 1,720 unit demand.
It will drive up the cost of housing and detour competition. That is what
the Housing Element says.
One of the most important discussions in the EIR is what the
alternatives are. It is a fair question to say why not leave it as it is.
The alternatives become very important part of the planning report. The
most interesting things of the amendment is the concept of a greenline.
He researched the state law and was familiar with the state law and OPR .
guidelines and was not familiar with lines drawn for twenty years. He
felt the burden was on the decision making body to„say why there is a need
for a greenline. The EIR should do that. How come preservation of
agricultural land under the existing plan does not work? What is wrong
with what has been utilized. He would expect to find answers to those
questions in the EIR alternative section. There is nothing in the EIR
to show why there is a need for a greenline. There is no reference to
a greenline. There is no reference to why we need it as opposed to whether
we need it or what the alternatives are. There is no explanation as to
planning and zoning laws or OPR guidelines as to how the greenline fits
in. If there is a need for a greenline, why is it only in Chico and
why only in the east Chico area. Why is it now needed in Oroville and
Paradise. He offered a suggestion why the greenline might not be a good
idea. He did not feel the Board could make a decision yet because what
would be taking place is casting in concrete a line for twenty years.
Under state law, the Board is required to annually update the General
Plan. It is to be a correct document. Why is there a need to draw a line
for twenty years that says hands off. His conclusion is that the only
reason a line is being drawn is because someone. does not trust the
governing body and the discretion of the Planning Commission and Board.
In the area of the state he comes from, one thing remains constant and that
is that staff does not make the decisions. The Planning Commission makes
recommendations and staff supports it and gives reason for the recommendation.
He did not see that type of evaluation in the staff report on the
Page 171.
Febrruary 3, 1982
~eb.ruary 3, 1282
Planning Commission's recommendation of the greenline. He did not see an
objective EIR discussion of why there is a nee3 for a greenline. There
must b.e recognition that_the greenline will effect properties and is
discriminatory agaiist some properties and is not a uniform greenline.
It does not effect property owners equally. Depending on how the line is
placed, Midway Orchards could lie wiped out. Why. discriminate against them?
There is damage in doing that. When the economic viability is taken from
the property owner and. the property was purchased knowing the General
Plan designation was low density with one to six. units per acre and
the zoning was "A-2" zoning and force a nonagricultural land into the
agricultural side there nothing left except to try to recoup the value of
the land by inverse condemnation actions. He did not think the Board 'should
put any property in that position.
In going through numerous documents and reports presented, he came
across reference to the coalition greenline, which was interesting because
it did not coincide with the Planning Commission recommendation and. Midway
Orchards came out on the wrong side of the line. He asked if there had
been an EIR done for the coalition greenline. He could find no EIR on the
coalition line in the Planning Department files. Their investigation was,
if that is possible, more deficient in the soils area than the county's
investigation. He has been reading that the General Plan amendments were
controversial and he learned of the possibility of an initiative to
establish the greenline. He could only suggest that in the areas of
planning and zoning initiatives are forces because they are cast in concrete
forever unless they are turned over by another initiative. He hoped the
Board was not inclined to be intimidated by the interest of the initiative.
He suggested that an initiative as discriminatory as he had seen proposed
would be struck down as invalid in a minute. If the county must have a
greenline, the best analysis he has seen done was done by the Planning
Commission. They listened to the property owners effected, the evidence
and testimony of the property owners who should know something about their
property. They drew a line based on that testimony. This greenline is
a much more palitable line and the result of this line is striff, bitterness,
objections, machinery going to work and staff does not support it. Is the
division worth it to get into a greenline in the first place, and if the
county does doesn't that tell something that there is a need for EIR
data and information that rsrould result in good land use decisions?
He felt that when the EIR was done, the county may also find they do not
need the drastic downzoning of low density to agricultural residential.
Why wasn`t a "PA-C" recommended? The ESR procedures apply equally to the
county initiated General Plan amendment as they apply to an individual
application. If Midway Orchards was required to produce the scientific
data on soils in 1978 for the progeny, the county is held to the same
standards. They reached a conclusion and the county should be doing the
same type of soils analysis. The solution is really to go back and get
a basic document that was needed in the first place, and send it to the
Planning Commission and instruct staff to do the kind of evaluation that
should have been done in the first place: When that is done, the county
may find they do not need a greenline. If the county does find the need,
then they will know where the line should be placed. There might be support
for that line. He urged the Board to make the proper investigation. It
would be easy for him to-say the Board should adopt the Planning Commission's
recommendation because his client is on the right side of the line. His
comments have been directed to the inadequacy of the EIR and it should be
changed. He submitted two documents for the record at this time.
RECESS: 10:05 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10.:20 a.m.
Page 172.
February 3, 1982
8 2-
$`
February 3, 1Q82
2. Sill Retzer, Rt. 4, Box 528R, Chico. Mr. Retzer set out
his property on the map. It is located on Esplanade north of Mud Creek
on the west side. The property is actually 87 acres wzth 8 or 9 acres
for an easement. In years past before the .drainage canal was put in by
the Corps of Engineers,, the creek ran dower through his property and then back
in a line. Around 1966 when the canal was built and widened, the area was
filled in and made deeper in order to give more flow capacity. He set
out the landmarks in the area. To the northwest is the "M-1" zone for
Pleasant Valley Ready 1~1ix; to the north the "M-1" zone of North Valley
Ready Mix; the Garner Lane former golf course that is now "C-2" zoning
divided into lots for commercial enterprises; south are several houses
along Nord Highway with a large mobile home park of 80 to 100~spaces.
The lots developed in this area in the past were marked 10, 8, 7 and some
5 acre parcels. When the channel was developed, the Corps of Engineexs
provided drainage inlets through his property into the canal with a one-
way flow gate. Part of the Mud .Creek Drainage District since it was
formed in the 1960s. He had to agree in many instances with the former
speaker. He had not seen anyone doing a soils study for his property.
He has seen the soils map from 1925. When the creek moved to the south down
it was done not many years after the report was made. The channel change
was not taken into consideration. He would like to have staff and the
Board come out to his property and look at it. By driving by the area,
walnut trees are visible,, but what cannot be seen is where the creek was
located. The EIR did not tell him anything about his soil and it should
have been brought out. There is very little soil where the creek once
was to support the trees. There was nothing in the EIR referring to
Mud Creek Drainage District. The property owner is paying into the
district and should have rights since there is a drainage outlet in the
creek. He has good major highway access. The street width is enough,
well maa~tained and there is a large enough bridge. There is industrial
activities and housing surround his property. He did not recall this
issue being discussed at the Planning Commission meetings. He did not £eel
there had been enough input or on-site inspection by any member of the
county staff or Board to look at this area seriously. He will have the
creek on one side of his property and the highway on the other side. He
did not like the greenline, period. He did not feel the planning process
need this type of line. His property was in "A-40" when it was purchased,
and felt that if the others were developments or wanted to come in and ask
for a rezone, he would have the opportunity to do so. He did not think
he would have the same rights as other property owners if he was placed.
on the greenline and would have to ask for a General Plan. Once a
General Plan is set, it is pretty tough to change it. A General Plan
is to be general in nature, not a fixed line for each parcel. He set
out an article from the California Farmer dated November 21, 1981 which
eras submitted for the record. The heading is Land use planning, will
the farmers be victims? If agriculturalists want rules they had better
write rules they can live with. He came before the Planning Commission
asking that his property be changed. He did not feel there had been
enough study of the soils done for his property in the EIR. He has
development surrounding him. If there is growth in the area, fie could
come in and apply for a rezone.
Supervisor Dolan stated she did receive a copy of the correspondence
sent to the Planning Commission by Mr. Retzer's attorney, Jefferson Brown.
She then received a band written letter from Mr. Retzer and an additional
correspondence from Mr. Brown. She knew this was considered by the commission
and the minutes reflect that consideration. Sometimes tours of the area
are taken on foot or slowly in a car, not necessarily with the property
awner being aware of it.
Page 173.
February 3,.1982
B',2-
v
.___--=W_-- February3~ 1482 =~~~~---_________
Mr. Retzer did not think a person w]no-did not know the property
rould know what was on the property unless .this was discussed with the
rroperty owner. He felt this.was such a serious matter, that the Board
seeds to-take .the-time to~meet with .the property owners and look at the
situation. Mud Creek is not there just for the east side of Chico. It
s there for him to use also. There is a drainage inlet into the canal on
its property.
Supervisor Dolan wanted to discuss twenty years again. If there
is a greenline passed, wherever that-might die, there is no statement that
the next time anyone's property will be looked at is the Year 2002. There
is no way the county can legally deny applications for change.
Mr. Retzer realized that. When there is application for a General
lan amendment, it is more complex than a change of zoning. He wanted to
now how many times a person could have consideration of an amendment.
Mr. Retzer was advise d there could be three changes in any
ar. ~~
Mr. Retzer stated he had lived in Chico since 1961 or 1962. He
has been in the real estate business and was past president of the Chico
Board of Realtors in 1965. He also has an agricultural background having
graduated from college in agriculture. The only way to get into agriculture
was to make money in real estate to be able to buy a ranch. He looked back
and was proud of what he did. He did not like the entire picture of the
greenline. The Chico Board of Realtors are supporting the greenline and
are in the coalition. Much of their business comes from large landowners
and developers who are also in the caalition. He felt the Farm Bureau
was taken into this. Many farm in agricultural areas and can have a huller
but cannot do commercial hulling because they will be covering more ground
with cAncrete and asphalt to be able to carry everyone's almonds. If you
go out Dayton Road there is a trucking business in agricultural land.
He felt this greenline could effect the farmers from their commercial
ventures. Is it fair to him or other people that have industrial land
in the City of Chico to be denied. He felt to be fair, the farmers
would have.to take the brunt of this also. There are commercial businesses
on the farms in prime agricultural land.
Chairman Wheeler spoke regarding the comments by Supervisor
Dolan on the 20-year plant. So many people have indicated their concern.
'Supervisor Dolan is correct. When there was discussion•of not having
the circumstances to make application to change the General flan, she
felt that the people more directly effected by the designation are saying
they understand there can be changes but feel sure they would be precluded
from approval of the application. She will come out and walk Mr. Retzer's
property with him.
3. Frank Brazen, Rt 1, Box 407B, Chico. Mr. Brazen set
out the brooks he had brought with him to the hearing. He wanted to
discuss the drainage district that was discussed by Mr. Retzer. He was
sure that most of the Board had no idea of what took place when the Corps
of Engineers put in the Mud Creek drainage. He knew how the drainage
district came about, as well as others. A person named Mr. Forester, who
owned property off Hortonwood, wanted to develop ten acres and could not
do so. He went to the county and received no response. He then went to
the City of Chico and with the Chamber of Commerce was sent back to
Washington, D. C. Mr. Forester got the Corps of Engineers to be involved
with the city and the total of the land that reaches to 5-mile dam to
Mud Creek was to be assessed. This takes in the total of the Chico area
to the river. People are still paying on that assessment district.
Page 174.
February 3, 1982
February 3, 1982
**
The district was formed and the weir w.as put in so-the city was not flooded.
Mr. Forester divided his property. The.areir nuns into. Sandy Gulch and then
goes to ~Iud Creek. At the same time this was fiappening, he was on the
othex end down the river. He iaent to the state and to Washington, D.C.
He had to sell 58 acres to keep the raver from washing away. He was begging
to save some bf that goad farmland the people are interested in. He
offered to pay for 90 percent of the cost of the riprap. In that same
area he lost 40 acres of land. If people are so interested in saving
agricultural land, why are they not going where the action is at and
getting to the river, and quite worrying about the land close to the City
of Chico. He knew of 200 to 300 acres of parcels that have gone down the
river. They are gone forever. He was not interest in the five, one or
ten acre almond orchards. He did not know the cast of the drainage district
because people are still paying on it and was formed in the latter part of
the 1950s.
Some people are confused and thing they are paying into SUDAD.
He wondered if the Board was ready to discuss SUDAD. He has 60 pages of
communications between the city, county and state about what happened when
SUDAD was formed. The district was formed because the state wanted it
to be formed. They brought the highway thxough and had the city get
rid of the water. The state would take old Highway 99, Esplanade, and
make it a four--lane highway and place curbs and gutters out to Shasta
Avenue if this is done. The Chamber of Commerce and the Board of
Supervisors supported this. The Board passed and approved it because the
state demanded it or they would not put in the freeway. When the drainage
district was formed there was $635,000 on the bond issue for around 25 to
30 years, which means somewhere around $1-1/2 or $2 million before it was
paid for. The state made the commitment to the drainage district they would
pzovide $95,000 approximatelyto help pay for this. The farmers in the
total area were assed and pay the bill to take the water off the freeway.
He did not mind having the drainage district or paying on it because he was
subject to the distract in different areas. He owned a piece of property
against the ditch and a piece of property 3/4 mile away from the ditch.
He challenged the engineer with the two payments and was told that this
was not on top of that. On one piece of property in the same drainage
district, this drainage district was formed on top of the first drainage
district he discussed. There was the need to have another development to
help develop the other property and a third drainage district was formed.
The last drainage district was for one 48-inch line at the end of Shasta
Avenue to East Avenue. That cost the farmers $900 per acre for a little
strip on top of what was being paid on the other two districts.
Supervisor Moseley questioned Mr. Brazell about the people who
said there were promises made that the people could develop their land.
Mr. Brazell stated that there was a commitment made by the
city, Board, Chamber of Commerce and state. He would be happy to let
Supervisor Bolan look at his file at any time. He would not submit it.
Chairman Wheeler advised Mr. Brazell that the Board would discuss
SUDAD after the information is in. She has information supplied by Mr.
Brazell plus what staff has given to her. That will be discussed after
the EIR has been discussed. He was concerned when there is discussion
about drawing Lines, greenlines and coalition lines. He resented lines.
He set out the reasons he did not like lines and felt that lines were not
needed and how long would it be before they would have to have some type
of pass to be able to travel from one coalition line or greenline or
county or state line to another. If he had to support one line, it would
be the Planning Commission line. He heard a statement from the podium that
Page 175.
• February 3, 1982
Febxuary 3, 1Q82
82- the Planning Commission 1ine.was the .Frank Benn.ett_l:~ie. If the Planning
~' Commission line is the Frank. Bennett: line, they_.he would call the coalition
line the CED line.
4. Son Morehead, Chi ca. Mr. Morehead stated he was speaking for
seven property owned on the west side of Chico. They are opposed to the
greenline especially when there is an attempt to impose the greenbelt and
downgrade the property. He has never been able to get the definition of
agricultural land. They pay into the 29ud Creek Draaage District.
5. Lloyd Heidinger, Dayton Road. Mr. Heidinger stated he would
be addressing the 20-dear effect of the proposed greenline. The coalition
as porposed has the intent to take effect for 20 years. That has been stated
by one member of the coalition and they are wanting.to take action downzoning
along with the line. He wanted to discuss the process for application by
an individual before the Planning Commission and Board to make changes to
the GeneralPlan. As property owners came before the Board for their
individual property, they were concerned 'about their wanting to address
the issues proposed, not necessarily by a faceless entity, because there
are faces that come up. The entity proposed a 20 year effect. It seems to
be the embodiment to have this plan for 20 years because of facing entities
for that period of time, and they want to rezone it 20 years into the future.
This is something the EIR does not address. in addition to the EiR, the
situation has been based over many times on the 100-foot buffer.
He wondered how the EIR would address the buffer and how agriculture would
maintain a 100-foot zone away from new development in the Dayton Road and
othex areas.
Supervisor Dolan stated that in her considerations of the
policy statement in defining buffer was that this buffer would be on
the urban side of the line.
6. Nelcyne Turner, Rodeo Avenue, Chico. Ms. Turner submitted
a petition with 50 signatures relative to her area. In the area from Alamo
Avenue to the railroad tracks has a problem with sewage and drainage and if
it developed further it will create a problem of having to have the sewage
and drainage pumped which would added more expenses on the farming area.
7. Frank Brazell. Mr. Brazell stated he had a map of SUDAD. He
was willing to let the Board look at the map but he wanted it back for his
files.
Chairman Wheeler advised Mr. Brazell that once the map is con-
sidered by the Board it becomes part of the record and stays as part of
the record for one year.
Supervisor Dolan stated that when the Board took a break, she
be willing to see the map and compare it with the one she has.
8. Leonard Hampil. Mr. Hampil stated that the reason he referred
to the 20-year duration was because it is mentioned in the notice of this
public hearing. He read the legal notice at tfiis time.
9. Bill Gottingham. 'Mr. Gottingham felt the Board knew his
position. He felt the EIR was totally inadequate and the responsibility
for maintaining the zoning, character of the zoning, types of buildings
permitted on the buffer, where it will be permitted and where it will be
located was not addressed. He wanted to know who would pay the liability
insurance for that broad strip of land that runs through Chico. He
felt all these items•had been omitted from the EI'R. What occurs with many
of the buffer zones. This is thousands of feet in lost property and who
will pay for lost revenue. page 176.
February 3, 1982
~'ebsuary 3, 1282
10. Jon 14lorehead, Rt 2, Hox 141, Chi CO. Mr. kiorehead was not
happy with:.the EIR. He felt that it should.haye addressed whether the
land could .be fax74ed economically for profit, what was .the build up around
the area in question, is .it commercial or residential and does it have
public services such as PG&E, telephone,-gas, water, improvements, roads
and sewers. He felt the 100--foot setback should.b-e completely taken out.
He felt that if the property was taken from the ixrb,an side, this would be
a waste of land. There has never been this tyge of setback in this county.
11. Chris Baldwin, Baldwin Contracting. 1~Ir. Baldwin stated he
would like to discussion the alternatives in the south Chico area referred
to in the EIR. One of the alternatives is to go ahead with the amendment
and incorporate the recommendations of the Planning Commission in November,
1980. The second alternative is for a redesign of the entire south Chico
area to eleminate the problems of traffic. All the problems deal with
traffic problems rather than soil in this area. The second alternative
would be to down design some of the area as proposed by the Planning
Commission to reduce traffic problems. The third alternative would be
to put the area in an interim or study area.. His company owns about
300 acres in the south Chico area. He set the location of the property
out on the map. This property runs basically from Highway 99 down MaryBell
Road hack to Highway 99. He made reference to two resolutions passed
by the Board in 1971 where temporary road connections were approved for
the 250 acre industrial site, which is correctly zoned "M-2" zoning. They
only have 170 acres of that left. The last of the other property was
sold in Southgate Industrial Unit ~~1. They put in a left-turn lanes and
acceleration and decelleration lanes on the basis of the resolutions.
He felt they had made a commitment to that 250 acres as far as the "M-2"
zone and it should stay as it/-is. The rest of the property that contains
the baseball park and dredger tails to the west has been in an industrial
situation for a number of years. That property is zoned "A-2" zoning.
The property has been more or less designed from their standpoint. He
could not support alternative one as far as the Planning Commission line
in 1980 which takes.~away the "M-2" and puts the property into "A-20" zoning.
They put in improvements based on the "M-2" zoning. As far as the second
alternative goes,witih the reduction of land by land designation as it
relates to traffic, they would be willing to consider a different land
use designation from the industrial over approximately 96 acres that is
currently in "A-2" zoning. He did not see any reason for the third
alternative and having a study area over the land that is currently "P~2"
zoning, which has improvements on a state highway for over 250 acres. If
maps come forward on the remaining 170 acres, the circulation will have to
be addressed. He was not interested in a study area for the "M-2" zoning.
He would like to see the proposals for the study area for the 96 acres
currently in "A-2" zoning. He set out the original 250 acres out on the
map at this time.
12. Bob Heimann, Rt, 2, Box 202, Chico. Mr. Heimann stated he
had attended quite a few meetings and the conclusions he has reached is that
any kind of line that is created will create twice the problems that are
here at the present time. He felt this should remain status quo and retain
the present zoning on the books.
Supervisor Dolan stated she felt some ackwardness with this hearing.
Anyone can give an opinion or analysis of reports, presentations or whatever.
Sometimes she makes comments and sometimes she does not. She attempted not
to get on a one on one basis with any member of the audience. She was
wondering how to organize the information and comments that have been
presented. She questioned whether some of the things brought up by Mr.
Hampil were accurate. Does she question them now while he is here, or
submit them in writing. She di~ not want to get into a debate. This is
age 177.
February 3, 1982
B'2--
b
k'ebruary 3, 1482
public hearing.. The end result is to close ,off public comments and then
aiberate as the Board. This hearing is the giving of information by the
iblic to the Board.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that based on the hearings held and
the issues addressed on the EIR, he found witfiout a doubt that he questioned
the EIR with the testimony he has heard. It only emphasizes the questions
he has heard in the past. He was convinced that the EIR did not cover the
questions raised in the hearings. He had a question relative to the General
Plan in how could the Board place a specific geographic line in this plan.
It leads him to feel it could be open ended in such a way there could be
litigation brought on that. It has been clear that the EIR has not
addressed soil and a few of the other items as to what effect would there
be on properties that are downzoned to more restrictive land use than the
property now has. What effect will this have on the underlying subdivisions
and what property will become nonconforming. He also felt the EIR should
have addressed what agricultural land had been converted in the last five
years, the last two years and last year. The other point brought up has
been on the 100-foot easement, buffer or setback. He wanted to know the
legal means to require this setback and does the county have those means.
Who is going to give this property and who will lie responsibile for it.
Supervisor Dolan stated those were questions for the Board to
decide. The environmental impact analysis does not answer the questions
for the Board if they want to establish a General Plan or greenline. The
EIR does not decide where and when the Board decides that. She hoped the
Board would not give those questions to staff, because they belonged at the
Board level. She felt they had adequate information and have been given
an immense amaunt of information on the southern area of Chico. She knew .
the Board would consider it. Considering and listening does not always
mean agreement. She felt the Board had head very lengthy and confusing
discussions on the buffer area. It is written down in the text forwarded
by the Planning Commission one way and the Soard is given an alternative
analysis, labeled coalition. If someone believes that"100 acres along
the greenline is vacant, then they will have a problem if that is true.
She had not seen that. She was suggesting a point where the Board could
decide if this is what they want to do. They certainly have the tools
legally and every other way to establish the line in the Chico area.
The Planning Commission dealt with this issue for three meetings. A11
Counsel's analysises are that yes the Board can deal with this. She
hoped they would not give the mattex back to staff to bring it back to
the Board.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he was looking at tie policy in the
General Plan-based upon the continual analysis of the population trends.
He read the policy at this time. The designation of adequate land for
free competition is very clear. Tt seemed to him that by putting a specific
designation on this, they are in violation of the General Plan policy.
Supervisor Moseley stated she had seen problems.
Supervisor Dolan knew the policies were in there. She was on
the Board when they went through it word by word. Tile goal statements
and framework is to make sp--cific decisions. She disagreed that they were
very specific in what conclusions whould li.e. It is a matter of opinion
how much land is restricted. A holding capacity of almost 1 million people
is not restriction. There is a population of 140,000 people. It is a
matter if discretion. It does not say continue with the General Plan for
a holding capacity, but use discretion and allow for change whenever it is
needed..
Page 178.
February 3, 1982
6 2-
~'
~ebsuary .3, 19.82
Supervisor Saraceni stated he could not make a decision based
on the information he had.heaid that would~j.ustify goingo into a specific
line or-reduction in zoning or downzohing in.B.utte County. He had not
heard adequate information in-the E1R to back the positions for the
line.
Supervisor Dolan stated the Board w,as in hearing on the urban
designations for the Chico area and are not in zoning hearings at this
time. The Board is looking at changes in the General Plan designation.
As one example, going from one existing zone that is very arguable, from
the low density residential to agricultural residential designation.
It is technically not downzoning.
Chairman Wheeler stated this was a change in land use designation
and it could be considered downzoning.
Supervisor Dolan stated it was a reduction in the units allowed
by the General Plan. The Board is to apply a designation and line based on
the goal statements and policies that meet community, social, physical and
geographic needs. '
Supervisor Saraceni stated that if the Board is to make a decision
on the greenline and even one property owner felt the Board had not spoken
to his property, the Board has to have that information made available to
be able to justify the decision and what facts were used for that decision.
He would not vote for any changes without those facts. He felt the
Board should look at this and send it back to have the proper information
included in the EIR. `
Chairman Wheeler stated that as a matter of procedure the Board
will give direction to staff to comment on the EIR and the information
will be forthcoming to the Board. It will take a couple of weeks to
prepare the responses. She understood Supervisor Saraceni to say that he
was not necessarily adverse to the designation or urban-rural demarkation,
but wanted to make sure that the responses covered the weaknesses in the
EIR before he could make a decision on this matter.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had found many things that have not
been addressed that put a financial impact on particular land owners who
are effected if their property is downzoned and not given the opportunity
to use the properties as designated in the zoning on the property at this
time. What is the effect on those properties that have underlying
subdivisions. What properties will be nonconforming if the line went
through. What impact will there be with the 100-foot easement, buffer
or setback on those particular Lands. These are some of the things that
have to be answered.
Supervisor Dolan did not think that the suggestion that the concerns
that are real and unanswered will not be answered. There will be a response
anduthey have been developing information. There is a certain amount of
discretion when considering the planning process that falls with the Board
in their hearings.
Supervisor Saraceni could not make a decision until he had the
answers: that relate to the cost and what would happen to these properties,
and the property owner.
Chairman Wheeler stated that was basically why the Board is here
to allow people to make comments to refer back to staff to respondao the
questions raised. There is no site specific that covers the entire General
Plan area. She did not know if that was the issue the Board was dealing with.-
. Page 179.
February 3, 1982
February 3, 1982
gl2- 13. Frank .Bennett, Keefer-Road, Chico. Jar. Bennett stated they
have had .demarkation lines between agriculture and urban uses ever since
zoning w,as established. Highway 99.from 1yTud Creek: to the Tehama County
'*** line has been a defacto greenline between specific agricultural zones and
the "A-2" zoning ever since he could remember. That line has been there and
has worked, He has been on the Planning Commission £or close to six years
and has Never permitted any splitting west of that line. There have been
', applications, b.ut they have been routinely turned down. The greenline on
the highway is not there because in 19.78 or 1979. the county designated all
land north of Rock Creek on the east side of Highway 99 as "A-40" zoning.
Now that defacto greenline goes up Highway 99 to Rock Creek. If the General
Plan designation is changed on a owner's land so that it is downgraded that
is ultimately downzoning of that land. There was not "A-R" designation
in the Glenwood area until the zoning in 1978 or 1979. whatever the Board
does, they will have to set the General Plan changes in Chico and have specific
designation between the land uses whether there is a greenline or not. The
only difference is if the Board implements the greenline then the language
spelling this out specifies in the General Plan what it is all about. If
the Board decides not to have a greenline they the demarkation lines will
still have to be there. °
', 14. Nelcyne Turner, Rodeo Avenue. Ms. Turner stated they had
', "A-3" zoning, which is now "A-5" zoning.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated that this zoning was
in reference to the Heimann property. The property is "A SR" zoning.
', Dr. Bennett is talking about agriculturual residential as it applies to
', the General Plan and Ms. Turner is talking about zoning.
Ms. Turner stated she had a newspaper clipping from February and
April, 1966 that says their area and the area on .the west side of Highway 32
was designated as "A-5" zoning and some of tkeat was larger., She did not
know where Dr. Bennett was talking about when he said there was no moving
from the Esplanade over into agricultural land in the last few years. All
the property is is talking about is north of Shasta Avenue. She thought
the zoning was changed out Henshaw and Lassen Avenues. They have moved out
a great deal.
15. Frank Bennett. Dr. Bennett stated he made reference to the
land north of Mud Creek. He did not say anything about Shasta and Bay
Avenues. He made reference to the property north to the county line.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni seconded by Supervisor Moseley
ghat staff be directed to go back into the EIR and update it properly as
to the questions that have been raised to the EIR.
Supervisor Dolan objected to the motion because the Board is still
in a public hearing status. The questions raised by the public and the
questions raised by the Board will have to be responded ta.
Chairman wheeler was certain the Board members would want to
and to the questions raised on the EIR. She would like to continue
hearing until after lunch.
CESS: 11:57 a.m.
CONVENE: 1:32 p.m.
Motion withdrawn.
Page 180.
February 3, 1982
February 3, 1482 - - - - - _ - - - _ _ - _ ~ -
82,, Supervisor Dolan felt .that .the B.oazd:still had to consider
$', responses to comazents brought .up during the .hearing. .Everything that
', was brought up does become a part of .the EIA.as does the other concerns.
kir. [dbods advised that it does if it relates to something that
can be analyzed in terms of the ETR. :Most of the testimony has been on
whether someone liked or disliked a proposal. Those cannot be further
revised or analyzed.
Super~asor Dolan stated-the comments raised atiout it appears that
the goal or project objective is to protect prime agricultural land and
from that shouldn't we start with what is prime and most important map
is the sails map. She assumed the analysis was many other goals and object-
ives and note the one is an agreement with the City of Chico responding to
the community desires to direct grown to the extreme part of town and the
need was expressed and given the name of greenline since Chico passed a green-
1ine.in 1975 of urban growth boundary far the western edge of the urban area.
Given these goals and others outlined, they are far more or just as important
as the maps, a circulation map or potential drainage problems. There are
many other maps that need to be taken into consideration'. She did not think
there was a suggestion that the only factor taken into consideration was
just the soils character, but parcel sizes, zoning, circulation, if there
are land use changes or density problems, drainage problems that may or
may not happen, urban services, the demands that occur; and all other
issues that occur with growth. They have been dealing with the soils
map of 1925. She keeps remembering what someone said to her is that
actions created hundres or thousands of years ago are not going to change
except for cultural practices. She had questions of -staff relative to
the direct relationship to the Housing Element and the statistics given
on the holding capacity quoted from the Housing Element and the numbers
of new dwelling units to be needed. She asked what density was the
holding capacity based on as far as what land use map was used? Was this
prior to the Commission's motion to expand the urban area?
Mr. Woods stated that the density on the land use map for
the holding capacity was based on the draft then in effect. It was prior
to the Planning Commission's motion.
Supervisor Dolan questioned whether the statistics of 1,700
new dwellings per year was a county-wide figure or a Chico figure?
A1r. Woods advised that the figure was a county-wide average of
the annual housing needs. There is not necessarily a mix in areas.
Supervisor Dolan stated those were her main questions. Being aware
of the Housing Element is a valid point that if the county amends one portion
of the General Plan the other parts must be consistent, which brought the
county to changing the Chico urban area in the review process. The Housing
Element statistics were based on the proposals. She noted that on Page 2
under project objectives, the county did not list the implementation of
the greenline. The objective is the designation of the urban growth
boundary. Since it has been stated, it obviously will be added.
Just because it is not in the document up to this point does not mean it
won't be.
Mr. Woods stated that the EIR in various insulary parts are in
draft form. What will be before the Board will be in final form for
certification.~and action.
Supervisor Dolan stated she had reviewed state law and court
cases. There has been court cases and a great deal of state:~law brought
page 181.
February 3,1982
B 2-
a''
February 3, 1982
up over and .over again.that the county .must lay law legally take into account
the potential economic wiabili-ty of a parcel of land. All the laws she read
show the number one criteria as .the land use policies and if it fits with
the community desires, where growth should b.e and where it should be
accomodated with .services; roads, schools and enought drainage. Is the
Board mandated to take into consideration a persoh~s,belief of the potential
profit of the land before zoning.
Mr. Woods was not aware of any case or law to that effect apart
from regional housing needs. There have been efforts to require economic
issues. There is very little agreement on what that means.
Supervisor Dolan stated it was a factor. There could be an increase
or decrease for the land. The cases she had read show the decisions going
against the government if the action results in no use of the land at all
rather than the actions resulting in anticipated change of the land. The.
City .of Cerritos zoned.a zone for shopping centers to a zoning for
residential use and were on the winning side.
16. Frank Bennett. Dr. Bennett stated there was a recent decision
by the State Supreme.:Court involving Costa Mesa and the man who handled
the case is at the hearing. This has pertinent implications for all cities
and counties in zoning. He would like for the Soard to ask him to explain
the terms of the case.
17. Leonard Hempil. Mr. Hempil stated he did participated in the
Arnel vs City of Costa Mesa. His firm also participated in briefing the
Cerritos, HFA case. More recently the California Supre7ae Court made a
ruling in the Agens"case on inverse condemnation. .The federal courts have
made decisions on inverse condemnations. The Arnel case is really an
initiative type of case. The city approve a massive kind of development
of 539 units with 127 single family units. The citizens of Costa Mesa
Home Owners Association, after the council approved,circulated an initiative
and the initiatve downzoned the property to "R-1" zoning to prevent the
Arnel property from being developed. The Court of Appeals came out with
a sweeping decision making all zoning administrative and not legislative.
They took away the initiative process. The Supreme Court reuersed that
portion of the decision. Their decision was to treat rezoning as
legislative and goes into Che allowing of the use of the initiative in that
context. They will scrutinize the use of that initiative. The sent it
back to the Court of Appeal to apply to the Livermore case.,to see if they
took away the economic viability. The Court of Appeal struck down the
initiative as arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. That is the
final decision. The city has elected not to appeal. ..
As far as HFA and Akins and other cases that all share a potential
of what the Board is considering. These are California cases that if the
property is zoned so it cannot be used for the purposes it is suppose to,
for the zone, the property owner can persue inverse condemnation proceedings.
Supervisor Dolan stated that was partially true that economic use
does not constitute a change and inverse condemnation. Inverse condemnation
does not occur every year a crop does not produce like it has.
Mr. Hempil stated that the cases do say and this is why it is
important to get a factual EI'R, is that if property that is not agricultural
is put into an agricultural zone and there is no agricultural potential,
you can start a cause of action for inverse condemnation. The same
California cases filed in federal courts, show-that federal rules are
ones of economic viability. The federal courts are willing to find there
has been a taking if it is an uneconomically inability use. Any person
Page 182.
February 3, 1982
8 2-
~'
~*~
February 3, 1982
can file in federal court by basing their case on the~l4th amendment.
In terms of comments and including. all responses to the comments section
by staff, cases are uniform in saying that when an ETR is so deficient as
to not get the project description right, the agency cannot redefine the
project and pretend there is an adequate EIR. Supervisor Dolan pointed
out the county did not get the description as the greenline. The reason
this cannot be done is because the draft is sent. to agencies for review and
if they are not interested they are not going to comment on it. But an
adequate definition of the project in this case when the EIR was sent to
HCD, he felt would have interest in knowing what Butte County is doing by
drastically downzoning. He was sure they would be very interested in giving
their comments, so would air pollution and water quality. The same may be
said of the citizens throughout the county. Government Code 65860 mandates
that you zone consistent with the General Plan. As soon as the density is
reduced, you must within 90 days put the zone consistent with the General
Plan and that zone would be drastically downzoning. Agens went to the
California Suprement Court. Five Justices in separate opinions made it
very clear that the federal rule have an effect. San Diego Gas and Electric
went to the Federal Suprement Court against the City of Palo Alto. A number
of cases have been filed in federal court. The resolution was that the city
backed away from downzoning and decided to purchase the properties that
were downzoned because of the potential liability in inverse condemnation.
The current trend is to go to the federal courts and they do not just sue
the cities and counties but the individual councilmen and Board members
can be field individually at fault in civil rights actions. ~He was not
advocating that. The court is not definitive in~~the San Diego Gas and
Electric case.
Chairman Wheeler stated there were issues raised that by law
must be addressed. She felt what they would have to do and what is
necessary is to redraft the EIR and she would 'see it-being using the
lead project as the Planning Commission plan and using the coalition plan
as the scheduled alternative because of the compounded issue. There
are two different sets of issues to deal with.
Mr. Woods stated they could take one of two approaches. They
could continue to produce addendums or could step back from it, which he
thought would be moxe helpful in addressing issues, and put together
another draft that more clearly addresses the Planning Commission
recommendation to the Board and the coalition project and no project
alternative also. He felt this would clarify the matter.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the many issues were pretty clear
whether there is a redraft on the EIR or not. There axe Planning Commission
and coalition °recomtitended lines. Those two choices were very sharp and
in focus for her. They could not say they were not given the information
on the soil conditions in south Chico area, the drainage district in the
north, existing zones, land uses, plans of property owners and desires
of neighbors. There is not any engineering on traffic, circulation and
drainage. Those are issues that are pretty clear. What else could be
done to sharpen the picture for the coalition and Planning Commission
lines to consider. She felt the Board should ask County Counsel as to
whether the Board could take legal action.
Mr. Woods stated after listening to Mr. Hempil describe some
of the deficiencies in the EIR, he would have to share some of those
concerns. Being involved in the project, he understood how the project
evolved. Even if the end result is the choice of the Planning Commission
or coalition proposals, that environmental document is important to have
on the concerns about the level of detail to each and every property. They
are dealing with a General Plan and the plan is generay in the policy
Page 183.
February 3, 1982
8 2-
February 3, 1982
. ~ _ _ _ _ _ T - _ _ _ - - - .~ W - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ T .. ~ ~ ~ - - _ _
statment and occurrences over a long period of time. It would. be adviseable
to have the document go back through the "state clearing house. That is the
purpose of the healing on the draft is to eithei~:p.ut together in additional
supplements and respond and_make further-recommendations on the project.
Rather than doing that, it would b.e more .understandable and comprehensive
to the Board and public to.liegin with. the Planning Commission recommendation
and put together another draft. .
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised the Board that it is
ultimately their decision whether they consider the EIR adequate for
the project with the addendums. If the Board feels. the document should
be brought up to the standard they want, and it is the Board's feelings
as to whether this is an adequate document with all information, and if
the Board thinks it is adequate, they could proceed without sending it
back. If something is completely lacking then the EIR would have to be
updated. The Board will be making the determination of whether this
meets the requirements of CEQA. Certainly, if the staff is recommending
that this is not complete, the Board should listen to that but make the
decision. It would depend on how extensive the changes were as to whether
this would have to go back to the clearing house.
Mr. Woods felt the only way to make the EIR understandable would
be under a new revised EIR. They could respond to the comments and that
is not to say it would be understandable to evexyohe including the public.
He felt a matter of confusion had been pointed out and that was due to the
way project went to the Commission and how the recommendation came through.
They attempted to show the changes and he was not sure that was done in
a clear enough version.
Supervisor Dolan stated they all knew the reason the draft EIR
was written was because the project went forward in a certain manner to
the Planning Commission as it is to be done. It almost seemed as if
there was the suggestion that this was something else for the commission
line and now there is the need to write a new EIR. The commission made
amendments and the coalition made recommendations and the people asked
for amendments. She did not have a problems with supplements and addendums.
They will be back with the same issues.
Chairman Wheeler felt that the issues raised justifiably needed
answers. That does not mean this is going to stop the project. Let's make
sure the EIR is accurate because the county has been working on this
issue for 20-years. It is not just a General Plan designation for Chico.
As far as she was concerned, this was a document fox the entire county.
This is a plan to take care of agricultural lands. Her greatest concern
was doing it right. She was concerned that this was such an important
issue that would have long range effect on the county that they sh ould
make sure they have the support there for them to stand on. She had
questions that needed to be answered and if staff feels there could be
problems in this area, then there should be something done with the EIR.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was also hearing it was the Board's
decision to make if they felt the information was there to make the
decision, then the Board could do so. It is up to the Board to decide
if there is all the infoxmation necessary before them. This is a General
Plan amendment for the Chico urban area. She knew the issues of protecting
farmland. The decision for Chico will not be used fox Gridley and Paradise.
The Board is not in a county-wide hearing. The policy statements may
interplay for the other areas.
Supervisor Saraceni stated it did not matter where it took
place in the county if it was not clear and they did not have the
Page 184.
February 3, 1982
8 2-
~ ''
February 3, 1982
information necessary to back the EIR properly, the the whole county pays
the bill.
Supervisor Moseley stated the Board was being asked to put
in a very permanent think into the General Plan, which is what it says,
just general. The County started this proposal and put out the money for
an EIR and they are being asked to adopt a line by a group that had not
obligation to come up with an EIR for their proposal. They have taken
what the county had and made recommendations.
18. Lloyd Heidinger. Mr. Heidinger stated that the Board would
have to make a precedent setting decision for the county. The recommended
proposal by the coalition will have critical impacts on the economic sphere
in the Dayton Road area. Because of the intended situation, the coalition
line is setting up "A-20" zoning in the Dayton Road area. If agricultural
land is so important, why didn`t these people purchase the property nex
to his that has been for sale for eleven years. In discussion of the
environmental impact, a large part is the economical impact. Rio one asked
them about the farming operations and values paid and the interest into
it. They are expected to swallow decisions that will effect the economic
valuation of their property. The property he and his father owns is in
maintained agriculture and farmed at a loss and is in the "A-2" zoning.
The precedent was set for residential urban uses when the area was subdivided.
People for the past 25 years have not paid strictly for agricultural land
when purchasing property. The Board would be asking them to uphold agri-
cultural land to urban encroachment. There is more than agricultural value
put into the land.
Sunervisor Dolan stated that if they wanted to discuss zoning
that did not conform to the General Plan, it is "A-2" zoning. The "A-2"
isn't residential or agriculture. To suggest that to follow the goal
statements, which are anything other than "A-2", is a downzone is hard
to swallow. The "A-2" is anything goes and the reason for the conflicting
problems now.
P1r. Heidinger stated that just because people come in and ask
for urban zoning does not mean they will have urban uses. He felt the
threat and misinformation spread through a free newspaper of the an-going
situation of housing to the river and threatening people with the
possibility of urban uses going over agricultural land that robs the people
of the value of their land that live close to the city should be based on
values of property and the property owner's input. The property owners
are saying the proposed agricultural residential demarkation line will
set into a pattern of useage into the future that only they, as individuals,
can one at a time come and ask for a change. How can it be worked out
when the effected property owners on the line have property worth agriculture
value and the one across the street is worth many thousands of dollars more
per acre. The Board is inviting small tracts of land. He had a large
farmer offer to buy their property at less than was paid for it.
19. Tom Edgar, on behalf of Midway Orchards. Mr. Edgar stated
the issue the Board is trying to deal with is whether the EIR is legally
deficient. He would like to walk through the kinds of things that were
discussed and asked that the people ask themselves does it make the document
legally sufficient by adding an addendum or whether it should be redrafted.
The most important parts involving the description of the project does not
adequately describe the urban agricultural boundary referred to as the
greenline. There are serious and substantial conflicts between the change
in the Land Use Element and the Housing Element of the General Plan. In
particular, the Housing Element specifically suggests increase in density
for affordable housing. Everyone is conscious of the contrast and that
Yage 185.
February 3, 1982
s 2-
3''
February 3, 1982
the proposed project reduces land use designation and denisty and consequently
downzones. There were many comments concerning the needs for coherent traffic
circulation study in the south Chico area. Caltrans has said that any
serious changes wi]l have an impact on the ability of the road to work.
There is an industrial tract and Cal trans is concerned about industrial
usage because there is more time concentration traffic. They have repeatedly
submitted technical data for soil analysis. It was his belief that the
county had not properly responded and has relied on a 1925 soils map.
It is their position that the EIR is defective in two areas, broad areas.
It is generally true that soil does not change. After the soils map
was prepared in 1925, there were substantial changes by dreding and
leveling operations in that particular area. They discussed •the economical
impacts on the property owners along the greenline. Another corralation
is on the impact of the county as it relates to whether dramatic downzoning
will have a substantial impact on the ability of the county to raise property
taxes and provide social services. Mr. Hempil has described the many
instances of inverse condemnation. When there is land, that is not agri-
cultural land, put into agricultural preserves that is inverse condemnation.
He did not think the EIR addressed the definition of what viable agriculture
land was. The decision should be based on a properly prepared EIR. There
was other testimony on sewage and drainage problems in the north Chico area.
Mr. Morehead testified there were substantial urban services in place,
specifically natural gas. What are the impacts of having services placed
there and then having a General Plan change so these services cannot be
used? There were several discussions on the effects of SUDAD and P~iud
Creek Drainage District. There is no concensus of where the districts
are located and what they represent. There were many hours of testimony
as to whether these do establish some type of urban usage.
In listening to the exchange between Mr. Woods and Supervisor
Dolan it appears it is appropriate to describe the alternatives. The project
has evolved. It is the Board's obligation to base their decision upon a
properly drafted EIR. There were some views discussed as to whether or
not it was appropriate to add an addendum to the draft EIR or whether there
was a need for an updated draft EIR to be recirculated. It comes down to
how many bandages can be added to a document to get to the end result.
His position was that by adding a few more addendums to the addundum would
make it a confusing document and circumvent the need for the clearing
house, circumvent the process to find what is said and would make it
difficult for the average person to read and understand.
Chairman Wheeler advised Mr. Edgar that was exactly what
staff was proposing by a redraft so there is a firm ETR to refer to
and support the project.
20. Bill Cottingham. Mr. Cottingham stated he worked with some
of the finest soils experts in California. During the last 100 years
in California ammonium sulfate was extremely cheap. Previous owners
of his property put the fertilizer of ammonium sulfate on the land and
there is absolutely no way to reverse the process to change the current
ph factor. He felt it was important to consider soil type, depth, ph
factor, nematodes, possible disease and whether the land can compete on
the open market. Tf people are forced to farm on soils there is no control
over, ans shackling them to nonproductive soils, it wi71 change the
agricultural county attitude.
Chairman Wheeler really believed in what the county was doing.
She certainly supported the concept of'taking care of that. That is why
it is so important to get the issue right because they are dealing with
a long time issue. Tt has long-range effects. She was born and raised
in the agricu7tura7 lands. Tt means a great deal to her. She probably
Page 186.
February 3, 1982
February 3, 1982
a z-
3'
had a tenue greater in agriculture than the rest of the members of thie Board.
That does not mean they cannot make a valid decision in this matter because
they can. Her father came to this country from a dictatorship as an immigrant
and started as a dirt farmer with nothing. He came to northern California.
Slowly over the years, government through regulations and imposition of
restrictions, have reduced agriculture from an economic standpoint. Now,
she is hearing people say that they have to consider people equally and
if agricultural land is purchased as agricultural land it should stay as
agricultural land. That statement frightened her. She knew it was
necessary to impose certain geographic designations for the General Plan.
She supported that and at the same time, askec! why they are going to take
care of land for agriculture i`f they"are going to go to Sacramento and
lobby against the tools the farmers need to survive. She had some problems
with the north Chico area. Once and for all, everyone has to support
agriculture, not just the land, but also support the tools. She has heard
people hearing after hearing telling the Board it is their responsibility
to implement a geographic General P]an designation to separate agricultural
land-from urban land. It is the responsibility of each and everyone of
the citizens in the county. There are so many experts in the agricultural
field she could not believe it, but they are not an expert until they have
been out there and suffered what the agricultural people have to contend
with on a day to day basis. If they cannot afford to spray and disc to
produce, then there is a problem. If everyone does not support the
farmer to do that, then they are bigger hypocrites than many people who
have come to the Board. There are supervisors who were responsible years
ago for the mess there is and they tell her she had bettern do something
about it. She accepted that responsibility because the community wants
the Board to take special care of the needs of agriculture. When she
takes that vote, she is going to put all of these people on notice, because
she had seen them wanting to split their land when they are advocating what
someone else should do, she will remind them of that-fact. She would like
to see it done appropriately. People have said this could be a political
issue but she felt it had gone beyond that point. There is an initiative
hanging out there that may strip the discretion of the Board to set policy.
She had to ask those types of questions and maybe people need to ask those
questions. Staff is suggesting to the Board that the EIR should be re-
drafted so that when they make the final decision they will have the
support to know what they have done. Once this is done then they will be
on to other portions of the county. This is not just Chico. If it
takes the next two months to resolve the issue in her mind, it is worth
it. It will effect future generations, so let's do it right.
RECESS: 2:49 n.m.
RECONVENE: 3:05 p.m.
Chairman Wheeler stated she had a great deal of information as
it pertains to SUDAD and would like copies made for the Board members.
She knew Supervisor Dolan had the same information. This information will
be made available to the public. The EIR seems to be the most glaring
issue which needs to go back to staff in a redraft situation. The Board
is still dealing with deographic delineation on the General Plan as it
pertains to demarkation point between urban and agricultural uses, as
proposed by the coalition and the Planning Commission. She asked that
staff do whatever they had to to redraft the EIR starting with the
Planning Commission project and using the coalition as the scheduled
alternative.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was going to express disseetion.
It is at the Board level that the Board has to decide the adequacy of
the EIR, if there are mitigations.-are required and alternatives will
be there. The issue is what form that will physically take place for
Page 187.
February 3, 1982
8 2',-
3''
February 3, 1982
the final determination, and whether^the responses made to the comments
would take the form of an addendum or whether there were to be a redraft.
There is no dissention of whether the Board wants an adequate EIR. Her
belief was that it was there in the current draft. She felt it would
have a different physical form but would come back to the same issues
and discussions.
Supervisor Saraceni was concerned that the_Board would be
giving the proper direction to staff in the new EIR to cover what has
been heard at the hearing today. Would this be a draft that would be
submitted to agencies for comment on the issues brought up on the
greenline, Housing Element, downzoning, traffic, roads and drainage.
Ms. Blair advised the redraft would be recirculated through the
clearing house and will cover the concerns of Supervisor Saraceni. She
suggested that the timing be a minimum of 90 days anticipating a short
time at the chearing house. This would be May 5, 1982. She would try
and solicit requireme;~t fr^om Counsel on how far they have to go on the
economic issues.. She would like the Board to ask for that opinion.
Chairman Wheeler asked that Counsel issue that opinion.
20. Jim Estes, 2500 Estes Road. Mr. Estes was not familiar
with the process being taken. If he wanted to subdivide his property,
wouldn't he hae to file an environmental report and come before the
Board to have this done?Wouldn't he have to appeal to have anything done.
Supervisor Dolan stated he might or might not have to do an
EIR. An initial study would be done. If there is a rezone, the hearing
would be before the Board. if there was a division of land, it would not
come to the Board except on appeal.
Ms. Blair stated that under CEQA, after the EIR is certified
on the General Plan amendment and further certified on the zoning, there
is a greate possibility that the individual developments might be
categorically exempt on the basis of the previously certified EIP..
Mr. Estes felt it seemed like it would be bettern to study
when the area is developed than to go down the coalition or greenline.
It did not seem like they needed a problem like this.
The hearing was continued to May 5, 1982 at 10:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board at this time,
the meeting wa;adjourned at 3:16 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, February 9,
1982 at 9:00 am.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
RECORDERand exofficio Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors
'rman, Boar of Supervisors
BY .l ~
Page 188.
February 3, 1982