HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072182July 21, 1982
', RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 10:00 a.m. pursuant to recess.
', Present: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and
82- Chairman Wheeler. Eleanor M. Becker, county clerk, by
{~ Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 10:02 a.m. to hold a closed
session regarding meet and confer, personnel.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 10:38,a.m. fallowing a closed
session on meet and confer on personnel. No decisions
were made.
RECESS: 10:39 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:45 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING CHICO AREA LAND USE (GREENLINE) - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The public hearing on the Chico area land use (greenline)
general plan amendment was held as continued. -
Charlie Woods, planning department, advised that the order
of the process would be to certify and finalize the EIR prior to a motion
of intent on the project. The final ETR represents and reflects the
Board's understanding of the comments and the responses. The guidelines
differ between the general plan and specific project as the guidelines
recognize the opinions of individuals including experts.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan and seconded by Supervisox
Fulton that the Board certify the EIR.
Supervisor Saraceni could not vote to certify the EIR when
he did not believe that the questions had been answered. He was
concerned with downzoning, consideration of property owners and the cost
to property that was downzoned.
Supervisor Dolan advised the motion was to cextify the EIR
and was offered because she had read the document and the comments. The
decision on the placement of the line designation still remains.
Supervisor Moseley felt from the discussions that had been
held, if the Board accepts this, they will be leaving themselves wide
open for lawsuits.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the amendments to the draft
EIR answered every point that was raised during the hearings. This allows
the Boaxd to deal with whether to change the General Plan in this
particular area.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that a question was asked of
Planning as to how much agxicultural.land would be converted. The
estimate was made without the previous designations for urban uses.
There are many questions he felt had not been answered that would put
the county and taxpayers in a situation where they could be liable.
Supervisor Dolan felt if there were questions relative to
the EIR then they should be discussed at this time. When an assessment
was made of the project they started with the base line and went from
there. There were 8,000 or 9,600 acres developed that come from
physical observation of the planning area to see what was built and
what was not built at the present time. The EIR talks about that already.
The designation zone located within the city limits is where the
difference lies between the two lines. This narrows it down between two
lines and between 1500 and 1600 acres.
Page 231.
July 21, 1982
8 2-
v'''
°--___=====Ju1~ 21, 1982________________ _____
Supervisor Saraceni did not feel the EIR answered the
questions relative to the 100-foot buffer, the question of the .
downzoning cost and how it would affect various property owners.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the EIR set out potentials.
The buffer area proposals were discussed. The Board has not decided
whether they want to do that, and if so, where and what size they
would want to use for a buffer zone.
Supervisor Fulton advised that the acreages were listed on
pages 160 and 161. He conceived the buffer as part of the position
of the establishment of the greenline.
Chairman Wheeler stated that questions she had were raised
at the podium and were answered in the amendment except for talking
about the redline.
Mr. Woods advised that that was discussed in the portion
of the EIR.
Supervisor Dolan stated the question of whether there
should be a change in the General Plan designation is appropriate for
the next discussion by the Board. The EIR will not answer the question
of whether it is legislatively appropriate. Zoning and land use
determinations have been held constitutional and the county has the
legal authority to do so since the early 1920's. Whether of not.i.t.is
moral,. they agree, or.like it, is probably something that could be
discussed for a long time. By making the change, this can either
change the potential value of the land upwards or downwards. The
The physical environmental issues and alternatives axe set out and
the potential mitigation measures are set out and she did not have any
substantial problems with the written EIR.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that yesterday he went through.
EIR and there were many problems with it. The Board has heard
imony from people who have relied on the designation for use of
r land.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni
Motion Carried.
Mr. Woods stated that the Board and Commission proposed a
ral Plan amendment for the Chico area land use designation, growth
dories referred to as the greenline and the policy statement. The
alternative described has been the proposal by the coalition, with
exception of land use urban growth boundaries, and different
.ties statements. It is up to the Board whether they wish to adopt
Planning Commission line or the coalition Line in total, a
ination or make changes.
Discussion of the coalition proposed study area for the
Sell-Muir area was held at this time. If the Board contemplated
putting this property on the agricultural side, this was not disscused
at the Planning Commission during their hearings. The law requires,
if the Board wishes to make a proposal not considered by the Commission,
Page 232.
July 21, 1982
S,
-_____--=====July 21, 1982___________________
it must be sent back to the commission on a referral for a report
back to the Board.
Mr. Woods made a slide presentation of the northwest area,
north area, Durham-Dayton area, and south area. These are copies
of the Department of Water Resources aerial photo slides dated June,
1982. Mr. Woods then set out the various exhibits that had been
presented to the Board as far as the maps were concerned.
Discussion of SUDAD held at this time.
Chairman Wheeler stated a question that will arise is
whether there is a vested interest as far as these particular parcels
are concerned.
Supervisor Dolan believed in the Sudad area there were
various proposals as far as the designation of the greenline. The
Board has discussed the drainage district, existing zoning and the
Northwest Chico zoning in 1979. The joint county-city committee
proposal was that the boundaries of the Northwest rezone~be followed.
The Planning Commission expanded upon that rezone and included the
Fabian property and subdivided the area to make a triangular area
that abuts the Fabian property. The coalition X11 line is fairly
similar to the committee recommendation. The coalition ~~2 line
follows the boundaries of SUDAD. She understood their research
and reasoning but did not agree with it. She went back and looked up
all the minutes surrounding the formation of the drainage district
which began in 1963. She looked at the microfilm rolls of the
newspaper reports. She read the files that are located in the Clerk's
Office and the Public Works Department. One conclusion was if the
county forms another assessment district, they had better be clear
about what is on the public record. The public record for SUDAD
is not even available at one location.
Chairman Wheeler stated that Supervisor Dolan was correct
and she found the records to be inaccurate, and were pages of the
minutes missing.
Supervisor Dolan said that the pages missing were the Board
members responses to the protection. She understood that a representa-
tion made by the Public Works Director and Board members either in
or out of the meeting might have meant a commitment, unless they
went into the findings of the Board meeting. What was the representation
to the Board or to the area itself is what is in the official records.
She looked at the assesments and whether these translated into
uxban uses. She reviewed this in the context at the time the decisions
were being made for the drainage district which began in the early
1960s. There was no freeway at that time, although there were
beginning discussions of the freeway and where it would be placed.
When the county becomes involved with the State Division of Transporta-
tion, the state always talks about drainage and aliaays demand
drainage assessment districts. At that time, there was no General Plan
for the county and no zoning to speak of. There was no Planning
Department. The Esplanade was a two-lane road. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineexs was constructing Mud Creek diversion channel. Chico
was faced with property owners and government was faced with a freeway.
Esplanade 99 was going to be the freeway and when the county took
over Esplanade it should be four lane from Lindo Channel to a point
north of Shasta Avenue or at Shasta Avenue. Property owners in the
area formed a steering commitee and drew up the plans and talked about
the drainage problems in the north area.
Page233.
July 21, 1982
~J
•____.__-=====Julg 21,1982==_________________
Tine area was between Mud and Sycamore to the north, Bay to the west,
Burnap and Cohassett on the east and, basically, Lindo Channel on the
south. West East Avenue did not exist and neither did development
on Morseman-Lassen area.
RECESS: 12:00 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:42 p.m.
The hearing was continued to late in the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED BUDGET HEARINGS FOR 1982-83
AND FINAL REVENUE SHARING HEARINGS
The public hearing on consideration of the proposed budget
hearings for 1982-83 and final revenue sharing hearings was held as
continued.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, advised the
Board had received information and there would be other information
forthcoming. The Board should receive input from those who wish to
address the Board. Until such time as the finances are truely knows,
he asked that the hard and fast decisions be made. He requested
that the hearing be. continued to July 28, 1982, so the Auditor would
have abetter handle. on the fund balances available.
**
Jim Johansen, auditor, set out his memo of July 20, 1982.
He did not have the final information at this time and there were
some things from the state, like the transfer to the county the first
of January of the MIA`s, that were not finalized. He highlighted
what was available recognizing that they had to take a longer view
at long-range planning. He had attempted to do a preliminary projection
for the 1983-84 budget based on certain assumptions. He set out
Schedule 1 at this time, which is a summary of the fiscal information
available, and highlighted that schedule. There is no cost-of-living
clause that has been added. He has made the estimate, if all good
things happen from the fiscal information available, there would be
$704,000 the county would have to work with. If it was the worst
situation, there would be $135,000 less than the amount in the proposed
budget. In his projection for the 1983-84 budget, he projected a
shortfall of a little over $2 million, but if revenue sharing is not
reenacted the deficit will have~ito be increased by $1,3 million to
almost $3-1/2 million. The county is still providing a higher level
of service thatn they can afford, part of which is the reduction in
revenue increase of sales tax and property tax. There is a $2 million
projected deficit.- Tn their projections for 1982-83, they assumed
the loss of the $100,000 in sales tax and he felt the estimate. for
1982-83 was close to 1981-82 with an estimated 10 percent increase.
He had taken into consideration the annexation. They have not allowed
fox any additional annexations. This is one of the arguments for
putting money into the reserve and not providing services that
cannot be provided. He is assuming a $2 million shortfall for 1983-84.
He set out Schedule 4 at this time. They have not made any allowance:
for the deferred maintenance, which will have to be considered at one
point or another.
Discussion of the jail reconstruction held at this time.
Mr. Pyeatt advised that the county had two real problems, one was to
get on the funding list and the other was to come up with the 25
percent match, if they were to receive the funding.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated that if
the bond measure in November passes there will be $280 million with a
Pagg34.
July '21„1982
~.;
- ____====_Ju_ly_21,=1982___________________
$2- etch requirement of 25 percent. Alameda needs assesment was $94 million.
5' Butte County fiinished eighteen out of eighteen, which is not very
elpful. The caunty would need $400,000, which would take the females
ut of the main jail and would also remove the transients from the
ain jail. They are looking at two posts and they will have to come.
up with ten jailer positions in staffing. The estimate on the parking
fines is $200,000 per year. There is not enough money to address the
architectual problem and it does not do the major renovation that they
', ad planned. A master plan includes modular supervision of 48
aximum security beds with one jailer. That will be very expensive,
ecause they have to take out the inside walls and floors and virtually
redo the entire jail. Any money that would be put into the jail
ould be considered part of the county match, if the county were to
receive a grant.
Mr. Pyeatt addressed the costs for defense in the numerous
', lawsuits that are against the county. The library suit is now at
$50,000 the decision on the Sheriff is $5,000, the welfare suit at
$2,000 and the Gridley rezone is $2,000. There are some significant
legal costs affecting the budgetary items.
Mr. Johansen advised that during process, making cuts in
ome cases, perhaps this has provided the Board with some false
avings in terms of the budget units, because they will have required
osts in the courts. The Board went through and reduced the professional,
nd jury services, when there is little control over these costs. He
elt the jail merited serious consideration before the board commenced
ny additional expenditures for continuing or expanding existing
ervices. He suggested that the resources of staff and the Board be
sed to get into things to develop alternatives for revenues and
eying a good solid ground for astable fiscal future. He saw the
ear 1983-84 as getting close to having a zero fund balance.
Mr. Pyeatt spoke regarding the services and supplies and
nflationary factor. He felt that the three percent figure was
ether conservative. They are looking at a figure more in line with
even percent increase for 1983-84. He did not feel that the. Board
ould overlook equipment not being.,replaced and buildings that are
ast deteriorating. He has heard that roads, fire and police protection
re the number one priority. He felt the priority was financial:
tability. Another issue is the libraries, which are nearing completion,
nd there is no money in the budget for the move, which will require
pproximately $15,000, landscaping and equipment. There will be an
tem before the Board as far as the issue for a call for bids on the
quipment, which is approximately $210,000.
Supervisor Saraceni felt they should look at ways to increase
the revenue to the county. There is property in the Williamson Act,
which pays less than other properties. As RDAs and annexations take
place they are looking at even less revenue. He hoped they would form
a committee to look into the revenue situation.
Chairman Wheeler advised that was what she had been working
on with staff. CS AC is formulating a cooperative effort between the
private and governmental sectors to provide services at less cost.
Supervisor Saraceni felt they needed to pull together as
a county family in organization. There is a need to sit down with
staff members and go over ways to bring in tax money to the county
to help make up for what the county is lacking. He felt that one
of the ways to look at this was in a positive manner in turning the
Page 235.
July 21, 1982
_J
3uly 21, 1982
financial situation around.
Mr. Lively felt that was what the Auditor and Administrative
Office report was saying. They needed to sit down and plan for what
will happen next yeax. It takes both sides of the picture, income
and expenditures, to address a workable plan.
Chairman Wheeler advised that back in April she brought an
outline to the Board, which was approved, and all Board members
were asked to be active participants and write their thoughts down
on paper for submission. to staff for finalization. Very little has
come forward except for verbal comments during the Board meetings.
Supervisor 5araceni felt there was very little that could
be put on paper if their department heads and the staff are not
together. He felt the first thing that was needed was to sit down in
planning discussions to have an objective look at how the departments
run. He would like to have meetings set up with department heads to
sit down and pool ideas. He felt this should be done as a group
and not on an individual basis by each Supervisor.
Supervisor Fulton stated that the first thing that had to
be accepted was any legitimate income the county could earn. There
are severe differences between income and outgo. There is no argument
that the county is spending more money than they are bringing in. If
he had read the voters right, the voters are saying they want the
county to control the outgo and he felt that they had to be very
careful of the income. Everytime that the voters hear about an
assessment district and sales tax, they react. that this is circumventing
Proposition 13. There needs to be an agreement on what the income is.
RECESS: 2:45 p.m.
RECONVENE: 2:47 p. m.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Judge Rutherford, Chico Municipal Court. Judge Rutherford
wanted to make it very clear that she fully knew and recognized the
different functions of government. She was like the Board, in that
she is a separate and equal branch of government, and has functions
to perform. Among those are having a clerk's office with staffing
to perform the functions of the court. A court that has little staff
and is unable to enforce their orders is not a court at all. She
prepared a budget that she believed was a minimal necessary budget and
turned in exactly what she felt she needed with an increase of about
8 to 10 percent in filings per year. The increase will occur again
this year because the City of Chico is not processing their correction
tickets. They are receiving moving violations also. She did not ask ~.
for an increase of staff this year, in spite of the fact they have an
increase of 10 percent in workload. The Judicial Counsel would allow
for the use of 1.5 clerks. In December, she used up her extra help
funds. The cost of two extra help positions is $18,000 per year.
The increase of revenue from the court this year for processing
warrants increased 425 percent to $251,000 or $20,000 per month.
Two clerks at $18,000 per year gives the county $251,000 in revenue.
To delete some $27,723, which was the additional 1-1/3 employee in
addition to the two positions results in a loss of over $250,000.
They are not performing any services .that they are not mandated by
law to perform. They mail out 18,000 courtesy notices telling people
to pay their fines and, without these, she was not sure that anyone
would come in to pay those fines. She set out how the revenue comes
Page 236.
July 21, 1982
/„
8
to the county and the city. There was a transfer made from professional
and specialized services to extra help. She can go through August
except she will have to replace the money for the specialized and
professional services. At~ministration recommended $63,000 and she
spent $b.1,000 last year. There was $6,000 transfered out,,which left
$57,000. This then becomes a reserve problem.
2. Sheriff Gillick. Sheriff Gillick stated at the present
time, the level of services is a very low level with the 27 patrolmen
in the field. It is almost impossible to keep up with the work that
they have to do. There are a number of emergency calls that are
taking 55 minutes to answer. This last pay period there was 174-1/2
hours of overtime that was used by his personel:;. and will create more
problems with his overtime budget. His office does not generate
revenue except from the taxpayers who support law enforcement. He
would 'appreciate any consideration that could be given to the department.
If he did away with the requested radio console, he could add one extra
deputy.
Mr. Pyeatt advised that they had had meetings with the
Sheriff's Office in identifying the manpower needs and are putting
a package together to bring to the Board. kThat they are working on
is a funding mechanism and there will be some other alternatives. The
only real avenue the Board has for funding is through a county service
area. They have to create the mechanism for funding before they can
take a ballot measure to the voters. One of the ti~ings that has been
discussed with the Sheriff is the resident deputy concept, which would
cost less than providing one person around the clock. They are very
interested in working in cooperation with the Sheriff to bring the
information to the Board. Any funding mechanism cannot occur for the
November ballot.
Sheriff Gillick stated that the resident deputies would
probably come when the new Sheriff started. This has to be written
up by the Personnel Director and he did not know if there would be
schooling requirements. The resident deputy program is very essential
at this time with the loss of personnel in the valley. He could, with
at least $150,000 have almost five deputies, if the county is willing
to sacrifice a radio console.
Mr. Pyeatt stated that last year the console cost $90,000
and this year it is budgeted for $96,000. There is some doubt as to
.whether it .can be aquired for that $96,000 figure. The present
dispatch. equiptment is fifteen years old. Some of the alternatives
discussed are that rather than buying a new console dispatches could
be out of the substations. If the county is willing to eliminate
the console and it goes down, they will have to go to the reserve far
the money. The emergency medical equiptment will not provide the
service fox the Sheriff`s Office. He will be bringing back information
on the equiptment and services of the Emergency Medical Care Council
hopefully next week.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor
Fulton and unanimously carried, the following was added to the budget:
1. Paradise Council on Aging for meals-on-wheels $6,200.
2. Chico Counsil on Aging for meals-on-wheels $7,500.
The contract amendment extending the agreement for one year was approved
and the Chairman authorized to sign. Marshall Moss, Chico Council on
Aging, thanked the Board for their actions.
Page 237.
July 21, 1982
:~
July 21, 1982
The hearing was continued to July 28, 1982 at 10:00 a.m.
8
RECESS: 3:21 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:29 p.m.
2 (PUBLIC HEARING: CHICO AREA LAND USE (GREENLINE) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The public hearing on.tlie Chico area land use (Greenline)
General Plan amendment was held as continued.
Supervisor Dolan continued her discussion on SUDAD. The
difference between the one-line and the other is about 315 acres.
Her position is that part of SUDAD, except for the 200-foot frontage
on Esplanade, should be designated agricultural for various reasons.
The assessments levied were considered F for agricultural use of the
land. The outfall was not constructed in this area. They were
constructed in all areas where the assesments were indicated as S for
subdivision and C for commercial. The outfalls through this district,
and particularly, in this area were open ditches, which are agricultural
drainage facilities. There were petitions by property owners and
supporters, who indicated they were requesting that the district be
formed for the four-lancing of Highway 99. If this did not happen,
the petitions would be nullified. `T'hat is what the original initiation
of the drainage ditch. was for. The other concerns of the drainage
district were in making sure that the State Divisions of Highway have
development to the east over to Cohasset Road. This shows that the
area was Lindo Channel to just a bit north of Shasta Avenue. The
road widening in curb stopped below East Avenue. The further
commitments were general statements such as the drainage system is
necessary for development of the north area. A mojority of the district
is on the east side of Esplanade and they were never specific about
what north Chico meant. Everyone had differing definitions of north
Chico during the 1960s. The true commitment of the governmental
agency toward land in the assessment district can be easily determined
by the assessment on the parcels. The assessment was agricultural
except for the frontage on the Fabian property. They were paying
for agricultural drainage. The. assessments for commercial property
were six times more than that for agriculture. She believed the drainage
district was formed for agricultural purposes a1so.She was aware of
statements quoted in the newgpaper that subdivision maps were held
up in the county departments, without some kind of drainage necessary,
to gather an advantage of state funds for this. There were substantial
protests to the formation of the. district during the four hour hearing
and there is no indication that the protests were withdrawn. The
findings and the records show that this district was necessary for
the public health, welfare and there was no indication that zoning would
*** be achieved. She understood that the Esplanade and Highway 32 easements
were achieved at the time it seemed to have been done for West East
Avenue frontage. This was not done in this case but it was assessed
for farming.
The land use for this area is in agriculture. Alkop Farms
is supporting agriculture. The Schill Farming is in that area and
the Fabian property is in the Williamson Act. The investments in
agricultural activities in these three parcels are extensive. She
has a letter from Alkop Farms which indicates their investment is in
the millions. As far as drainage facilities, for the most part, they
do not exist even in this area. There would be a need for extensive
upgrading of the drainage system, if the area were to be designated
for urban uses. There would be a further encroachment and abutting
on large agricultural parcels in the area south of Mud Creek, which
could cause pressure for further subdividing.
Page 238.
July 21, 1982
----_--=--_^July21i1982______________ __ ___
She felt that the county would win the argument on vested rights. There
are several court cases on this matter. Oae case involved farmland
for sewer purposes and the court did not require Sacramento County to
zone this area for urban use. Given the extensive drainage district
around the south county, if they designated this urban, where the
assesments were for agriculture, it would be a devastating precedent
in other areas. The drainage facilites throughout the district of
SUDAD are shown on Exhibit DD and the area is extensive. In the area,
the outfall was open ditches, but not constructed, and the assessments
were lowered as set out in Exhibit EE. Given the record, in her
interpretation, she has laid out what she £elt should be designated
as agriculture.
Chariman Wheeler stated she would not argue the intent of
the Board at that time. If the area were left in agricultural or
placed into the urban area and if it went to court, it would be up
to the court to decide the intent of the former Board. She felt there
was sufficent evidence the intent was there for development at the
time. Based on the same information Supervisor Dolan had acquired,
there was also a proposal put together and supported by data developed
in cooperation with County Counsel, Public Works, and Ringel and
Associates which was circulated and supported by the Greater Chico
Chamber of Commerce relative to this matter, which she would put into
the public record. She read the information at this time. She felt one
of the most important issues was that the Board will allow no subdivision
unless there is drainage provided. The information further goes on
to say that the State will not construct the freeway unless the drainage
district is formed. It goes on further to say that the greatest
benefits derived from formation of the drainage district would be
derived from the owners of property not now commercialized. She felt
that a commitment had .been made, and based on the fact that two former
Supervisors have indicated that was the intent even though it was not
in the record, she did not feel that was the fault of the Supervisors
in full but a matter of poor recordkeeping in the past. There is no
chronological record of events. There are a great many missing parts
and pieces. She felt this was the intent at the time the district was
formed.
Supervisor Dolan agreed it was the intent, but did not
agree that it was the intent of the entire district. She referred
to an editorial from September 2, 19b4 in the Chico Enterprise-Record.
It was her opinion that no patent argument for formation of the
district came from the ER editorial..,. It is, not in the resolution
voted on by the Board.
Chairman Wheeler stated that A:P. O'Neill sent a memo to
the Board dated March 15, 1963 which indicated that the Board is
probably aware orderly development could not occur without proper
drainage. There is a page missing from the minutes. The resolution
would not have spoken to the commitment, but the minutes is where it
would have been discussed.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan that it is the Board's
intent to establish a greenling based on the original joint city-
county committee proposal, except it would be set 200 £eet westerly
o£ the Esplanade.
Motion dies for lack of second.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, it is the Board's intent to designate this area based on
the recommendation called for in.-_caalition line No:2. AYES: Supervisors
Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler. Noes: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni.
Page 239.
July 21, 1982
8:
b
___ -----July_21=198_2_____________~______
W Supervisor Saraceni felt that it was quite clear there had
been a great deal of confusion over any line. The line relates to
protecfinn of agricultural land. The county orchard and field crop
designation and zoning county-wide does protect agricultural land.
There is no information showing that agricultural land is being
converted from agriculture to development. He felt that the property
owners had spoken to their concerns on the use of the property
through the line disignation by the Planning Commission. For those
reasons, he felt that it would be downzoning to approve the other line
and could not support it.
Supervisor Moseley agreed with Supervisor Saraceni. People
that have asked to be taken out of the line should have a chance to
have their land removed. The matter should be sent back to the Planning
Commission for that purpose. The county is creating a hardship on
those property owners and she resented it.
Chairman Wheeler responded she had dealt with this issue
for eight months and long before that. She felt that the county would
be in abetter position and so would all of the property owners if the
legislative body made the decision. Then the decision is with the
elected. legislative body. This is merely a change in the General
Plan designation in the legislative process. Those changes can be made
either through the legislative process or the landowners themselves
have an opportunity to come forward and make application to the
county to make a change when the need does arise. There is land in
that area that is the most productive in the world. 'She did not feel
they should continue to asphalt the area clear to the Sacramento River.
If the Board does not decide the issue, it will be decided by the
electorate and then can only be changed by a 4/5s vote of the people.
She felt it was important for the property owners to recognize this.
It is incumbent upon the Board to resolve this matter and not have it
resolved at the polls. She recognized what the people in the Community
were saying. They want an implementation of the designation.
Supervisor Saraceni stated the property designation change
will be a downzoning. The fact is the Board, as elected officials,
are acting like they own the property by deciding what should take
place with it. He felt there should be input from the property owners.
Supervisor Dolan stated this a General Plan amendment. General
plans and planning tools change. The Board is changing the General
Pian designation in some areas. In some areas recommendations will
change from open and grazing to urban or low density or from low
density to agriculture. It is not downzoning.
Chairman Wheeler stated pursuant to state law, the county has
the ability to change the General Plan designation three times per
year. Many people are concerned about the twenty-year issue. That i.s
in the General Plan language and is an issue by which each yeax there
is study and updating on a regular basis. The Board is not taking
any rights away that people do not have at this time.
Supervisor Moseley stated that the federal government just
came out with statistics that show there-was two million acres of
agricultural land that has never been touched. In looking through
history, people, who become crowded, are forced then to do something
else.
Supervisor Dolan stated the decision that had just been
made was to designate the Alkop Farms as urban area. This is a very
important issue to the community--uf Chico.
Page 240.
July 21, 1982
,~
_ _ _ July_21,_1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
It did not just start in the last eight months but has been going on since
the City of Chico developed their General Plan in 1962 and had a guide
for agricultural land. There has been wide disagreement between the
county and the city on this issue. One of the things this will do is
to get the city, and county to agree on growth. Another issue is for
the community to consider a community that they would be proud to.
turn over to the heirs in the future. They must also consider a
community that they can afford. She felt there was a slight difference
between considering and listening to the wishes and wants of people.
Because someone does not agree with the wishes and wants does not mean
that they did not listen. From her experience in the community, by
growing up there and since 1972 as a City Planning Commissioner, it
was her feeling it was time for the Board to act responsibly.
Supervisor Saraceni stated when a line such as this is
established, development will be in one area and eliminates the
ability to develop in other areas. The Board has heard testimony that
if this Line is passed, the county would be restrictj.ng some properties
in the use of land that other properties have the opportunity to do.
No one could show him any one county that had done the same thing
that Butte County was attempting to do. He could not support that
type of a decision.
Supervisor Dolan stated it was quite clear what was being
done. This was a„General Plan amendment and every single county and
city does general plan amendments. They are designating an urban
growth boundary. She asked that Supervisor Saraceni check with
Fresno, Yolo, Santa Cruz, and Visalia Counties.
Supervisor Saraceni again stated the county already had
a General Plan that relates to the protection of agricultural land and
that there are designations to protect that agricultural. land. and there
is zoning county-wide to protect it.
Supervisor Moseley would like to know how much it cost the
county to consider this project.
Supervisor Dolan stated if they were going to calculate the
cost for the proposal, then the Board needed to take part in the added
cost for the information that is in the EIR. The maps that they now
have are the same information she had two years ago. The maps are
repeated. She would like to know how many exhibits there were before
the Planning Commission hearings, at the time they forwarded their
recommendation to the Board, how many have been added to that during the
Board hearings, and what they spent at that time. The Board could have
taken action last December, 3anuary, Febuary or March. It is always
three members of the Board who make the final decision.
Chariman Wheeler stated there were questions raised about
putting the county in legal jeopard, if they made the General Plan
designation. There was also discussion about taking of land, which
had to be solved.
Del Siems.en, county counsel, spoke regarding the question
of whether rezoning constitued inverse condemnation. The only remedy
is to have the zone reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court has not had a
opportunity to rule on that matter. As far as case law is concerned,
there are really no damages awarded or liability found unless the use
of the property is virtually prohibited. Yn case law, as long as there
is some general use of the land, they have not found for damages.
Page 241.
July 21, 1982
~,
8~
a
July 21, 19.82
His opinion was that with the General Plan change that is before the
Board, this would not constitute any kind of liability, because .there
are uses on either side of the line.
Supervisor Dolan stated land use dicisions are never parcel
specific. How a development arises will affect that property's
neighbors. Use of surrounding land effects other property. The Board
has had farmers talk about rights of farmland. The more development
that moves in, the more complaints the county receives.
Northwest Chico Area
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, it is the intent of the Board to have a greenline as
reconm<ended by coalition line Na.l and at a further time to consider
a study area. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler.
NOES :Supervisors Mosely and Saraceni.
West Chico Area
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, it is the Board's intent to designate the greenline as
described in the proposal called the coalition from Muir and Highway
32 to Glenwood and Big Chico Creek. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton,
and Chairman Wheeler. NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni.
West Chico Area
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor
Wheeler that from Big Chico Creek to Little Chico Creek, which includes
North Graves as designated follow the greenline on the "A 2", following
the street boundaries of North Graves, which is basically following
"S-R" zoning, that the agricultural area be placed on the agricultural
side.
Chairman Wheeler stated,.primarily from Oak Park to River
Raad, this area is contiguous to the city, and some areas directly
about the incorporated area of the City of Chico. Even though the
Board is placing an agricultural designation, property owners have
a mechanism for development through annexation. They can make
application for annexation because the city services are available,
because there are sewer trunk and water lines that go through the area.
Supervisor Dolan stated they could request annexation, but
it requires approval of Lafco and the approval of the agency to be
annexed to. The area is currently zoned "A-10" zoning and they are
not taking away anyone's rights. While the sewer trunk which xuns
down Rose Avenue, is at capacity, the City of Chico is trying to
accomodate the last side. Because the sewer trunk runs through that
area, it does not mean there is available capacity.
Supervisor Saraceni stated as long as the land was located
within the city, it can be used for urban uses. If it is located in
the county, it must be used for agriculture. As long as there is an
annexation, it does not matter how deep the soil is. It can be built
on.
Supervisor Dolan advised soil was one consideration. Zoning,
parcel size and services in the area were other considerations.
Page 242•
July 21, 1982
~'.
8~
a
_ _ _JuIY 21, 1982_
J ~- Vote onmotion: ----------~~~---------__-
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni
Motion carried.
Durham-Dayton Area
Chairman Wheeler asked that the Heidinger, Sweet Nectar
Enterprises, and underlying subdivisions on the Conkie properties
be referred back to the Planning Commission far review and possible
inclusion or change of zoning in the future. She would like to send
it back £or a study and a recommendation to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor
Wheeler that the Board's intent to designate a greenline be as
recommended by the coalition, which is the pennisula concept.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the biggest portion of this
property is located within a Land Conservation Act agreement and with
the window provision there could be application to withdraw from the
Williamson Act. They could then apply for a General Plan change at
that time.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Bolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni
Motion carried.
South Chico Area
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the intent of the Board is to designate a greenline as
proposed by the coalition. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and
Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni.
RECESS: 4:45 p.m.
RECONVENE: 5:00 p.m.
The hearing was continued to July 22, 1982 at 1:30 p.m.
RECESS: The Board recessed at 5:01 p.m. to reconvene on Thursday,
July 22, 1982 at 10:00 a.m.
Page 243.
Ju1y~21, 1982
,,