Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM070782July 7, 1982 8 2- 11I3 RECONVENE: The Board of Supervisors reconpened at 10:30 a.m. pursuant to recess. Present: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, by Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officers and Eleanor M. Becker, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk. to the Board PUBLIC HEARING: CHTCO 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. hearing. Charlie Woods, planning department, set out the background of the Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Raymond Jans. Mr. Jans advised he had property in Durham and on River Road. He felt the original greenline on the map made sense. He would support a good land conservation plan. If the county is not going to stick w~ah a good land conservation plan, then he wanted his ten acre parcel on River Road excluded from the agricultural side of the line. He would hate to see the property south of Chico developed. If the Board allows development in the south Chico .area and on River Road, then he wanted his property included in the development area. 2. Karen Vercruse, representing the Coalition. Ms. Vercruse included for the record a letter she had written three weeks ago dated June 17, 1982. There are two documents included which are the coalition recommendations for the General Plan text and a copy of the coalition initiative petition. It was never the coalition's intent to undermine the legislative process. The Board ;received this information for their June 23, 1982 meeting. The coalition in considering their line adopted three objective criteria: 1) soil type, 2) existing zoning; and 3} parcel sizes. She set out the map with overlays the coalitiion was presenting at this time. The difference between the second line presented by the coalition is that it includes the entire SUDAD on the urban side. She also referred to a chart which was presented that includes the arguments for the placement of the coalition line. In looking at SUDAD, trying to research the actions that took place, there is a lack of documentation for what happened in that there are brief Board minutes and no statement on record as to what the intention of the Board was as to the understanding of the landowners other than for paying assessments. Since money was paid on the assessments, there is a vested right. There are two Board members who were on the Board at that time who have given statements-under oath that they had promised the property owners they could develop if they were included in the district. The coalition took this information to an attorney and were told that the district was a criteria that took priority over all the other criteria. In the Bell Muir area she Set out the criteria used. from the chart. She also set out the number of parcels and the sizes of the parcels. The most often heard arguments for that area were the serious- drainage and circulation problems. If this land is allowed on the urban side the residents of the area will have to face a drainage district or solution to the drainage and circulation problems. The recommendation is to keep this on the agricultural side of the line now, keeping the zoning "A-5" zoning and have a study area if the residents agree to the study and pay the cost of the study. If the outcome of the study shows this should be on the .urban side., then the area should agree to pay for the urban area. That is study area No. 1 on the petition The River Road area is the most clearly agriculture. For the sake of equity this area should all remain in agriculture. They recommended no change. Page 182. July 7, 1982 8 2- a. J'u1~7, 1:982 ___- f~~_~ In the south area, the Planning Comi4iason recommended inclusion east of Midway and north of the Oroville-Chico Highway en the urhan side. The line. is indefinite because it was never formed. There was to be a separate study done after tFie Inter-governmental Committee had met. The coalition created a definite line. To the east is "I~-2", the other side is "A-2" and mostly agricultural use. The criteria will meet the agricultural use. One Williamson Act contract that exists along this area known as Midway Orchards was considered for cancellation of the contract in 19.78 and 19.78 and was denied by the Board. To be included in the Williamson Act, it must be determined that it is agriculturally viable land and for cancellation of the contract must be proven non-viable agricultural land. The Board denied the request for cancellation based on the fact there was a viable orchard and the. property should remain in agricultural use. The decision was made about the same time for Entler Avenue area. When the. Board allowed Entler Avenue to go urban, they went on recoxd to say-that was a good palce to stop. They considered the fact that the Durham area would be significantly impacted if the area is allowed to develop because of the minimum "A-5" zone. There were two arguments presented by Midway Orchards for putting the property on the urban side and those were that Midway Orchards has fungus in their trees and rocks in their dirt. Although there was mention of the factual and professional data that was presented, Mr. Cottingham draws his own conclusions and other farmers disagree with him. .There were comments made relative to the soils. map. The coalition did not use the map in making their decisions. Some of the members of the coalition visited Midway Orchards two weeks ago and using a soil agues, the soil channels are drained. All the surrounding archards are healthy orchards. Mr. Cottingham has made much of the fact that he acquired the property with the knowledge that he might be able to develop the property. There are no guarantees since this determination is properly and lawfully made by the Board. If the greenline is to be meainingful, Midway Orchards will remain on the agricultural side of the line. The Planning Commission in creating their recommended line did not follow the parceling, zoning or soil determination. The coalition line is the only one with set objective lines and followed criteria. She called the Board's attention to the written text recommendations for their consideration. The text recommendations differ in two major respects. The Planning Commission recommendation was for agriculture residential uses on the agricultural side which would allow the splitting of property down to one acre on the agricultural side. Because they included the definition of agricultural viable land which depended upon income comparable cost, payment of taxes and operational expenses, even a good farmer could find away to lose money on paper to be able to develop. This definition has never been accepted on the state level and should not be accepted on the county level. They do not depend on the definition but depend on the zoning and in some instances soil. They were the only group to seek abroad bass of support. A map is included in the petition so that anyone can see where the official Chico area greenline would be located. They did not refer to the soil classification in the initiative but relied upon zoning. Supervisor Dolan asked if there was a letter available to the Board from the attorney setting forth his opinion on the vested rights as far as the drainage district is concerned. She also asked if the depositions of the Board members on the Board at that time wauld b.e available to the Board. Ms.'Vercruse advised that she .could have the attorney write a letter to the Board setting forth his opinion relative to~the vested rights. The depositions are in the: possession of Ron Steward and the Board could check on those. Page 183. 3uly 7, 1982 J .. S: d ---- ___ _July 7, 1982 - ------==--=-----= Ms. Vercruse answered questioned from Supervisor Dolan at this :ime. The coalition had not determined what the urban land use would be for the SUDAD area. The first column on tlae chart relative to the Bell Muir area is a list of properties and parcels-. The totals are cumulative. They realized that some of the parceling was done prior to the zoning being placed on the area. Ms. Vercruse responded. to questioned from Supervisor f`ulton relative to the fund amendment process that cQUld be included in the initiative to be circulated. As far as complaints from people moving into the developed portion of property next to agricultural uses, the county has a nuisance ordinance so that agriculture that exists prior to -development cannot be considered a nuisance to those people moving into the area. The coalition brought up the idea of a buffer zone to be considered. They had recommended a 100-foot setback. 'They did not drop the suggested because they felt there was nothing wrong with a buffer zone. They felt the line and text were more important at this point. She felt that protection of agricultural uses could be included as part of the greenline or it could be considered on an individual basis when the project comes forward for consideration. 3. 3bhn Morehead, Cbico. Mr. Morehead spoke regarding land located on River Road in proximity next to the city limits of Cbico. The present land use is low and high density. He was representing seven farmers who have petition with 90 percent of the property owned to have the existing zoning which is low and medium density. He felt the Planning Commission greenline was clearly shown. There has been services existing in that area for years of high urbanization on the west, south, east and north of their property. Their parcels are small; ten acres, and were subdivided 50 years ago. He would consider any change in the zoning to be downzoning. He.did not approve of the line being brought in from the west and limiting their land for the next twenty years. They petitioned and the Planning Commission proposed a line that is a compromise in that area. The criteria used by the coalition could probably make their property fit on the urban side of the line also. This property has all the factors including transportation, electric and water services and schools and the property is adjacent to the city limits. He felt the buffer zone would be difficult to enforce. The land is economically unfeasible to use for agricultural purposes. He felt that the current "A-10" zoning was illegal because it was downzoning. He supported the Planning Commission line. He did not feel that agricultural land could be defined on the soil alone but also needed to have the consideration of how the property is used. Zf the property is located in the middle of town, this is not good farmland. Discussion of whether TIr. Morehead could petition for annexation to the city held at this time. Mr.~GIaods•~advised that this subject was considered during the Planning Commission meetings and the city had responded that this tract of land could not annext because there would be no annexation further west and the sewer line is a trunk line that is not available for services. Mr. Morehead advised that they were not real estate people or developers. They have been trying to farm that area. He felt they could tie into the sewer line that runs down next to the property. Letter submitted for the record. 4. Heriz Heidenger. Mr. Heidenger spoke relative to his property located at 1590 Dayton Road. Mr. Heidenger set out where. his property was .located and how Dayton Road ran. The Planning Department map shows over 100 parcels in subdivision in this area. The property was purchased on the basis of the General Plan, which was consistent with tFte Chico Area General Plan in the early 1960s. The greenline is not needed with the zoning ordinance: Page 184. July 7, 1482 ~~ July 7, 19.82 *~ 8 ~n the books. He.znentioned the doubt ab_o.ut the legality of the zoning made in the west during 1972 and 19.74, particularly with. regard to the General Plan at the time. Thera. is a conflict of interest regarding a present Planning Commission member, when the. commissioner presented a signed petition and voted on the greenline when their property was affected. In the discussions regarding Marian and Stanley Avenues, there have been three more short roads put in off Dayton Road between Edgar Slough. and the Sievers property in the past few years. They did not propose to take. land out of farming in the immediate future but they are entitled to comparable zoning with the property in the immediate area. He wished to stress the section in the supplement to the Land Use Element text from the Planning Department on page 3 under the heading of definitions and criteria relative 'to the commercial production of agricultural products. They are opposed to the establishing of a 20-year freeze on the zoning in the Dayton Road area. A matter of discrimination of property rights under the federal constitution amendments is again called to the Board attention. In 1981 in California there. were 3,000 new farms established and there was a gain of 100,000 acres of Iand into agriculture after considering the Iand lost to urbanization, road construction and rights-of~way. He submitted a letter from Sweet. Nectar Enterprises for the record at this time. The property he was representing was his property, the Sweet Nectar Enterprises property and two properties to the left of their property. In the 19 years he has owned the property, the Planning Commission nor the coalition have never contacted him to discuss the zoning or any property rights. The Chico City Council's proposal of no development on the west side is a lefthanded way of helping develop the east side. RECESS: 12:05 p.m. RECONVENE: 1:34 p.m. 5. Louis Camenzind, Jr., Oroville-Chico Highway, Durham. Mr. Camenzind advised that if there has to be a greenline, he was in favor of the Planning Commission's proposal. He was most particularly concerned with the south Chico area. Midway and the railroad are the natural boundaries between urban and agriculture in that area. On the Oroville-Chico Highway looking at the map there are small parcels that have been created and none are viable agricultural parcels. He challenged some of the figures in the draft ETR on page 77, Appendix P relative to the economic analysis using $1,400 per acre being the gross income. The economy has changed and almond production is not very profitable. The farmers da not need a greenline because of the "A-20'and "A-40" zoning. 6. Kathy Hume, Sweet Nectar Enterprises. x1s. Hume advised that their property abuts developed property on Dayton Road. All their property has been excluded from the urban side except for 2-1/2 acres. She felt this was an arbitrary decision and it divided the property. .There are underlying subdivisions- on some of the property. The parcels have been owned by the- Kohnke ~famZly for 26 years and have been planted in almonds for 16 years.' Out of the 16 years, the property has made a profit for 2 years. They lost money the majority of the time. In their letter to the Board dated June 29, 1982, they mentioned the economic factors which are associated with farming. All costs are rising and the almond prices are coming down. There are 25-1/2 acres of property that the green lines says is agriculture because there are trees located on it. If she had been subdivided 10 years ago, it would have been included in the urban side. Property that is being farmed now is having restrictions placed on it for the next 2p-years and she felt this was an undue hardship. The line excludes part of the family's holdings and there is development on the other side of the creek behind the property. She felt the line should be drawn more flexibly a11oGri:ng for input and consideration for the wishes of the peogle who live on the line. The family feels that they have been penalized for not developing the property sooner. Page 185. July 7, 1982 r 8 2- d July 7,-1982 =_ __________ _____ Vone of the people. in the area intend to develop immediately. With the Board placing the taajority of the assets of the family outside the urban area there is nothing that can he done and the Board has sfiut the door on the family's ability to~manage property to their own best interest. The buffer area is vague. The only possible place for putting the buffer is on the farmer who abuts the city limits and that is a burden to the farmer. The coalition has recommended__that the financial aspect be removed from the definition so that if a farmer is going broke, they could not do anything with. their property. Agricultural land to the east has been productive land for many years. Because of the southeast sewer and the northeast sewer that area will be developed and it is unfair to open up one area and make another area more restrictive. She felt that there were quite a few real estate people and developers who owned land on the east side wha stood to gain a great deal if all the parcels are immediately excluded from development. She asked that theBoard consider their petition that this parcel west and across the street be considered for urban side of the line. That would-make it a much strai,gliter line. 7. James Maxwell, representing Constance Seiver. Mr~;Maxwell stated that Ms. Sewer owned property at 1890 Dayton Road and would prefer to have it on the urban side of the line. 8. Lloyd Heidenger, Dayton Road, Chico. Mr. Heidenger set out his experiences in Glenn County when he worked for Walt Henning about seven years ago at 25 & P. He has head people say that if a person feels that 20 acres of almonds is not going to be viable in the future, then the grower should get an alternate crop. He is currently growing elephant garlic. The University of Arizona has a project that is currently stalled. It is easy for someone who does not own land in Chico to draw arbitrary lines without talking with the property owners involved. The Kohnke family, Mrs. Sewers and their family have been hear today representing an area that has been designated for a long time on the General Plan which calls for urban, low density residential. Mr. Heidenger felt that in fairness to the people who own the property, the Supervisors when they look at the land should notify the property owner and talk with them. He expressed concerns about the errors on the maps and as far as his 20 acres is concerned it is wrong. Many of the people who have been involved moved to Chico five or ten years ago and wanted to be civically: minded and wanted to be involved in the best interests of the area bud did not own any land. They are not farmers and did not put in time out in the area. They have not put in alternate crops. It is easy for them to say the small almond growers axe just getting a little wild and looking to subdivide right away. He '.:has heard that 75 percent of the voters voted for the recent measure on the ballot. If you took every citizen in Chico, it would be stretching it to say that 50 percent of the residents voted for the measure. What is really being talked about is 17 percent of the people over 17 years of age who voted for that in the City of Chico. 9. Cheav Kohnke, Sweet Nectar Entetpri es. Mr..Kohnke did some figuring relative to a 100-foot buffer zone for every mile of land. The coalition has said they are trying to presexve agricultural land. if the buffer zone were placed for every mile on the land, there would be a loss of 12 acres of agricultural land. The greenline would be about 15 miles long and that would be approximately 180 acres of land. The coalition line is probably about four times that much,. The Muir Avenue area was discussed. He would like to have a piece of ground that b.ig and could probably make it farmable. 10. Frank Brazell, Rt. 1, Box 407B., Chico. Mr. Brazell did not know who came up wiah the FIR. He was looking for some of the land that makes farmers rich from farming. He is farming speciality crops. On page 77 of Page 186. July '7, 19.82 S _ - -_ -_ __ ,J_uly 7 ,-1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of the EIR it talks about 1,100 acres of land that }s primarily in walnut and almonds. Someone came up with.a gross production of $1,400.per acre. There is also mention later on of a market-value of $8,0.00. per acre. He would like for the. Board to consider the profit that would be made if the $8,000 were put in the bank. or investments at 14 percent interst which would be $1,120 interest per acre and taking that away from $1,400 per acre that leaves a total of $280 per acre to pay taxes and everything that goes into farming. The county is putting pressure on the agricultural land in trying to save it. Farmers axe the only people expected not to pay themselves. There is a need to save agricultural land, but at the same time, he was not in favor of penalizing people who have little parcels of land that can make a living from. He wondered if the people who drew the line really knew the different between SUDAD and the Shasta Drainage District. SUDAD was formed at the time of the five-mile dam weir and the whole area was assessed. He has three districts formed on his property. If the Board is going to accept all that. district, it would go all the way to the river. He had to wonder about people who come before the Board who do not own property and give a beautiful presentation. He wanted to know who was- paying the bill. There was a beautiful presentation made on the study area and these people say it is important to study that area because the average is three acres or maybe three plus acres per person. He doubted whether they had transferred that figuring to tfie south Chico area and proposed a greenline that comes 110 acres off Midway to the Marybell Ranch. He wondered if the Board knew how many acres were north. of the coalition greenline. There are over 200 acres in one parcel.of farmland and 300 acres more total of the parcel of land. When he noted that, his next question came to mind who owned that land. Could Chat possibly make a difference. He knew who owned the property around Muir Avenue. The CED group is concerned about the coalition line for saving agriculture. Why wouldn't they cut out 200 acres. They are not interested in saving agricultural land. He has heard comments out of the city and county about the cost to the county for subdivision, planning and taxpayers having to pay for the subdivisions. There is not one subdivision that did not pay for its on way. He put in three land developments and he defied anyone to tell him they did not pay Cheir way through the taxes that were paid. He was there when the city tried to stop the development of the North Valley Mall. Now the city would like to annex the mall. He asked that the Board consider that there were representatives of 75 to 100 people that the coalition would cut out and turn. around and add 250 acres of agricultural sand to the urban side. 11. Tom Edgar. Mr. Edgar asked that the Board remember that the greenline is to protect productive farmland. The people in the City of Chico did vote in Favor of a greenline. If all the .people in the Board room were asked where the line should be, there are very few who could do so. Most people do not want to see development all tfie way to the river but if Bell Road goes, they really do not care. The people would like to know that when you go west of the city where the real agricultural land is, that it remains. The people know that large parcels provide very stable forms of income. This has nothing to do with. the statement that the people of Chico are demanding 'a particular greenline. The Planning Commission established criteria. (Before drawing the lines it was suggested that Constitutional laws require there better be criteria to base a decision on. That is what the Planning Commission did. It is the only organization that did so in public. One of the criteria used was productive agricultural land and another was natural boundaries. The coalition claims to have criteria and that is an untruthful statement. The coalition states that the only thing that is important is good agricultural land. He lives in the county on Mangrove Avenue and the s-oil there is at least 20 feet deep. The soil is also that deep where CSUC, city hall, and Bidwell xlansion are located. If something is five acres and struggling, it is not farmland although 4Q years ago it might have been. There are two groups involved in this matter. They are the Page 187. July 7, 1982 8 2- 3 __ July 7,_1982 __~~_____________~,= property owners who live and'; own land on the. line and pressure groups who live outside the area. Mr. Srazell has described the-differences between SUDAD, Shasta Drainage District and the. third district. The coalition has come before the Board had said that SUDAD has vested righ.ts.. Why is SUDAD pleased and not the other districts? The real problem is that rather than a parcel by parcel analysi •, the coalition is: saying they support coalition line No. 2 and if the Boardldoes not like it, they will take the issue to the people. If the Board had chosen to approve the coalition line No. 1 a few months ago, the coalition would have walked-the county right into a law suit because SUDAD is now excluded in their proposal. line. Everything he had heard was the reason for the greenline was wanting long--term stability. It does not have to do with whether there is a subdivision on urban land. Is the greenline being proposed to provide long-term agricultural land? It is quite possible that the Bell Road area will never develop info large subdivisions. These are five or ten acre parcels where a person might like to have them in one acre parcels. It does not particularly need long- term drainage systems. It might-not be a good idea. to have this developed down the road. The coalition is saying they do not want agricultural- residential on the other side of the greenline. What is the minimum size on parcels for agricultural'; designations? That is five acres. This line has been structured so tliat'',it cannot be dumped on the little people in the Bell Road area. The property owned by Mr. Morehead has more services than the SUDAD property. He referred to a letter to the Planning Commission dated June 3, 1981, when he specifically responded to the coalition position that they had worked out in detail a line based on criteria. During that time, he was on the Land Use Committee of the Butte Business Alliance, where the membership was controlled and manipulated by Dan Drake, California Park and Baldwin Construction. The bottom line was in those days they came back to their meetings and in effect told the alliance the environmental groups have told them where they want the line and if the alliance does not give them the line there would be no choice but to go to the people with the greenline a11•the way around west Chico. The people hurt would be Dan Drake, California Park and Baldwin Construction. The first proposal that went to the planning staff for California Park showed the back one-half of the property being designated as orchard and field crop or open and grazing. One-half of the project is located in the city and 6ne-half is in the county. The city council turned down their request for development interest bonds. He felt the bottom line was that in April, 1981 the '';coalition made a proposal which was not based on criteria. Has the coalitiion changed their position since 1981. Ron Stewart, representing the Fabian property, came before the Board relative to SUDAD. Mx. Stewart is Dan Drake's attorney and magically the coalition found it necessary to reverse their position and suddenly changed the line. Ms. Vercruse has said there ,is a vested right. There are certain circumstances when private citizens rely upon the decisions of the Board and those are vested xights also. The courts have been particular about vested rights. Most of the recent vested rights issues have been because of the Coastal Commission, which is an appointed group who said no to development along the coast. Many developers repeatedly said they had plans in progress and large amounts of money expended and therefore the rights could not be take away from them. The courts-said no. 'I The position that SUDAD interested axe vested and then immediately jumping the fence is simple political expediency. During the testimony on Bell Road, the average parcel size is very small. Categories 1, 2 and ',3 were described. .This area would be called a study area. Everyone he was aware of is convenienced the greenline is a Long- term line of demarkation. When it is convenient, the coalition will move the In the south areal why is it that the coalition moved around Baldwin Construction property. Dan''. Drake owned property in that area. It is a Page 188. July 7, 1982 8 1114 1115 1116 ____________.Tu_1y7, 1482 ___________________ personal interest right.- They have repeatedly come before the Board. and said there would be some kind of public interest criteria, He did not know if the Butte Business Alliance have been consulted pr are on record in support of coalition line No. 1 or coalition line No. 2. The bottom line summarized 6y"Mr. McCready speaking for C€iico 2000 was there was a great deal of money in the southeast and northeast development dis~tri.cts. Chico has a big investment and Mr. McCready felts hey should support the fine people with investments in their line. He felt that what was before the Board was an improper use of land use planning when the big developers. on the east have the political clout to make sure they have a handle on development. 12. Hester Patrick, Midway. Ms. Patrick. advised that her property was just across fxam the Midway Orchards. Mr. Jack 1`leline was at the meeting this morning and was farming their 400 acres of almonds. Several years ago Supervisor Winston made a motion tv stop development at Entler Avenue Subdivision. The Board all voted that would be agreeable. At that time, there were many plausible explanations as to why development should stop at Entler Avenue. The Board had turned down the withdrawal from the-Williamson Act. She was primarily opposed to leap (ragging whether it was on the Midway or wherever. It is the Board's responsibility to•see that this area does not become another San Jose area. The coalition made the distinction between land that was in agricultural production and the land that was not in the south Chico area. 13. Herb Heidenger, Dayton Road. Mr. Heidenger knew that part of the area discussed during the meeting could be pointed to as leap frogging. Their property is in between. The Kohnke property is up against a subdivision that was developed but zoned for subdivisions. The Siever's property fronts on subdivisions on more than two sides of the property. His property was located next to the Kohnke property and there is a mobile home park plus industrial production across the street. The hearing was continued to July 21, 1982 at 10:00 a. m. and closed to the public RECESS: 2:53 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:02 p.m. WAIVE FIRST READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: WAIVE LATE LICENSING FEE FOR DOG LICENSING PERIOD On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Fulton and unanimously carried, the following action was taken: 1. Waived the first reading of a salary ordinance amendment deleting three eligibility worker positions in the Welfare Department. 2. Waived the lat licensing fee through August 30, 1982 for extension of the dog licensing period. ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY BOARD MEIiBERS Chairman Wheeler advised the final report to the Grand Jury had been submitted to the Board. This was submitted to the Administrative staff for comment and review to submit back to each department to comment back to Administrative Office. ADOPT INTERIM ORDINANCE 2298; INTERIM "A-2" ZONING FOR FRONTAGE PROPERTY ON ESPLANADE BETWEEN LASSEN AND- EAST AVENUE, CHICO-AREA Chairman Wheeler advised that she had received a letter from Mrs. Burton enclosing petitions. She read the letter at thaw time. There are 362 signatures that were gathered in a six-hour period on July b, 1982. Chairman Wheeler stated that the residents were. concerned that a pornographic Page 3.89. July 7, 1982 S2- a - _ _ - -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _.Lu1~~~.~8-~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ stoor was-going tv be placed on North Esplanade.. A, building permit has not been issued to A. Thomas.- Bettye Kircher, planning director, advised that in discussing this matter with the Planning staff, the area has a General Plan designation o~ commercial and is proposed.for "C--2" with the. current zoning being "A 2" and nothing prohibits retail sales. All the building permit fees haven been paid, the plans have been checked and they had asked for additional information. She has talked with the Planning Director in Shasta County relative to their pornographic ordinance. Chairman Wheeler was going to suggest that the Board ask that the Building Department hold the permit and direct staff to write the appropriate ordinance dealing with this particular issue. Del Siemsen, county counsel, reminded the Board that this was the same type of situation as existed with Mr. Vanella. What the Board would be doing is enacting an ordinance to deny the person a building permit, which absence anj*thing else is permited in the area. The Board could do it. The Board would want to consider adopting an interim ordinance, keeping in mind that there is no action by the Board, Planning Commission ar Planning Department for any consideration of regulation any types of uses anywhere in the county. Supervisor Dolan advised that what the Board would be considering would be to redefine the commercial uses. She would like to have this stopped while the Baard makes a study. The Board is being asked to deny a ministerial action. Counsel has shown the Board minutes where the Board made the determination that the application for a building permit was a vested right. The Board should get rid of that policy. The interim ordinance would be for prohibiting this type of business in commercial designations, for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Siemsen advised the Board could place an interim "A-2 Ltd" ordinance on the property and that would require a use permit, if the Board wanted to change their policy as to vested right theory. Supervisor Saraceni was not for this type of use. Maybe the thing. to do would be to meet with the applicant and discuss this matter. Chairman Wheeler felt that they would resolve the matter by placing an interim "A-2 Ltd" on the property and then setting down and discussing the matter with the Applicant. These types of business are not popular. Supervisor Dolan stated they were not talking about commercial but were discussing the north Esplanade, which is a hodge podge of all commercial. There is a traffic corridor. She felt the first thing needed was a new policy that an application for a Building permit does not constitute a vested interest then an interim zoning could be placed. It was moved by Supervisor Dolan seconded by Supervisor Wheeler to adopt a new policy of the Board that an application for a building permit does not constitute a vested right. Discussion held relative to rescinding th e previous policy of the Board relative to building permit vested rights held at this time. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler NOES; Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni. page 190. July 7, 1482 Jule 7,-1982 S: 3 It was mpyed by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler that the Board adopt an interim zoning area of "A-2 Ltd." for that area zoned "A-2" fox frontage property on Esplanade between Lassen Avenue and East Avenue for the westerly frontage properties on the Esplanade north of East Avenue that is A-2" be adopted; Ordinance 2283 be adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley and Chairman Wheeler. NOES: Supervisor Saraceni. RECONSIDER DAN HAYS REZONE TO "M-1" ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON PENTZ ROAD: DENY PROJECT Chairman Wheeler asked that the Board consider the Dan Hays rezone from "A-2" (general) and "A-40" (agricultural - 40 acre parcels) to "M-1" (light industrial), property located on both sides of State Highway 99 at Durham-Oroville Highway Pentz Road interchange, identified as AP 40-12-,22, 23 and 24, southeast of Chico which was approved by the Board on June 29, 1982 with the adoption of Ordinance 2297. It was her conclusion after deliberation and study of this matter that the positive vote for this project has placed the county in legal jeopardy .on the findings that were made. In good conscience she could not continue to support this rezone. She has asked the applicant's engineer to contact Mr. Hays to ask him to bring forward a development agreement voluntarily. 1117 It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Fulton that the Board reconsider the decision approving the rezone for~~Dan Hays to "M-1" (light industrial) for property located on Pentz Road. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni Motion carried. Supervisor Moseley asked what Mr. Hays could have done with his property in the zone that was on the property, which is "A 2". Supervisor Saraceni questioned whether a wrecking yard could have been placed on the property. Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that virtually anything could be placed on theproperty but would depend on the use permit requirements. Supervisor Moseley wondered how many. times Caltrans put out as much effort to stop a project. Bettye Kircher, planning director, advised that the county received comments from Caltrans on a regular basis with regard to Highway 99 and Highway 32. There is not as much activity on the Cohasset Road and Skyway. Chairman Wheeler stated this did not prohibit Mr. Hays from making reapplication. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Fulton and carried, the Dan Hays rezone from "A-2" {general) and "A-40" (agricultural- 40 acre parcels) to "M-1" (light industrial), property located on both sides of State Highway 99 at Durham-Oroville Highway Pentz Road interchange, identified as AP 40--12~-22, 23 and 24, southeast of Chico was denied. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler. .NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni. Page 191. July 7, 1982 8 2-• July 7, 1982 Supervisor Saraceni felt that sometimes maybe there was a great amount of pressure gut on the Board and it seems extreme at the .time, but the Board should take the time to think about it and work it out as much as possible before putting on regulations after regulations that is really being asked for when they are not necessary. In some cases these regulations are being asked for by a small number of people when'it can bQ worked out. Supervisor Dolan felt that sometimes the Board created pressure on themselves when the respond to something submitted as a neighborhood concern. It is a matter of making judgments. Supervisor Fulton felt that when Mr. Hays asked fora negative declaration he agreed to submit a development agreement. Because the applicant refused to submit a development agreement this project ended up where it ended up. CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 4:07 p.m. to hold a closed session regarding litigation. RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 5:05 p.m. following a closed session regarding litigation and meet and confer. No action on meet and confer. See following motion on litigation matter. ACCEPT CIT'Y' OF CHICO'S OFFER ON COHASSET ANNEXATION N0. 18 IN PERPETUITY: INSTRUCT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF LAFCO THAT THERE WAS PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT IN EFECT UNTIL JULY 1, 1982: REQUEST CITY' OF CHICO TO ALLOW COUNTY STAFF TO MAKE PRESENTATION RE: TAX EQUITY ISSUE AS TO COUNTY WIDE SERVICES 1118 On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton and unanimously carried, the county accepted the City of Chico's offer of 100 percent of property tax on Cohasset annexation in perpetuity, it being important to recognize that the Board does not wich to deny these properties the rights to annex to the City of Chico, therefore, the Executive Director of LAFCo was instructed that there was an agreement of property tax transfer in effect until July 1, 1982; further, requesting the City of Chico allow county staff to make a presentation to the City Council concerning the tax equity issue as to county-wide services and to do so as soon as possible. RECESS: The Board recessed at 5:06 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, July 13, 1982 at 9:00 a. m. Page 192. July 7, 1982