Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sutter County Planning Commission hears public opposition to Lucidge rezoning request over traffic, drainage and buffer waiver
Summary
County staff described a request to re-designate about 5 acres of a 37.67-acre parcel from AG-80 to industrial/commercial and to waive the 300-foot agricultural buffer; neighbors testified to traffic, drainage and chemical-spray concerns. The hearing was held open; no final decision recorded in the transcript.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a Sutter County Planning Commission meeting, commissioners heard a public hearing on Project U24-0036 ("Lucidge"), a request to amend the general plan designation for roughly 5 acres of a 37.67-acre parcel (APN 13-280-021) from agricultural (AG-80) to industrial/commercial and to rezone the same area, together with a use permit to reduce the countys 300-foot agricultural buffer setback.
Ravenna Soria, Associate Planner, told the commission the site is on the north side of State Highway 20 approximately halfway between the rural community of Sutter and the city of Yuba City. The application, submitted for BC Enterprises LP care of Bill Lucic, proposes redesignating the southern ~5 acres of the parcel to industrial commercial and requests a full waiver of the 300-foot agricultural buffer from adjoining orchards. Soria said an initial study prepared for the project includes seven mitigation measures and a trip-generation analysis submitted to Caltrans; the initial study concluded the project would have a less-than-significant impact as proposed. Staff also reported three letters had been received and were included in the public record.
Neighbors who testified emphasized safety, nuisance and drainage concerns. Winifred Taylor, a Lytle Road resident, said existing heavy truck traffic and past incidents (she referenced a prior fatality) make additional traffic dangerous and cited property flooding she attributes to recent construction: "we get, he built a road ... our water backs up 1 and a half to 2 feet on our property," she said. Juan Anales and Juan Reynoso both said they oppose added traffic near family homes; Michael Murguia and John Pack described early-morning truck noise, unsafe merging at the frontage road and worry about how a zoning change could affect rebuilding after a loss.
Other commenters disputed the applicants account of local impacts. Bob Ingram, who said he has lived on Lytle Road for about 33 years, told the commission he had to "pump about 50,000 gallons of water out of my backyard this year" and asserted that a ditch had been filled, creating drainage problems. Ingram described a history of complaints about drainage that he said county staff had not acted on.
Representatives for the applicant responded that the drainage ditch referenced in public letters is private and outside county jurisdiction, and that the applicant (Bill Lucic) would clear the obstruction. A speaker identified as Mr. Massillon told the commission Caltrans did not require conditions for this proposal and that traffic impacts had been analyzed as insignificant. The applicant (identified in the agenda as Bill Lucic) said the property has been used for business for more than 20 years and that his operations primarily access Highway 20 rather than Lytle Road.
Procedural votes earlier in the meeting included approval of the minutes of the March meeting (motion carried) and approval of the consent calendar; both motions were recorded as passed by voice/roll call in the transcript.
The commission held the public hearing open for additional consideration and returned to staff for any further comments; staff said there were no additional comments at that time. The transcript ends with public testimony and applicant remarks; the record shows no final action or vote on Item 3 in the provided segments.
