HomeMy WebLinkAboutM062382June 23, 1982
8 2-
10 70
RECONVENE; The Board reconvened at 9p00 a,m. pursuant to recess. Present;
Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni_ and Chairman Wheeler.
Eleanor M. Becker, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk
to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING: CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN (GREENLINE) - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The public hearing on the Chico area land use plan (greenline) General
Plan amendment was held as continued.
Chairman Wheeler advised she had presented an outline to the Board
by which they can resolve this issue. The Board has received the Planning
Department memo indicating there is a need for additional time to prepare
an EIR to conform to CEQA.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the outline as presented by Chairman Wheeler was
accepted.
Chairman Wheeler read a letter from the City of Chico Planning
Commission and submitted the letter for the record at this time.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Tom McCready, 4 Rosemary Circle, Chico. Mr. McCready was proud
of what the city and county had done to establish the northeast and southeast
sewer districts. He felt this would make a case for the coalition greenline.
There will have been created 1,886 acres in the Northeast Sewer Assessment
District and 2,700 acres in the Southeast Sewer Assessment-District, with
the possibility of adding 1,170 acres to the southeast area making a total
of 5,750 acres. He presented a slide show setting out the two .districts.
Because of the city's massive commitment to the growth in the Chico area,
there is not a need for any more housing on the west side o£ Chico. The
county zoned the land-east of Highway 99 and north of Sycamore Creek for
one acre lots and there is not a need for any more one acre parcels. It was
his feeling that the coalition line would protect agricultural land. There
has bean much discussion about property rights and he hoped the Board would
consider over 100 property owners who have financial commitments to the sewer
assessment districts that will cost over $5 million.
2. Nina Lambert asked for permission to display some aerial maps.
3. John Morehead, Chico. Mr. Morehead strongly endorsed the
Planning Commission greenline. He wanted to point out that his property
adjoined the city limits, not a mile away are services which are already urban,
the additional services are less costly than further east or south of town,
there is an illegal interim on the property, the designation is low and
medium density and the Planning Commission greenline saves over 200 acres of
land if the line is moved in to Rose Avenue.
4. Bill Cottingham, Rt. 3, Box 130B, Chico. Mr. Cottingham presented
a letter dated June 22, 1982 which he read at this time and submitted for the
record.
5. Joel Burrell, northwest area of Chico. Mr. Uurrell referred
to the original Planning Commission vote on the Bell Aoad area. The north
side of the area is bare land and the south side is almost in homes. He
wanted to know if-the decision was based solely on the determinatiofi of this
area being viva loam or had the Board gone out to see out the area was cut up.
Chairman Wheeler advised that it was a combination of all those
things. She was very well acquainted with the area. She has had access to
may aerial maps of the area. She knew the coalition based their poposal.on
the types of soils and this shauld.be quantified. They will be taking this
into consideration. Page 154. .
June 23, 1982
8'.
---_ ---__ June 2.3,,1982=====_____________
Mr. Burrell stated that some tuna back. a ~etiti:on was submitted
suggested that Be11 Road be a buffer area. In 1961 he purchased apiece
~f property that fronts on two streets. There is a subdivision that is
;mmediately south of his property. That was his intent in purchasing the
property. He wondered if the Board was- going to take into consideration
:he supply and demand of almond production. He owns a ten acre parcel.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the coalition had come forward
Frith a proposal for that area indicating it could go to the urban side
provided certain issues are addressed. The issues are primarily circulation,
irainage, sewers and other conditions.
6. Lloyd Heidenger, Dayton Road, Chico. Mx. Heidenger wondexed
if it was the responsibility of the governing body to in effect designate
sgricultuxal uses. There are a number of people who have invested 20 years
~f time and $100.,000 to $200,000 in their property, By drawing the line,
the county would be asking the property owners on the west side of town who
purchased the property and took the lines that were drawn into consideration
at the time of purchase to give ug that investment. He referred to the
financial impacts and the .production rates out of young orchards that were
planted taking advantage of technology so people planted on five, ten,
fifteen and twenty .acre parcels along the edge of town when the city and
county called that area urban density. The greenline would restrict that
are to a non-productive area. Was it the responsibility of a government
body to tell people what they could and could not grow on their own property.
Chairman Wheeler understood that the Kohnke property had been
spoken to in a letter that is part of the record. That property is divided
by the coalition greenline. She understood the reason this might have
occurred is because of the underlying subdivisions. She asked that the
Planning Department prepare something showing the underlying subdivisions
and how large the subdivision were.
Mr. Heidenger stated that when they tried to subdivide their
property in 1972 Mr. Kohnke signed a petition to stop the subdivision,
because he was under the impression that it was viable to have a small
agricultural property. After he signed the petition restricting himself
to agricultural uses, he paid taxes for urban uses on his property.
There person who objected the most to the subdivision of their property
sold his property for more than agricultural pxopexty prices.
7. Herb Heidenger, Chico. Mr. Heidenger stated he had lived in
Chico since 1920 except from 1967 to 1979. At. the time he purchased the
property on Dayton Road, he was aware of the subdvision on the Kohnke property.
Tn 1963 a 40 acre parcel was divided into five acre lot subdivision. On the
subdivisions which were approved more than 30 years ago on Marian and
Stanley Avenues, in 1962 a trailer park was put in. There is more than
one mile of residential zoning on that side of the street. It is only fair
that in setting lines and changing zones, that their property be included
on the urban side. The City of Chico is subsidizing subdivisions on the
east and want to make sure there is nothing in competition to the west.
8. Nina Lambert. Mrs. Lambert presented aerial photographs
at this time. These were taken in October 1980 or 1981. She was speaking
'as a citizen, property owner and Planning Commissioner from District 2.
She was speaking for herself. She moved to west Chico in 1936 and currently
owns 20 acres and also one-half interest in 57 acres with an approximately
total of 40 acres. She has spent the lase 20 years trying to protect
agricultural land in Chico. There is a need for that particularly in
south and west Chico areas. Zoning is not enought. The past Boards have
not provided a limit line. She requested a limit line to add strength
Page 155.
June. 23, 1982
8
June 23, 1982_____~__________~__
.o the zoning. The Toning-should be deterrgined on soil type compatibility.
3utte County is in an agricultural preserve. The county's, tax base is
agriculture. She felt the only suggested line that was. drawn was. the
one done by the joint city-county, commit tee and the s.4uth Chico area was
Left open. In November, 1980 the Planning Commission approved a line for
the south Chico area and the Board never acted on that line.. She did not
completely agreement with the .coalition proposal as. referred to for the
November ballot. Tt allows four-fifths vote of the Board to make cextain
Findings. Previous Boards. have made the findings they felt were necessary.
Big Chico Cxeek Estates is an example of that. The people living in the
North Graves Avenue area have requested their property be placed on the
agricultural sa:de of the line. She felt the proposal should be to adopt
the most restrictive greenline. She felt this would lie the original joint
city-county line and the November, 1980 proposal for south Chico being
adopted as the General Plan and then having a five year xeview period.
The five-year period would allow for a soils study or fiscal impacts 'using
the agricultural advisor- provided by the exCension service at UC Davis.
This time could be used to resolve the agricultural preserve question and
look at the sewer district and economic conditions. She had prepared a
map outlining the original proposed line and the November, 19'80 Planning
Commission planning map. It shows the current uses of the land. She
submitted an outline on her 20-year old orchard with regard to the total
orchard expenses, taxes, equipment and income received prior to the removal
and planting of new trees. The new trees are six years old.
9. Marty Worley, 787 Filbext Avenue. Ms. Worley asked if the
Board had a letter from the State Department of Conservation. She was
curious about the 8,000 acres. She asked if a copy of the letter could
be sent to the City of Chico. The greenline supported in the letter from
the Planning Commission is the original compromise line. This was the
1980 line. There was the original compromise line which was originally
suported and then the coalition began a line with two minor modifications
which the council supported and then subsequently there was the coalition
line.
Supervisor Dolan advised that when the proposal was drawn the south
Chico area was left as it was because there was a zoning study going on
at the time.
10. Jerry Brandstatt. ]Kr. Brandstatt stated he raised kiwi on
Rose Avenue. He supported a greenline concept. He sat out the soil type
far this area and it is found in a small amount in the total alluvial: fan.
As far as small acreages, he knew that kiwi was profitable for one to two
acres. He urged the Board to consider high profit crops without problems
to the neighbors.
~~
RECES: 10:32 a. m.
RECONVENE: 10:51 a.m.
11. Frank Sennett, Keefer Road, appearing as a private citizen.
Dr .'Bennett advised that he had driven about 700 to 800 miles up and down
the line and talked with people regarding the greenline. He did not know
of any issue that had come before the Planning Commission in the last size
years where there was more confusion and less understanding about the basic
problems. He felt this should be resolved, and he has been a proponent of it.
He felt there was a compromise line. He felt there were three pertinent
lines and they were the old 1971 line, the Planning Commission recommended
line and the coalition line in many versions. He felt that any one of the
three lines would be wrong. The county has been using a line that was drawn
in 1971. Many people do not understand the difference between land use and
zoning. There is a need to understand the basics of planning and the
Page 156.
June 23, 1982
8'.
_ 3nne23, _1982 ______ ___~__
difference between the tWO. The Board is now talking about land use. The
second line the Planning Commission recommended had accusations against the
commission that they were picking out of Sears. Roebuck-. The line came from
hours and hours of public hearings and the commission was accused of taking
1,500 acres out of agriculture. They recommended the removal of about 2,500
acres from low density residential. Tkze last coalition line did something
the commission was afraid to do and that was to draw-a line on the north and
around SUDAD and it makes sense. In the soutti.Cliico area the commission
recommended the down designation of a massive amount of low density residential
to agricultural residential. He felt tiat made sense. He would not make
any comments on the legality of downzoni~ng property becaase that was something
for the courts to decide. The question that always bothered him was the
morality of it. People purchased the property based on the land use that
was on the property. He knew some people in that area who have everything
they own tied up into five, ten, twenty and thirty acres of land. With the
stroke of a pen, the county can decrease the economic value of the land and
is that morally defensible.. He felt that looking at both the coalition line
and the Planning Commission line, there were many areas that were the same.
He felt if the Board followed the coalition line in the north and the Planning
Commission line in the south it would be something that everyone could live
with. He has heard the comment that it is very easy to develop on the
west side of Chico. That land is flat and if there is development there
has to be drainage put in,.and that is very expensive. There has to be
massive outsized pipes to hold the water as it slowly drifts away.
When he was first on the Planning Commission, the commission
was dealing with the Bartram rezone. Since the rezone was accomplished almost
six years ago, there has been no building out there. There are three fifty-
acre blocks and none have been developed. There are all bare land.
Developers are not eager to go on fiat land to develop property because of
the cost of the land plus drainage plus under ground utilities which are
$2,000 per lot. This makes for a very expensive operation plus the cost of
the housing. If there were people with big incomes to buy the houses that
would be fine. He urged the Board to remember that the line needed to be
drawn in a compromise manner so everyone can come out in the long run.
12. Jack Morgan, 1520 Manchester Road, Chico. Mr. Morgan urged
the Board to make a decision on this matter at the earliest possible moment.
Whatever decision the Board makes will be wrong and will not satisfy everyone.
Over the past several weeks he has analyzed the different greenlines and
it was his opinion that the coalition greenline prepared for presentation
on the petition is that one that has the broadest support. It is the least
restrictive line on the west and the north areas and is restrictive in the
south Chico area.
13. Frank Brazell, Rt. 1, Box 407-B, Chico. Mr. Brazell felt
that Dx. Bennett presented his case earlier in the meeting. He has had
experience in subdividing on the west side and it is not cheap. He developed
a 33 acxe subdivision on Oakway and Glenwood. That seems to have set a
precedent on that side for greenlines with the city and a lot of other people.
They put in drainage on that project. When the Shasta Avenue Subdivision
went in two or three years ago, the county requirements. added $2,750 per
lot above the land costs. The buyer paid for that increase. He set out
the experiences he has had in Butte County starting in 1954 when he owned
the Marybell Ranch.. There are cextain people trying to get the people
to live in a rock pile in the sewer districts. on the east side of town.
He wanted to live on the west side of town and if he did not, he would
move somewhere else. Good soil is not the. answer. It takes. acreage and
volume:. He has been involved in specialized crops-. The farmers today are
Living on the interest they should be drawing off of. In the country today,
there is 150,000 million acres of farm land not touched. The problem is
Fage 157.
June 23, 1982
8
3
June 23, 1982
that the farmer cannot make a profit The reason for the sewer districts
on the east side of CEzico is because there could not be development without
it because of the-lava on the ground. There are people who want to live
on the west side.- ,
Chairman Wheeler advised that as far as xhe ETR, written copies
of the deficiencies will be supplied to Planning before Tune 30, 1982.
Supervisor Saraceni made reference to information supplied by
Supervisor Dolan from OPA relative to urban growth. and boundary greenlines.
This does not mention downzoning of property. It has not been answered as
to whether the county can legally downzone property and not be liable for
that property loss. What is the effect on the underlying subdivisions and
what properties become nonconforming. He asked that staff respond to these
issues..
Charlie Woods, planning department, advised that those issues
did come up in the February hearing. They were advised by staff that it
was inappropriate for the EIR.
Chairman Wheeler advised that those were questions that the
Board should ask Counsel to respond to in writing including Supervisor
Do1an's comments.
Supervisor Dolan was frustrated with. asking for information the
Board may already have. There are a multitude of maps hanging on the
wall that show a great deal of what is being asked. Two of the maps are
impo~3ant in that one shows what the designation will be changed to and
those that will be the same designation. One of the maps shows the
boundaries of prime soils by the DWR map. They are using this because
the General Plan adopted in 1979 says that is what they will use. There is
a map that shows the existing land uses and the scales run so that the
parcels can be .,seen. It does not show whether the parcels have walnuts,
prunes or kiwi and does not show one story or two story homes. Th ere are
large maps showing where people live, the Planning Commission line, parcels
sizes that may or may not conform to the designation.
Supervisor Saraceni understood what was taking place. He wanted
to know what impact there would be on the property owner and whether it would
take money or investments over the years out of the reach of the owner
completely because of the restricted use of land planning in the future.
He was concerned about the impact on the county as to whether the county is
liable to make up that difference in those particular pieces of property.
Chairman Wheeler did not feel the maps were truely that fine lined
enough to give the figures quoted by the Bepartment of Conservation. If they
were broken down into three other maps and by area showing both: sides of the
line, the Board would know how much property is already urbanized. What
she wanted was a parcel by parcel inventory.
Supervisor Moseley questioned how much. it had cost the county to
work on the greenline. There has been hours and. hours put into this project.
Some of the people purchased the property for their old age and are now in
their old age wanting to do something with their property. She asked Mr.
Morgan what he thought of the presentation by Dr. Bennett relative to his
opinion on that particular line.
14. Jack 'Morgan. Mr. Morgan responded that he was not sure what
Ar. Bennett was speaking of. His interpretation of Dr. Bennett's comments
was that he would like to expand the line further to the south. and west
to include a larger section of the south Chico area. He would not support
that. Page 158.
June ~23, 1982
8
a
_ _J_une 23, 1982_ -----____~_-____~
. ~ Superbisor Saraceni would be interested 3n the cost and time put
into going through this project. He felt that with-all the hours the
Planning Commi sign spent on this project., that they were trying to compromise
in such away so that everyone's ,hopes and needs would be fulfilled. He was
concerned with_the input he had received from people who felt that changing
or downzoning of property would effect them and he wondered who would compen-
sate them.
Chairman Wheeler stated the issue.had been a long time in coming
to a resolution of the issue. Tn dealing with land use issues she did not
think they would be resolved. There really was no agricultural zoning in
the county until 1966 and those are some of the points raised in the ETR.
The first zoning was in 1966 and that was "A-3" zoning. She did not know
if the Board wouldhave the ability to make a decision of what the majority
of the people feel is right. Maybe the geople are the one that will ultimately
make the decision. This is not just for the greaterurban area of Chico but
it affects the entire county.
The hearing was continued to June 30, 1982 at 10:00 a.m.
RECESS: 11:35 a.m.
RECONVENE: 11:53 a.m.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 11:54 a.m. to hold a closed session
regarding litigation.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 12:55 p.m. following a closed session
regarding litigation. No decisions made.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:56 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, June 29, 1982
at 9:00 a.m.
ATTEST: ELEI~NOR M. BECKER, COUNTY CLERK-
RECORDER and`:ex-officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
irman, Board of Superysors-
r - - - ~~, . _ ~ .~
Page 159.
June'23, 1982