Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM010880January 8, 1980 STATE OF CALIFORNIrS ) ', ) SS. COUNTY OF BUTTE ) 80-'', The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment. ~ ' Present: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board. '; Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America Invocation by Supervisor Moseley 1 RE-ORGANIZATION OF BOARD: SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN.., The meeting was called to order for the purpose of re-organization of the Board. Chairman Lemke declared nominations in order for Chairman and Vice Chairman for the ensuing year. Supervisor Winston nominated Supervisor Lemke as chairman and Supervisor Moseley as Vice-Chairman. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Wheeler. There being no further nominations the nominations were closed. Vote on motion: Ayes: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke. Noes: Supervisor Dolan. Motion carried. Supervisor Dolan stated she felt the chairmanship should be rotated each year. 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the minutes of December 18, 1979 were approved as mailed with a change in the public hearing dates set for the following changed from minute order 74-1994, December 11, 1979 meeting: The public hearing date of January 15, 1980 at 10:30 a.m. for consideration of Richard Vermillion and William Drew draft EIR and rezone from "A-2" (general) to "SR--1" (suburban residential - one acre parcels}, property located on the northeast corner of Garner Lane and State Hwy. 99, identified as AP 44-02-69, Chico was changed to January 22, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. The public hearing date of January 15, 1980 at 10:45 a.m. for consideration of Butte County Planning Commission - draft EIR and rezone from "A-2" (general) and "A-R" (agricultural residential) to "M-1" (light industrial}, "R-1" (single family residential), "R-4" (maximum density residential - restricted service), and "C-2" (general commercial), property ' located on both sides of Esplanade, from the intersection of Esplanade and State Hwy 99 to Lassen Avenue, Chico (as amended} was changed to January 22, 1980 at 10:15 a.m. 3 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2069: WAIVE SECOND READING OF SL•vARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the second reading of the salary ordinance amendment creating nine additional positions in order to insure success of the county's CETA program and minimize the possibility of disallowed costs was waived; Ordinance 2069 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.' APPEAL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR P05ITION RELATIVE TO FORMATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVE PROGRAM (PSIP), CETA TITLE VII: ACCEPT RECOMMENDATIONS I OF STAFF AND PROCEED WITH RECOMMENDATIONS SET OUT IN MEMO DATED JANUARY 7, 198;0 FROM PERSONNEL DIRECTOR Chairman Lemke advised that the Board had received a le~~er from the Department of Labor. on their position regarding the Private Sector Initiative Pragram (PSIP). Page 453 January 8, 1980 80- January 8, 1980 Jim Rackerby, personnel director, stated that he had written the Board a memo which summarized the position of the county regarding this program. When CETA was re-enacted, Title VII was added to the program. This was to stimulate and encourage the private sector to participate. Under the new CETA program there is a different group o£ people; they are the most needy and need work training. They are in a new era of spending considerable amount of time and effort in training these people to be self-sufficient. The experience the county has had with the private sector has been minimal. There is approximately $300,000 to $400,000 for the private sector. This is for subsidizing one-half of the salary in the private setting. The program has been limited. There has not been the interest in the major employers in the program. Title VII does permit a service kind of approach to employment for these disadvantaged people. The Title VII can be used for studies in the community. It can also be used to subsidize wages of employees in the private sector. When this was reviewed by CETAC and the Industrial Committee, it was found in Butte county in a survey of the industrial representatives that they would be willing to serve on a council if it were necessary. As for the individual businesses, they were not prepared to have an interest in the participation of the program. Mr. Rackerby stated that they have recommended that the Department of Labor be notified that the county does not wish to participate in the Title VII program. The background work was done. on this., The indication by the Department of Labor is that if the Board is to remain the prime sponsor, they must run all of the programs authorized and use the allocations for Butte County. Mr. Rackerby stated that there is a policy question before the Board on whether they wish to amend the CETA annual plan and establish a Private Industrial Council to oversee the program. He has suggested possible series of steps to incorporate this change into the plan. If the Board does not do this, there is the possibility of an appeal to the decision by the Department of Labor. What is left if the Board decides not to take the Title VII program is the threat they will remove the prime sponsorship from Butte County and it would go to the state and the Governor would appoint someone else to~run the CETA program. The Board would have no control over the money in the county. Mr. Rackerby stated that he had done considerable amount of contact with the private sector. He had found that there was interest out there and for the Board to retain the CETA program and that they would be willing to serve on a committee.--:.<".The county could use the money to determine the feasibility of using CETA in the private sector and to investigate the possibilities in the county. The Chico Chamber of Commerce manager has discussed the base data work with the Soard in the past. This would not be a service kind of program. It would be one of searching out information. If the results showed there was no interest and need, then the surveys would verify this and the county would have a strong position to go back to the Department of Labor. He has asked the Department of Labor to give the county a waiver of the January 11, 1980 notification date to January 18, 1980. Supervisor Winston stated that he objected to the program the county has told the Department of Labor they do not need. The county has answered the federal people with regard to the need for the program. They apparently are not interested in paying attention. He resented the fact that the letter is saying you use this program. He questioned what would happen to the CETA program if the county said take it away. He wondered what the effect would be on the participants. Mr. Rackerby stated he did not see an immediate effect on the participants. Where the program would go would be another question. Page 454. January 8, 1980 80- b' _ _ _ January 8, 1980 _ _ _ _ It would have to go to~some organization within the county that-has the r administrative ability. There-are possibilities of it going to CSUC, EDD or Butte County Superintendent of Schools. There is also the -=possibility it could go to a non-profit organization. There are some counties that are administered through the state CETA. The decision was based on the Department of Labor's legal council. Chairman Lemke stated that CETAC recommended that the county go ahead. He abstained from voting on the matter at the council meeting. There is a recommendation to adopt the Title VII plan and use the funds for planning purposes. It was moved by Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley that the county appeal the U.S. Department of Labor's position relative to the formation of a Private Sector Initiative Program. Supervisor Dolan stated that previously the private sector had been contacted and there was a survey done. Now, the Department of Labor is saying do this program or the county may lose the entire program. Mr. Rackerby has spent some time contacting the chambers, of commerce and other business groups who would represent smaller businesses and they are saying they have expressed a need to do a study to see the planning potential for employment. She felt the county should do the study and plan the first year. Mr. Rackerby stated that the study would give the county verification of to either use the program or to prove that the program was not needed at federal expense. If the appeal is filed, the program will have to maintain itself at its present level. This could effect the purchase of the computer for CETA programs. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that he did not see there would be anything to gain by appealing the matter. There is a lot to gain if the county complies with the regulations. The county would lose a great deal if they lose the prime sponsorship for CETA. Mr. Rackerby stated that one of the mandates of the program was to make an analysis of the private business opportunities. Mr. Rackerby set out how the EDD compute their figures. They are compiled from formulas and the unemployment applications. They are not an indication of the businesses available. He felt that during the appeal time, the program would remain status quo. If the ruling went against the county, they would be closing shop. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that after reading the regulations and the law it would appear the county has a good case. He suggested what the Board had talked about initially. If the Board wants to appeal, they should do so. Mr. Rackerby stated there would be no cuts to the participants. The things the Board has approved that they have worked to acquire to make the system more responsive, he felt would have a long delay in approval from the Department of Labor. Discussion of pursuing other avenues if the appeal were denied held at this time. The Board could go through the courts for resolution of this matter. Supervisor Dolan felt the private sector has said use the money for a study that has been needed for a Long time. Page, 455. January 8, 1980 80- ~' January 8, 1980 Chairman Lemke felt the Board should appeal this matter. He was not so sure that the only avenue was through the Department of Labor. He felt the matter should be taken up with the elected officials from Washington, D. C. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke NOES: Supervisor Dolan Motion carried. It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan that the recommendations of staff be accepted and that they proceed with. the recommendations listed on page 2 of the January 7, 1980 memo from the Personnel Director. Mr. Blackstock stated there was nothing in the regulations that prohibit the Board from appealing any decision of the Department of Labor. He did not see that the county was technically eliminated from appeal if administrative procedures were set up. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler and Chairman Lemke NOES: Supervisor Winston Motion carried. ACCEPT CETAC'S RECOMMENDATION RE: CETA TRAINING_PROGRAM CONTRACTS On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the recommendations of CETAC regarding the training program contracts to provide CETA participants training in agriculture, bookkeeping and general employment preparation was accepted and Director authorized to execute contracts subject to review by Counsel and Auditor. ,AUTHORIZE DIRECTOR TO SOLICIT REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR FOOD SERVICE TRAINING On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the Director was authorized to solicit requests for proposals for food service training ACCEPT RECOMMENDATIONS OF CETAC RE: CETA TITLE VI PROJECT PROPOSALS AND MODIFICATION REQUESTS On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, the recommendations of CETAC with regard to CETA Title VI project proposals and modification requests wets accepted. NO COST ACQUISITION OF FIXED ASSETS -- AUTOMATIC RIFLES FOR SHERIFF HELD UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING FOR PRESENTATION BY SHERIFF The discussion of no cost acquisition of fixed assets, automatic rifles, for the Sheriff was held over until later in the meeting for presentation by the Sheriff. ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-1.AUTHORIZING AAMINTSTRATIVE OFFICER AND PURCHASING OFFTCER AND BUYER TO BE COUNTY'S REPRESENTATTVES TO ACQUIRE FEDERAL SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, application for eligibility in the state surplus personal property program was authorized; the Chairman was authorized to sign assurance of compliance with GSA~regulations;_Resolution 80-1 authorizing Administrative Officer, Purchasing Officer and Buyer to be county's represent-- atives to acquire federal surplus personal property was adopted and Chairman ;authorized to sign. Page 45b. January 8, 1980 80- 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ = January 8 z 1980 = _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 APPROVE LETTER AGREEMENT - PETERS ENGINEERING - BUTTE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS PHASE III On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, the .letter agreement for engineering services with Peters Engineering of Sacramento to design and oversee the third phase of an electrical project on the Butte County Fairgrounds in an amount not to exceed $2,400 with funding from the State Division of Fairs and Expositions was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. 11 PRESENTATION OF REPORT ON COUNTY FINANCIAL POSITION SET FOR JANUARY 22, 1980 AT 1:30 P.M. The discussion and presentation of report on county financial position was set for January 22, 1980 at 1:30 p.m. 12 BISCUSSION AND POLICY DECISION RE: IMPENDING SHUT DOWN OF CCCJ OPERATIONS FOR REGION C - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 15, 1980 Discussion and policy decision regarding the impending shut down of CCCJ operations for Recion C held at this time. Howard Cassagrande, planning director for Region C, stated that the federal government has re-enacted and changed the formal operation of the LEAA program. Les Stenbrow, Region S, is also present to discuss the matter with the Board. The Board should try to determine their intent concerning the options available as to either functioning as an entitlement or as a combination entitlement. The county could also chose to function on a state mode of operation. Les Stenbrow, Region B, stated that Shasta County does not qualify for independent entitlement according to the federal statistics. Butte County by itself would not qualify as a single jurisdiction. Mr. Cassagrande stated that LEAA has projected that Butte County would receive $48,000. The single jurisdiction must provide $50,000 worth, of funds to qualify. With the cities in Butte County agreeing to be part of the entitlement there would be more than $2,000 which would be enough to bring the amount over the $50,000 minimum. Mr. Stenbrow asked that the Board consider the combination of Region B and C. In order for the regions to combine there is a need for the counties to be contiguous. Mr. Cassagrande felt that because of the population, Butte County is the only one that could carry the region. They would have to talk to the other counties. Without Butte County there is no way to go but balance of state. Monies that will be available for administrative purposes will be by law at 7-1/2%. It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan that Butte County maintain entitlement status for the purpose of the Justice System Improvement Act with the northern counties combining Regions B and C. Mr. Cassagrande stated that he was not recommending the combination of the two regions at this time. He is recommending that the Board try to form an entitlement with the existing Region C structure. He was sure that Region B could form their entitlement out of their existing boundaries. Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, asked how the program could be operated if the administrative costs were taken out of the $50,000. Page 457. January 8, 1980 January 8, 1980 80- He did not feel that general fund monies should be used for the program. a Mr. Cassagrande stated that he did not see any advantage of the combination of the two regions with the figures that have been furnished. There would be nine or ten counties to deal with and one Board. He understood this region was entitled to an additional $29,000 that would afford them the opportunity to complete the three-year application to June 1. Supervisor Winston made a motion to table the previous motion. The matter to be brought back to the Board January 15, 1980 for discussion and policy decision. RECESS: 10:10 a.m. RECONVENE: 10:23 a.m. I3 ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-2: PUELIC HEARING: A. E. EARHART - ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT PARADISE PINES UNIT 5 LOT 51 The public hearing on A. E. Earhart abandonment of public utilities easement, Paradise Pines, Unit 5, Lot 51 was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the abandonment. It is in order. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, the abandonment of public utilities easement, Paradise Pines, Unit 5, Lot 51 for A. E. Earhart was approved; Resolution 80-2 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. PUBLIC HEARING: CHERYL AND WALTER JUHL, ET AL - APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY APPROVAL OF EIR AND BIG CHICO CREEK ESTATES TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (DENNIS W. AND SUZY G. DURKIN), 172 LOTS, AP 42-15-34 AND 37, AP 43-27-01, 11 AND 12 ANA AP 43-29-19 AND 22, SOUTH SIDE OF WEST SACRAMENTO AVENUE, APPROX. 3,000 FEET WEST--©F HIGHWAY 32 CHICO The public hearing on Cheryl and Walter Juhl, et a1 appeal of Advisory Agency approval of environmental impact report and Big Chico Creek Estates tentative subdivision map {Dennis W. and Suzy G. Durkin}, 172 lots, AP 42-15-34 and 37, AP 43-27-01, 11 and 12 and AP 43-29-19 and 22, south side of West Sacramento Avenue,, approximately 3,000 feet west of Highway 32, Chico was held as advertised. Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background of the subdivision map. Posted on the board were copies of the subdivision map showing its relationship of the Big Chick Creek to West Sacramento Avenue, and location map and other developments in the area and the land use map for the Chico area. The map and EIR were approved. This mattex is on appeal to the Board. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the draft EIR. This project involved 170 lots on 73 acres in an area historically used for agricultural production. The site in question is presently an almond orchard although two-thirds of the property has trees that are 250 years old. The property is located adjacent to residential areas and is suited to agriculture because of the soil. Access is off West Sacramento Avenue with emergency access on Bidwell. The environmental impacts are a loss of agricultural land, effects of storm water, changes in traffic effects on public services and the relationship to the Rancho Airport. Alternatives are set`~ou4"'in the EIR. Page 458. January 8,_1980 80- ~', Jan_uary_8, _1980 _ _ _ _ - Bettye Blair, planning director, stated that the-Board had received copies of the Planning Director's Report as to conformity with the General Plan. It is important to note the comments from page 55 of the new land use element regarding the policy statements when a development bisects a category. The policy C-1B on page 30 should also be noted. This has to do with where past official actions have planned ayes for development. The project is in an "ASR" zoning district. Staff has prepared a staff recommendation regarding the white zone around Chico that is ready to go to the Planning Commission for this area. It is a proposed staff land use amendment. It has not been taken to the Commission at this time. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Ron Miller, Butte County Farm Bureau. Mr. Miller presented a letter from the Farm Bureau at this time. The Bureau voted to oppose the project on the grounds of agricultural preservation. He urged the Board to consider this. Chairman Lemke advised that the Board had received letters from the following people: Margaret Grant - opposed to the project Dorothy Hill - asking that the project he continued aim and Elsa McCrea - opposed to the project Margaret E. Hill - opposed to the project 2. Carl Leverenz, representing Mr. and Mrs. Durkin. Mr. Leverenz stated that he would address the narrow issue and basis for the appeal. The appeal is from the Advisory Agency relating to environmental review and the report and mitigation measures and the approval of the subdivision map. That process did not take place on November 26, 1979 when the decision on the project was made. It is an on-going process that has been going on for one year. The applicants have had Rolls, Anderson and Rolls working with staff revising reviewing the process and talking about mitigation measures. There were two major areas set out by Mr. Nelson. The traffic was a concern expressed by Public Works and the EIR. The mitigation measures being required of Mr. Durkin are to requixe West Sacramento Avenue be widened with curb,gutter and sidewalk being placed by the developer. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will be required on Bidwell even though it is not a traffic access. This will tie into other developments being mandated by Public Works which have been approved such as Walnut Woods, Leisure Wood and Highland Park. There are several items that have been required by Public Works, Planning and the Health Departments relating to any problems on the project. Mr. Leverenz stated that he would like to talk about the other problem which is drainage. The mitigation measure is to have dry wells for the non peak flows during the dry weather. There will be riprap during the storms. The Department of Public Works, Department of Fish and Game and Public Works have reviewed the plans and specifications and have approved this project subject to the conditions imposed. The applicants followed staff and the land use map and now find themselves being told they are out of step.- The concern of the Farm Bureau for agricultural purposes is a legitimate one. The problem is that even though the property has been used for agriculture historically, it is simply not a reasonable economic unit for agriculture. There is some question as to whether there could be a permit issued under the new rules for spraying because of the residential units being so close. This area has been an "ASR" are for a substantial amount of time. The people appealing the decision do not live in the "ASR" area. There are a number of people who live in the "ASR" area that do support the application. Page 459. January 8, 1980 January 8, 1980 80' Mr. Leverenz felt that the citizens of Butte County had a right b' to expect the Supervisors to follow the General Plan. The vote to sustain the appeal would be an irresponsible action, especially when time and effort has been spent by the Planning staff and the applicant to comply. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, answered Supervisor Dolan`s question as to whether the appeal was befiore the Board legally or not. The Advisory Agency recommended apgroval and people appealed that decision to the Board. 'The Board set a hearing and it is a proper appeal. 3. Bob Britton. Mr .' Britton set out how the area became an "ASR" area. There was an attempt to zone the area "A 10" which was blocked. Vistec proposed a cluster complex in the area when it was "A-2" zoning. There was a great deal of publicity in 1972 and the development was killed. 'The county required hookup to the sewers. About this time, the large landowners drew up a zoning proposal for "ASR" zoning. The choice was to support the "ASR" zoning or remain in "A-2" zoning. In 1973 the "ASR" zoning was approved and this eliminated the "A-2" zoning and apartments. In 1973 Highland Park was required to hookup to city sewers. This particular version of Highland Park met its fate in 1975. During 1975 they gathered a number of signatures to zone 1100 acres "A-10" zoning. The petitions were validated by the county. Then there was the pxoblem of the moratorium. This was not acted on for two years and then they were told they must pay an additional $100 for the EIR to zone this property in "A-10" zoning. Many people are priced out of zoning. Mr. Britton presented documents which further document the problems of the loss of agricultural land. 4. Robert Palmer. Mr. Palmer stated that he owned 2-1/2 acres on West Sacramento. It its present condition this property makes an ideal buffer zone between suburban and agriculaural use. There was a survey made of the residents bounding the affected area an January 5, 1980: 38% of them would not approve of the project; 76% favored one acre lots if developed; and 79% favored rejection of the project if it was shown there could be more money made if it were left in agriculture. Artice 1513 of the Environmental Code refers to the requirement to describe all reasonable alternatives of the project and specifically the alternative of no project must be discussed. He did not feel this was covered in the EIR. There must be discussion of alternatives which include alternatives capable of reducing or eliminating any significant environmental impacts. Section 15142 specifically refers to related projects. Mr. Palmer read Section 15142 at this time. He has heard there were two more projects in the planning stage if this project should be approved. With the prediction of county government facing problems, agricultural land is increasingly valuable. He asked that the Board follow the new General Plan and recommendations of the people and that future apgroval of developments be referred back to the Planning Department until the new book is completed. This is one of the plans hotspots. 6ne or two acre minimum restrictions would be a buffer zone far houses and for spraying for agricultural purposes. In the present state there is "ASR" zoning. He could not define. the two because they do not agree. He urged the Board to refer the matter back to Planning for the General Plan map and meet with the City of Chico on this matter. He had invited three members of the Board to a meeting and they did not attend. Supervisor Wheeler stated that she resented the innuendo of the fact that the Board was invited to attend meetings in the area. She set out her reasons for not attending the meeting. She resented the statement. Page 460. January 8, 1980 January 8 , 1980 80'. 5. Jerry Brandstatt. Mr. Brandstatt was opposed to the loss of b', 73 acres of valuable land. It is .unwarranted at this time. He stated he would like to present an agricultural alternative for the 73 acres that would provide the landowners with greater income. The data can be verified. There are several agricultural crops that are compatible with-the soil and the best is Kiwi. It requires little or no spraying. It is compatible with adjacent houses. The net rate to landowners from Kiwi would be $17,500 per acre net. If the price was $.50 per pnund the net would be $7,500 per acre. At $.20 net rate the value would be $2,500 per acre. The figures are higher than the $1,380 per acre figure shown as a typical interest rate. Chairman Lemke advised Mr. Brandstatt that Kiwis was not the subject being discussed. The statement proposing this property as a Kiwi farm was a proper statement. The rest of the remarks should be about the project being discussed. Mr. Branstatt stated that the market experts expect the market for Kiwis to level out at $1.00 to $.05 per pound. There is a strong domestic market and the buyex production market is untapped. The water usage is not=aswgreat. There are no smug pots. If the property owners want to grow Kiwis, there is a great deal of help available. Zn summary, he has presented a more profitable agricultural alternative for the 73 acres, which is compatible with the existing zoning in the area. There are a large number of residential lots available on non-agricultural land. Supervisor Wheeler stated that it was her understanding that in the Kiwi industry it takes between five to seven years to capitalize on the original investment. Mr. Brandstatt stated that it could take that long. 6. Donna Galassie. Ms. Galassie stated that she owned property on Rose Avenue and Oakpark. She is concerned about the community and the neighborhood. She has followed the progress of the issue closely. Investigation of the questions involved have indicated several things: the proposed development does conform with the County General Plan. It also appears the developer has met the requirements. The proposed acreage is adjacent to single family residence. She did not find the development objectionable. She stated that part of the reason she was taking this stand was personal. They chose to buy their property in the West Chico area because she was concerned about energy. By living in west Chico a person has the ability to walk to city services. By having development in this are it affords people an advantage the people in north and east Chico do not have and that is they do not need to rely on a car. She stated that she asked herself if it was right that now she had been able to buy in this area could she not allow someone else the benefit of doing the same thing. She felt others need the opportunity to live in a good neighborhood. 7. Lynfoxd Ward. Mr. Ward stated that he started Highland Park. The tentative map has been passed. This is an area that is going to develop. Although he is not involved in the area now, he did lose a great deal of money some time ago. The main reason he went out in that area was because he was talking as a businessman. People rely on zoning. This determines what will be paid for land. He offered to buy that property when it was in an "ASR" zoning district because it could be subdivided. He operated on what the city said that if he went in there with single family dwellings the city would put sewers in. After that time, the city called him and told him they understood that Highland Park was going to be approved. There was considerable controversy on the project. The city said that if the subdivision was going to be a,fact of life that the Board should put two restrictions on it. Page 461. January 8, 1980 80- ~! __Ja_nuar_y8, 1980 ______ _____ Chey would then extendTthe sewer to that property and bring the property into the city. He asked that the Board not accept the restrictions. Phree months after that the city said they wouldn't put the property on sewer. He asked that the Board remove the two conditions. They were not removed. He could have sold lots to individuals for $10,000 to $15,000 instead of the $25,000 to $35,000 that must now be asked. The actions of the pressure groups are responsible. Mr. Durkin bought the piece of property as an "ASR" zoning district property with the understanding he could subdivide this property. That is his right to do. There is no possibility of farming the property commercially. There are too many people who live around the property. He was a professional agriculturist at one time. 8. Will Bishop, Fish;--•& Game Warden. Mr. Bishop stated that the concerns of the Department of Fish and Game is that there is less than one percent of valley riparian habitat existing. There is some riparian habitat along Chico Creek. It supports a rare bird that is protected. along with protected mammal and reptile. He would be against development along Chico Creek. There is presently a threat of existing flooding problems. This is an official statement for the Department of Fish ,and Game. The bird protected is the Yellow billed Cuckoo. Supervisor Winston stated that there seemed to be a difference of opinion on the salmon spawning and streamflow. He understood that Mr. Bishop was objecting to the project because of the endangered species being endangered. Supervisor Dolan stated that the Department of Fish and Game have a legal responsibility to protect riparian habitat including the Highway 32 project that will have an effect on Chico Creek, because of cumulative effects. Mr. Bishop stated that they have to take into consideration the cumulative effects. They feel this project would be one project adding to the problem. 9. John Luwas, Chico 2000. Mr. Luwas stated that Chico 2000 does not oppose growth. They were concerned about the need for planned growth. He has been working with Preserve Agricultural Land on this and are persuaded to be extremely opposed to this project. RECESS: 11:10 a.m. RECONVENE: 11:20 a.m. SUPERVISOR WINSTON ABSENT AT THIS TIME. Mr. Luwas stated that he would like to speak on a subject particularly interesting to Supervisor Winston. He suspected that if not the primary then one of the most imgortant considerations is the zoning on the land. He has heard it said that one of the Supervisors has stated that there is not any choice in the matter. The zoning allows agriculture as well as residential uses and there are some legal ramifications on the side of the opposition. The General Plan has been quoted and supportative of the project. SUPERVISOR WINSTON PRESENT AT THIS TIME. Mr. Luvvas~,-felt the policy was to preserve agricultural land. That policy is obvious. It has been argued that previous actions can allow the county to ignore the rest of the plan and just not consider agricultural land. That is not the purpose of general plans. When the Page 462. • January 8, 1980 80- a, January 8, 1980 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ zoning for that area was approved, he was not sure that the General Plan was mandated. With the. text and the existing old map there are many portions of the plan that axe inconsistent. The map is inconsistent. The map prohibits a major portion from being developed. The county has ignored the wishes of a large majority of the property owners in the area. It has allowed the people who wished to develop to have their zoning and a couple of tentative subdivision maps. Public opinion is rather strong that this should not be developed. This along with the General Plan cannot be developed regardless of the zone. It is inconsistent with the General Plan. This was one of the reasons for requesting that this go back to the Planning Commission in light of the Chico area growth matters and property available for it. This should be sent back to Planning fox completion of the process. If it is determined there should be a different zone, the Board should go with that. The present zoning is inconsistent and should not be the basis for the proposal. He did not feel he needed to repeat the problems in the EIR of the significant effects. He felt there were a couple that should be stressed. One of the primary concerns is Rosedale School. It does not have the capability for more children. They would be looking at abusing situation. The safety;. of the school children is in question. The EIR raises the problems. The School Board has addressed the concerns. No one has a solution. He felt it was irresponsible to approve the map until a solution exists. Mr. Luvvas stated that the traffic hazards are inadequately covered in the EIR. The proponent would be required to widen Sacramento Avenue in front of his property. This projects impacts are not going to stop at the property. There would be Glenwood Avenue and Hwy 32 intersection. Should the county be required to subsidize development. He did not think so. There is another paint that has not be adequately addressed. This is the question of taxes and the county fiscal position in the matter. It is the farmers, industry and business that keeps the county going. Single family residences do not pay for themselves. If the Board removed agriculture from that area, which is more positive., cash flow to the county, the county fiscal position will he in worse shape. This may be the number one question for taxpayers in this county. The news is that there is no more money to pay for new roads, schools, law enforcement and fire. The taxpayers are becoming aware that there is no greater single place where fiscal economy is made than in land use. Permanently committing this to residential area will be a negative cash flow. It is time the county began to look at land use as a fiscal question. Above all that is the cost of police, fire and other expense problems the county is experiencing. There is a further problem that is water pollution potential in the area as the property is adjacent to the creek. The wells in the area are shallow. What happens to the wells. A number of people 3n the area use wells for domestic purposes. What happens with the addition-1 septic tanks? Ao the people living there all these years have any less right than does this one owner. He did not think so. If this is going to force the people on sewer and water supply, he did not feel it would be fair to them. These questions must be answered. The Board is not just looking at the question of one persons property rights. The economy of the county is dependent upon agriculture. Mr. Luvvas stated that in face of the overwhelming problems in the EIR and the hearing, the Board could approve the project any way if they wished. He reminded the Board of a legal point. Given adverse impacts, the law requires that the impacts be resolved or there must be overriding need for the project that can allow approval of the project any way. The EIR makes it clear there is no need for the project. In the Chico area only there are 11,000 residential lots that have been approved or about to be approved. Most of them are on the east side of town where the Board agreed growth should go. There is a great deal of Page 463. January 8, 1980 80- January_8L 1980 room for development on the east side. County Counsel wrote an opinion of Berger vs Mendocino County. The EIR must state reasons based on social and economic reasons that override°the effects the project might have. This is to be supported by evidence received in the EIR and public hearing. There is no need except for the property owner. A public need must exist. There is no need and in face of the impacts the Board legally cannot approve this project. It is unfortunate that the owner of the land has spent money and time. That happens all the time. That is the rule of speculation. Supervisor Wheeler asked Mr. Luwas if it wasnb true that when the people came in for the "ASR" zoning that the Friends of Butte County or someone Mr r Luwas was involved with said there was agreement there should be a buffer zone placed on Glenwood Avenue and five acres should be placed there. She asked Mr. Luwas if he was not in agreement. Mr. Luwas stated where a subdivision is existing. They were not ail in agreement that "ASR" should be allowed past Glenwood. Mr. Luwas stated that the number of lots approved by the city were existing or in the process of approval now. There are 400 to 500 acres in northeast Chico, which includes California Park. There is a proposed sewer assessment district for northeast Chico of 2,500 acres. Mr. Luwas stated that their organization works with neighborhood groups. They do not oppose all subdivisions, only those they are asked to participate in: Chairman Lemke questioned Mr. Blackstock as to the charges raised by Mr. Luwas on the legality of the project. Mr. Blackstock stated that he had not read the EIR and would not review the EIR unless there was a legal action on the matter. Staff is familiar with the EIR. Mr. Luwas mentioned one aspect of a violation of the General Plan that relates to the open space element that agriculture should be preserved. The Board is not talking about one or two elements of the plan. Staff has made a review and have found the project consistent with the General Plan. The EIR is not yet finished until the comments and reviewed by the Board from the public hearing held. Mr. Luwas is arguing that the project was not consistent with the General Plan. He did not hear any particulars except one issue in the open space element. Mr. Luwas stated that part of the language is to not have sprawl. He made reference to the map. The existing map is in partial conflict. Chairman'Lemke stated that Mr. Luwas had been before the Board prior to Chico 2000. He asked him where he was when his law partner put in Walnut Woods Subdivision. Mr. Luwas stated that he was in business with his law partner. He was not going to sabotage his project. The organization was in the early stages at that time. Supervisor Wheeler asked Mr. Luwas if he was saying that if he was in business with a person, he would not oppose them? Supervisor Dolan felt that the people were here today. That was what counted. Chairman Lemke stated that the validity of an opinion for one subdivision and another subdivision in the same area had a great deal to do with. it. Page 464. January 8, 1980 80= g' _ January_8,,1_980_______ __________ Mr. Luwas stated that the organization was not formed at this point. The residents were not foamed either and neither was the farming community of the county. The farmers are standing up to be counted as are*the residents of this and all other fringe areas. Chico 2000 was incorporated about March or April of 1978. They then began to organize the group and seek membership. 10. John Morehead. Mr. Morehead stated that he was a property owner and farmer in that area. He felt that if the property was zoned in a cextain way, a person has the right to develop the property that way. He felt they had to live and abide by the rules; that the people who make them should .also. 11. Wes Dempsey, parttime soils and agricultural consultant. Mr. Dempsey presented a soil map of Chico. There is about 25,000 acres of viva loam to the west of Chico. There is about 7,000 acres of farwell . loam. South and west there are oid valley basin soils, subject to flooding and poor drainage. There is an island of very good soil in the Chico area. Since 1925 and by 1975 there is about 15,000 acres of this that has been paved over. He had two concerns: 1.) Vina •Loam is very spongy. With septic systems there will be a health pxoblem some time in the future. 2.) As the agricultural land is shrunk, industry and the business base will find it uneconomical to exist in Sutte County. farm equipment businesses will stop existing in the area. 12. Pete Merlo. Mr. Merlo stated that he lived on West Sacramento Avenue and farms 65 acres. He voted for the zone. He was before the Board two years ago with Walnut Woods Subdivision. The Chairman made a statement that they were not just voting for this subdivision but voting for all concerned. He could not disapprove this one. It has been two years since that subdivision was approved. They are not going to build all those homes at one time. The main concerns in farming is the spraying problems they have now. They have more to worry about with the spraying regulations. He felt the programs put on the farmers by the state would be worse than the building of homes. These state regulations would be far burning and spraying. He felt there was zoning and there was no other choice but to apgrove the subdivision. 13. Kay Matzdorf, League of Women Voters. Ms. Matzdorf set out what she felt should be done with the project. Many felt when the state required development of the General Plan with the Land Use Element that the citizens should be able to understand the policies. It should be a stable framework for planning. She felt it was increasingly important to stop robbing tillable acreage. She felt with the possibility and large increase in traffic on West Sacramento Avenue that environmental changes would disturb the area. She felt the financial impact on the county would be staggering. The children would have to walk or ride their bikes on unsafe places. The samll farmer has a right to farm and they know they must lose him if a subdivision is placed there. The Board should _-. consider the citizen who moves to the subdivision. If this is a true attraction, the citizen would not ask the Board to destry it. They are bound to try to preserve the beauties of each of the communities. This new citizen has a right not to be part of the eventual loss of the newa~.area. There is support for a definite appropriate zone and special boundary. There are plans and policies areas in which to direct planned growth. Mr. Leverenzrsubmitted a. map and petition that was filed with the Board at the time of the subdivision that are in favor of the project. 14. Mrs. Henrique Merlo. Mrs. Merlo stated that her family had farmed in the area for many years. This area on Sacramento Avenue does Page 465. January 8, 1980 Januar~* 8,_1980 80= 3!. have easier ground to hoe. Anything you wanted to be planted will grow. You can work the ground without any effort. On Eckard Avenue the ground is hard. On their property in the area they planted watermelons in the almond orchard and irrigated them twice. They own a Little over 100 acres. They make a living off that 100 acres. There is Land in two districts. While farming in Durham they heard where the ground was polluted and traveled in the gravel underground and polluted the wells. The land on Sacramento Avenue has the same type of soil. Everything travels underground. She felt most of this would go into the creek. The wells in front of the creek will be contaminated. The soil is light sandy soil. She stated that the pollution from the washing machines would travel underground. This is beautiful ground. This is the reason they held onto the ten acres. They also have two other orchards. They are five and six years old. They have one acre of walnuts on the back of their orchard that is accessible to people. The people seemed to get the majority of the walnuts. Homes and agriculture do not mix. The more people the more problems. There could be problems with spraying. If there is agriculture,next to homes, you cannot spray. There are a lot of problems to consider. This is going clear to the river. Either this must be stopped or each farmer will have the same problem. 15. Frank Siller. Mr. Siller stated that he had been around longer than anyone. It was unbelieveable that all the. people can set here and waste this much time. Eventually the town is going to grow out there, maybe less than ten years. He was not for or against the project. They should be planning in this country. They should do something about the county. Another bridge should be built out there. He could not see the people sitting around at the hearing wasting time. It is too bad that Mr. Ward wasted his money out there. The developers should build the sewers out there. They cannot go out and build a little project ten or fifteen homes and do something for the existing property there. The roads should be rebuilt. The people should leave now and tine county should do some planning such as building sewers, streets and bridges. Eventually the town will be out there. There should be a water company out there. RECESS: 12:10 p.m. RECONVENE: 1:40 p.m. Chairman Lemke stated that the Board has heard testimony about agricultural land, traffic, fish and game impacts, schools, viva loam, water pollution. He asked that anyone coming forward to:~please limit their testimony to something that the Board has not heard yet. 16. Dan Hutfless. Mr. Hutfless stated that during 1978 khere were promises made to preserve agricultural land. Mr. Hutfless stated that he would like to ask Supervisor Wheeler some questions. Mr. Blackstock advised that this was not a cross examination issue. The Board is .here today to hear testimony and facts to be presented to them. Mr. Hutfless asked if the Board intended to have a question and answer session? Chairman Lemke advised that the Board was here to seek information, If Mr. Hutfless had information that was pertinent he sould present it. The Board will be in open discussion after the hearing is closed to the public. This is not a question and answer session. Mr. Hutfless asked how they were to get answers from the individual supervisors on the record? Page 466. January 8, 1980 _____ _====_January8,-1980 _________________ 80' Chairman Lemke advised-Mr. Hutfless that he could get answers ~ by calling the supervisors any-day of the week. He would receive comments when the Board makes a decision on the matter. This hearing is not a debate. It is an information gathering session. Mr. Hutfless felt that there had to be dialogue between the citizen representatives when it could be made available on the record. Chairman Lemke advised that it would be made after the hearing was closed and the Board members made statements. The Board is responsible for making the decision on the matter. Mr. Hutfless suggested that the 70 acres be left in agriculture. This is some of the best ground in the world. An economic entity as far as almonds is concerned could be as small as 50 acres. He did not see any reason to have any kind of subdivision or housing division put into that area when there is much area to the east and northeast of Chico. 17. Emily Storm. Ms. Storm stated that she lived six-tenths miles west of Nord across from Mr. Peters orchard. She was a neighbor of Mr. Merlo. She owned 6-3/4 acres. This was purchased 27 years ago. At that time, there was an old orchard on the property. They tried to put in fruit trees. They die because of the oak fungus. The property had never brought in a profit. She felt that she was entitled to use her property .in some vailid way under the law, Every landowner out there who is in the area of the zone should have the same consideration under the law. She did not see how one person could be allowed to build and then deny that right to another. As far as she could tell the project has been according to the 3aw.. She approved of the present zoning because it was the only zoning fair to every single landowner. She was also speaking for Mrs. Quirey. Mrs. Quirey has owned here property for 37 years. She has five acres of property and approves of the present zone and thinks everyone has the privilege to build or use it for agriculture. 18. Susan Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell stated that she was raised on West Sacramento Avenue. She did not feel that the people who did not ' live within the zoning district had the right to dictate what should be done in the zone. She felt that the,-people who lived in the area should have the xight to do what they want. 19. Jerome Peters. Mr. Peters stated that he promoted Walnut Woods Subdivision. Mr. Peters stated that he had heard ali of the arguments before when his project was up on appeal. This country is governed by laws. There is a law, which is "ASR" zoning, that allows Mr. Burkin to do what he is asking to be done. There are pros and cons. At the time, his project was appealed, 85% of the property owners living within the "ASR" zoning approved of it. He felt the Board would find approximately the same thing today. People out there feel this is not a rural community. It has become city. It is part of the residential community of Chico. He felt-that if Mr. Durking has complied with the zoning and gone through the environmental impact study and complied with the rules and regulations and everyone has had their chance to have their say, pros and cons, that some 85% of the people living in the area are for the project, he urged the Board to approve. the subdivision. He felt there was an area which should be saved for. agriculture and this area was not it. This area has turned into an urban development. He asked that the Board deny the appeal. 20. Wendy Brown. Ms. Brown stated that she lived on Bidwell Avenue. Ms. Brown stated that she was a backyard orchardist. She wondered about the economic feasibility of the property. She has heard a comment Page 467. January 8, 1980 January 8, 1980 80= b' ~n the comparisonrof the orchard owned by Mr. Durkin and the new orchard ~n Rose at Santa Clara. There is a distinct difference between ahem. A parcel of 70 acres is a viable unit. Comments are often made about those that oppose future development and those that have their piece. Those people who live there can see the richness of the area. The developers have a vested interest. Who is there to present the other side of the question? There is also talk about the law. The law reflects awareness of society. Much is made of the realization of unopposed projects in the past. As a country the people are looking beyond the axiom that.the ground is good. It is difficult to mobilize the public. The number of people who arrived at the hearing shows the great deali~of public concern. This represents a depth of concern that it is important for the governing body to pay attention to it. 21. Cheryl Juhl. Ms. Juhl stated that she owned about 12 acres on West Sacramento Avenue. There has been a lot of talk about zoning. The Board has heard about zoning and the attempts citizens made in the area to zone and rezone. The Board has heard that 85% of the residents are in favor of the subdivision. The survey taken shows 79% of the people are against the subdivision. She wondered where the 85%•was. Many of the subdivisions have been okayed on this one issue alone. He felt that zoning was made by the people and can be changed by people. Preserving land is sacred. Zoning is important. She realized that people need a place to live. There are a lot of places for people to live that allow farmers to make a living on farming. Her property is located in the "A-5" zone. She is intexested in zoning. They were told do not worry they will hold the line at Glenwood and Bidwell. Her land is in jeopardy. West of Bidwell there is 30 to 35 acres of land that is farmed that is zoned "ASR". She owns the adjacent property. She did not feel protected. That land could be subdivided tomorrow. They farm two crops; almonds part planted in 1909 and Kiwis which is on 12 acres. Zoning is the issue. She has heard it stated that the owner should be allowed to subdivide his land because he bought it in good faith knowing the property was "ASR" and it would be doing him a disservice if he was not allowed the subdivision. At the City Council meeting in late December, Mr. Durkin stated that when he bought the land he wanted to farm but because of mitigating circumstances he was not allowed to farm. Ms. Juh1 stated that Mr. Orville Tracy had to leave and she was presenting information for him. Mr. Tracy does live in the "ASR° zoning and is not in favor of the subdivision. He is on the Sterring Committee £or the Chico Sewer. Today we are looking at 170 lots. From his position, they are not dealing with 170 lots, but dealing with 500 lots. By using the county's statistics it is 2.33 persons per household and the Chico School statistics is 2.56 persons per household. This will be quite an impact. If this goes through, there are another ten acres being bid on by has office. She would like to stress alternative locations for the subdivision. There are statistics on the number of lots that have been proposed on the east side. There is talk o£ a sewer district. There are 85% of those property owners in favor of sewer. There is no overriding need for housing in this area. In the metropolitan area of Chico there are 55,000 residents, with 30,000 of those on septic. There are three wells from California Water that are already contaminated. Seepage does happen. This land is very much identical to those. Her well is at 45 feet. Some of the wells are 35 feet. 22. Shelton Enoch. Mr. Enoch stated that the Board was in receipt of a letter and resolution from the City of Chico. The ground they. are talking about is urban ground. The Board has heard testimony on the impacts on the streets and septic, which will lead to sewer. The .resolution of problems will lie with probably providing city services. Page 468. January 8, 1980 80+ .__-____=====January_8, 1980_________________• Approval of this will have a tremendous effect on the city. He is talking about Highway 32 and Sacramento Avenue. They are spending money to improve the city side of the street. If 172 units are put in, you are talking about sometime along the line where the intersection will have to be improved. This will come from the county or city coffers. If faced with the possibility of a sewer system, the City of Chico people will rebel at covering the cost of sewer. The people buying houses will be buying septic systems. Sometime this will have to be replaced by a sewer system. In the past, it seems one of the arguments in dealing with problems of the city and county differences has been the city has had a no growth posture. The developer that bulldozers an orchard says he does not like to do that but it would make it easier not to if they were able to go to the east side. The city is making great development for the east side. They are making a massive gamble to almost $10 million to the east that is either going to be used or not. There is a need to follow through. The direction from the county has been the city should make it possible for development on the east side. He felt that development on the west side was undermining this. The city has stated their position. He asked that the Board cooperate with them. He felt they were cooperating with the idea that growth is coming. The city has paid for some initial studies on the east side. They are forming assessment districts. Supervisor Wheeler stated that she remembered at a joint meeting between the city and the county that fhe city would not want to expand the trunk down to the system for northeast section. Mr. Enoch stated that it would be an entirely new line. This would go from East and Highway 32 straight across to the sewage plant. It is going to be large enough for the northeast area. They have a consultant working on developing the southeast Chico sewer assessment district. The line from East Avenue to Highway 32 cuts across the west side. 23. Steve Lane. Mr. Lane stated that he owned 6.3 acres on West Sacramento Avenue. The progosed subdivision surrounds his property. His property was appraised on the "ASR" zoning. He paid top money for the property. It would not be feasible to farm. Mr. Leverenz stated he would like to make some comments regarding the comments made at the hearing. It is true that the general policy for the Department of Fish and Game is as stated. By letter agreement the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Water Resources have approved the drainage fox the subdivision. One of the things mentioned is to provide over $10,000 for a new bridge on Rose Avenue. It is true as Supervisor Dolan asked the Planning Department about the General Plan. They would have plans to present to the Planning Commission. It was his understanding that the plans do not effect this property. The policy statement shows that it would be an error for the Planning Commission or the Board to make a change because of policy statement approved. He felt they had hopefully exhausted the narrow issue of the appeal: the insufficiency of the EIR and map. Mr. Leverenz stated that he served as chairman of LAFCo. He was involved with the drawing of the sphere of influence for the City of Chico. He believed in this line. However, if the line were to be drawn today, he could not support it. The fact remains that this area has become urban. He encouraged the Board to hold joint hearings. He felt it was critical that the property owners that live in this area be allowed to follow through on the "ASR" zoning. They are following the General Plan and procedure. Page 469. January 8, 1980 January 8, 1980 80- 31 24. Bob Hyman. Mr. Hyman stated that he lived on Bidwell Avenue. He was in favor of the subdivision. He is also speaking for Bob. Adams, his neighbor, and Mr. and Mrs. Don McKennan who are in favor of the subdivision. Mr. Hyman stated that one of the things mentioned is that Kiwis would be a good crop to raise in the area. Most of this axes in the zoning district is infested with oak root fungus. Kiwis will not grow in that fungus area. He noticed from the opposition that they are trying to persuade the Board to violate their oath of office and not uphold the laws of the zoning ordinance. He hoped that the Board would grant Mr. and Mrs. Durkin the right to proceed with the subdivision as outlined under "ASR" zoning. 25. Lynn Thomas. Ms. Thomas stated that she 13ved on Rose Avenue. She was out there when Caltrans was looking at the Rose Avenue bridge. She asked them about considering the safety of the bridge and was told that it was a fine bridge. There are no dangerous conditions. For that reason it is a safe bridge. The $10,000 is not going to go very far toward a bridge. Ms. Thomas showed the Board a booklet from Santa Clara County from many years ago. Butte County is what Santa Clara Valley was. She read a statement by James Farland~from this booklet to the effect that the human tide is devastating and sweeps things away. We must make a decision as to how the tide must be turned out. This is agricultural land. In the past Boards of Supervisors in the county have considered the rights of the developers to make a profit would be more important than the cost to the taxpayers of Butte County. She hoped that the Board would see the wisdom of maintaining an agricultural base. 26. Bob Carr. Mr. Carr stated that he lived on West Sacramento Avenue. Mr. Carr stated that agriculture involves more than Kiwis. It also involves cattle and feet lots. For years he has heard the City of Chico say they do not want development to the west. For years they have annexed property out there. There have been shopping centers and apartments buildings on West Sacramentn Avenue. Unless the Board allows the area to be developed for what it is zoned, they will have more tenement building on Sacramento Avenue. 27. Frank Brazell. Mr. Brazell stated that he has had an education in agriculture this morning, from growing Kiwis. The saddest part of these hearings is that anyone is allowed to come to the hearing and express opinions about something they know nothing about. He listened to the people give information about farming and they call themselves horticulturist. They are not farmers. The gentleman who just spoke about Kiwis and oak root fungus is right. The whole west side of the area has this problem. The. people have spoken about running out of agricultural land. The information from Washing, D. C. says that there is over 200 million acres of agricultural land in the U.S. There is 100 million acres of agricultural land that has never been touched. There is no one to go out and tackle the 100 million acres. He was amazed at the comments from the gentleman from the Fish and Game. He wondered if they went out and took care of rattlesnakes. He heard something from the Friends of Butte County is the way of a long lecture. He had the feeling that the bottom line was that the Board was being threatened with what happened in northwest Chico and he resented that. A few years ago the county was the almond capital of the world. This is not true today. There are more almonds in one orchard in the San Joaquin Valley than in Butte County. There was discussion about the west side. He thought that the Board had registered their intention of allowing Glenwood to become the boundary for future development. The zoning on the General Plan and the Land Use Element bears that out. There were people who spoke about soil and sewers. He has attended some of the meetings regarding sewers for the Chico area. All of the information presented and the drawings that Page 470. January 8, 1980 January 8, 1980 he has seen, have the sewers reaching northwest and north east Chico. The line-comes down Henshaw and cuts across this property. He was afraid they would tax the farmers for the sewers as they did for the drainage and not let them use their property. Mr. Brazell set out his onion business. He is selling onions for $1.75 per 100 pounds. It costs $2.50 per 100 pounds to put the onions in the barn. He will have to have 5,500 pounds of walnuts called back. They are 24% bad. This side of agriculture has not been discussed. He felt he was a qualified farmer. He put Glenwood subdivision in 20 years ago. At that time, he was told some of the same things that have been said at this hearing. 28. Muriel Turner. Ms. Turner stated that she was in favor of the subdivision. Either you can depend on someone's words or cannot depend on them. if the subdivision meets the requirements then it is a question of backing up your word. The forecast for population for Chico is that there will be over 100,000 within ten years. There is no way to stop people from moving into the area. It is growing by leaps and bounds. The high school and college are already there. That cannot be ', changed.' As far as agricultural land, this area has been cut up for housing. Ms. Turner stated that she had grown up 3n agricul'tiure. There is a need for a good size piece of property to farm. Last year the walnuts were sold for $.70 per pound and this year the offer is $.22 per pound. The people who paid $.72 per pound last year have dropped millions ofi dollars. ', It is a question of reliability and dependability of the zoning established. 29. Katherine Whitney. Ms. Whitney stated that "she lived on Bidwell Drive. She has lived in the area for over 30 years. There was an old almond orchard on the property. It has been torn down. They tried ', to raise other fruit trees. They have oak leaf fungus. For 15 years they have had Kiwis across the back fence. She knew that Kiwis grew in oak root fungus land. No one has mentioned the fire hazard. There is no j fire equipment on the west side of the tracks. There are many times that a train blocks the entire area for 20 to 30 minutes. If there was afire the whole place could burn down before equipment could be brought in. The same thing is true about accidents. She was concerned about the traffic hazard on Highway 32 and Sacramento Avenue. There is getting to be more concern along Oak Lawn. It is getting to be a freeway from Fifth Street to Glenn County and Sacramento Avenue. It is a very narrow street. The street has vehicles on both sides of the street. At the time the cars areparked on both sides, it is almost a one way street. This is the only good way to go to Oakdale School, in order to widen the street the taxpayers will have to pay the bill. There would have to be No Parking signs on both sides of the street. Rose Avenue bridge is dangerous. CESS: 2:55 p.m. CONVENE: 3:15 p.m. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. Supervisor Wheeler stated that she had a statement prepared she aas going to read. She felt that they had been answered on both sides. She read a letter from Harry Mead into the record at this time. This person is involved in agriculture. Mr. Mead is familiar with the property. ie was concerned that urban development be kept out of commercial agricultural areas. He supported the agricultural preserves. Mr. Mead did not feel :hat this area was suitable for commercial farming. He could not do any >urning on the property because of the regulations. It would be almost impossible to do the spraying necessary for the property. He did not feel :his area was agricultural area. Supervisor Wheeler stated that the letter spoke for her feelings. Page 471. January 8, 1980 80- $', • _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ = January 8, .,198_0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ It^was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Winston that the appeal be denied and that the Board tentatively approve the Big Chico Creek Estates tentative subidivision map (Dennis W. and Suzy G. Durkin), 172 lots, AP 42-15-34 and 37, AP 43-27-O1, 11 and 12 and AP 43-29-19--and 22, south side of West Sacramento Avenue, approximately 3,000 feet west of Highway 32, Chico and returning this project to staff deferring final disposition for two weeks for preparation of a motion to cover legal points. Supervisor Dolan stated that the Board had received many letters. It gives exactly the opposite facts. She could not support this. She was very cognizant of the law. The law says when environmental impacts have been poinial out to the Board there must be overriding statements. She did not feel the cumulative growth, the conversion of agricultural producing land into urban, the effects on public services and the cost to the county in that, there is not even afire station on the west side, traffic and circulation have overriding considerations. She .understood the requirement for sidewalks. The safe road for children was down Bidwell. The majoritA of the area will not have sidewalks. Rose Avenue and Oak Park are narrow and there are no sidewalks. She felt the effects on public services was very serious. The only overriding consideration that she felt the Board could come up with is the need for housing. The environmental statement says that the need for housing cannot be demonstrafied in this area. The City of Chico is beginning to approve and has approved making the east side accessible to development. On page 2 of the EIR it states the need for housing has been taken care of. It is not an overriding consideration. She could not support this. Supervisor Winston stated that CEQA speaks as a document to be used as a guide calling attention to possible environmental effects. The statements contained in the report do not have to be necessarily believed by the individual decision maker. Mr. Blackstock stated that if the Board finds something that is incorrect this should be put in the Board's findings. Supervisor Winston stated that he could disagree with the statement in the EIR that says this is viable agricultural land. This is based on personal observation and comments made at the hearing. It is unfortunate they are no longer dealing with agricultural land but there has been encroachment of urban uses. Supervisor Moseley believed that staff did an excellent job of presenting the application. She felt the integrity of the Board was on the block. She did not believe this was viable agricultural land. Supervisor Dolan stated that in looking at the aerial photos of the area it shows trees. Supervisor Wheeler stated that the aerial photos were from 1975. Supervisor Bolan stated that the area being considered is still in trees. The Board sat through hour after hour on the Ceneral Plan Land Use Element. The Board did not have discussion on the certain areas in white. The Board agreed that these were study areas. This means it is still an official study area. This was called a study area because of the conflicts of opinion. Supervisor Wheeler stated that she did not mean for that particular area to be included as it is zoned "ASR" zoning. Page 472. January 8, 1980 January 8, 1980 80- Chairman Lemke did not feel that the study area would take b', precedence over current zoning. .There are study areas throughout the ', county, including Paradise, Gridley and Biggs. There was no moratorium places on the study areas. They are to be studied for land use element but would not stop everything from happening inside of the study areas. The Town of Paradise was left out for further study. Paradise has their own planning now. Supervisor Dolan stated that it was enough for her. She knew the study is moving forward. The Board received a request from. Chico to meet together. Supervisor Winston stated that he had driven down Bidwell in the last few weeks. He observed many homesites o£ one acre. He notices current land divisions done by four by fours on Bidwell right now. He has had many calls from individuals. Mr. Palmer questioned certain members of the Board not coming to his house for a meeting last Friday night. He was out front. He has told the people that his attitude was pointed out in July 1978 when he stated that even considering the new adopted General Plan, he has observed a trend was established for that area. At that time, as far as he was concerned, it would appear that Glenwood was the line. As fax as he was concerned any effort to intrude into agriculture past that line would be met with opposition by him. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke NOES: Supervisor Dolan Motion carried. DISCUSSION OF CITY OF CHICO LETTERS RE: REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE TO STUDY GENERAL PLAN AND AREAS OF CONFLICT Discussion of the City of Chico letters requesting that a ten-member citizens committee (five from the city and five from the county) be appointed to review the county General Plan Land Use Element for the Chico area and the City of Chico General Plan Land Use Element to alleviate areas of conflict and the letter requesting that a committee of three Council members and two Supervisors be formed as soon as possible to discuss and dissolve discrepancies between the city and county general plan within the areas surrounding the city and also forwards its resolution concerning urban development west of the city limits was held at this time. Chairman Lemke appointed Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler to the committee ceith the three Council members. Each Board member is to bring back a recommendation for the ten-member committee on January 15, 1980. Supervisor Dolan stated that it was her understanding that the Planning Commission was going to receive recommendations for and ask for citizen group imput into this. She was concerned that there would be one committee to vote on it and a citizens' committee not knowing what they are to do. Chairman Lemke felt that both committee would be giving input into the matter. Bettye Blair, planning director,. stated that it is not on the Planning Commission`s agenda at this time. It will depend an what the committees generate. Page 473. January 8, 1980 80- b,'i January 8, 1980 _ - - - - Supervisor Dolan asked for the Planning Commission's comments on how the committee can work. 16 PUBLIC HEARING: RIGOVERTO AND ANITA FELIX - APPEAL DENIAL OF SEPTIC TANK PERMIT FOR A MOBILE HOME ON AP 46-12-1-9, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1256 BRUCE STREET, CHICO The public hearing on Rigoverto and Anita Felix appeal denial of septic tank permit for a mobile home on AP 46-12-1-9, property located at 1256 Bruce Street, Chico was held at this time. Supervisor Wheeler stated that Mr. and Mrs. Felix were not going to appeal the matter as it was not legally possible. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. The hearing was withdrawn from the Board's consideration. 17IAPPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved: B-52 - Federal Revenue Sharing - Fixed Assets - Administration Building. Transfers $35,000 from the unallocated appropriation (miscellaneous expense) to equipment in order to cover the cost of draperies and additional furnishings in accordance with action by the Board of Supervisors on December 11, 1979; Minute Order 79-1982. B-53 - Welfare Administration. Transfers $2,500 from regular salaries and wages to overtime in order to cover unanticipated overtime of child protective services activity. B-54 - Probation - OCJP record system upgrade. Transfers $1,028 from the reserve and together with $9,255 in unanticipated revenue - federal aid, establishes a budgetary appropriation for special department expense, $140 and equipment, $10,143. This is for the OCJP Probation Record System Upgrade Grant which has been approved by the Board of Supervisors and approved by OCJP on December 20, 1979. ~- B-55 - Central Services - Duplicating. Transfers $134.10 from overtime to extra help in order to cover the cost of extra help needed due to employee illness and vacation. B-57 - District Attorney - Famil Support. Transfers $1,000 from professional and specialized services to overtime in order to provide an appropriation to cover the cost of anticipated employee overtime in establishing new budget cards so as to comply with regulations. Chairman Lemke questioned where the $35,000 for B-52 came from. He wondered if it was part of the balance that the Auditor would be talking about on January 22, 1980. Supervisor Winston stated that this is an unallocated appropriation out of the revenue sharing for the building. It is already in there. 18 DISCUSSION OF NO COST ACQUISITION OF FIXED ASSETS - AUTOMATIC RIFLES FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 15, 1980 ROR:=REPORT FROM SHE Discussion of no cost acquisition of fixed assets, automatic rifles for the Sheriff's department was continued to January 15, 1980 for report from the Sheriff. Page 474. January 8, 1980 80- _--___~___= January 8, 1980_-_____-____~____ 19 On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the following Community Action Agency items were approved: 1. Approved Emergency Crisis Assistance Program contract in the amount of $107,576 with the Energy Crisis Assistance Program to provide assistance to eligible households to offset the high cost of household energy for a period from December 1, 1979 through September 20, 1480 with the contract providing $6,752 in administrative costs and $100,824 in program funds and the Chairman authorized to sign. 2. Approved contract amendment Ip2 to contract ~~800-0184 with the Department of Energy for the low income weatherization assistance program to change the termination date from December 31, 1979 to March 31, 1980 and the Chairman authorized to sign. 3. Approved contract modification with the Fresno County Economic Opportunity Commission which changes the Rural Home Repair Program to extend the termination date from September 30, 1979 to June 30, 1980 and increasing the amount of the contract by $2,000 and to provide for one additional residence to be services under the program and the Chairman authorized to sign. 4. Approved the 1980 Senior Nutrition Program contract with California-Department of Aging in the amount of $352,273 for the period January 1 through December 31, 1980 and includes $297,218 in Older Americans Act Title III-C funds and $55,055 in USDA reimbursed funds with the change from the County of Butte to Community Action Agency and the Chairman was authorized to sign. 20 DTSCUSSION AND POLICY DIRECTION - COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD - PUBLIC SECTOR APPOINTMENTS - CONTINUED TO JANUARX 15, 1980 FOR REPORT FROM COUNSEL RELATIVE TO APPOINTMENT OE ALTERNATES Discussion of the public sector appointments to the Community Action Board held at this time. Chairman Lemke stated that there were three alternatives listed. The Board could serve as a member with an alternate or appoint a member with the Supervisor being the alternate. He wondered whether the new non-profit corporation law regarding alternates would apply. The matter was continued to January l5, 1980 for a report from Counsel relative to appointments of alternates. 21 APPROVE SHORT TERM LOAN -- COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the short term loan for Community Action Agency for a period not to exceed one month in order to continue the Senior Nutrition Program ($30,000) and the census project ($2,000) for an interim period until program funds are received was approved. 22 APPEARANCE: BOB WRAY Discussion of the letter from Bob Wray who writes in follow-up to the discussion before the Board on December 18 concerning his request for a well germit as part of his tentative parcel map held at this time. Supervisor Winston stated that he had not been present at the meeting and asked Mr. Blackstock if he had made the statement. Page 475. January 8, 1980 3 January 8, 1980 ' - - Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated the he believed his quote was fairly accurate. He made the statement after Mr. Wray. had quoted him. Mr. Blackstock stated that he was sorry for an trasma involved. Mr. Wray asked if he would get an apology for the statement that was made. Chairman Lemke stated that to clear the air so there are no damages to Mr. Wray's business relationships a simple apology would get the whole thing over. Mr. Blackstock stated that in all fairness what he said was accurate. It was said in relationship to what he had quoted him as saying. He was commenting on Mr. Wray's quote of his. He would apologize for the tramaa and concern. Mr. Wray stated that he would apologize to Mr. Blackstock. Mr. Blackstock apologized to Mr. Wray. 23 DISCUSSION OF BUDGET TRANSFER B-52 - FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING - FIXED ASSETS - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Discussion of budget transfer B-52 - Federal Revenue sharing - fixed assets - Administration Building held at this time. Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated that it is coming out of the $156,000 in the budget as unallocated revenue sharing. The county has an issue with the Federal Government regarding the contracts. The excess from this contract would go back into revenue sharing.- 24IAPPROVE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX CONTRACT__- CLINTON L. HARRIS On motion of Supervisor Winton, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the safety deposit box contract with Clinton L. Harris to inventory safety deposit boxes of decedents for the purposes of inheritance tax collections with the amount of the contract for $7.50 to ,- inventory each box within the Paradise urban area and an additional $5.00 for boxes outside of the Paradise urban area was approved and the Chairman authorised to sign. 25IAPPROVE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TAX DEEDED PROPERTY - CITY OF CHICO 26 26 On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, the agreement with the City of Chico for the purchase of tax deeded property identified as AP 46-09-4-011 with a purchase price of $294 was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. APPROVE 1980-81 TITLE XX PLAN - WELFARE On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the 1980-81 Social Service (Title XX) Plan for Butte County Welfare was approved. '.APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS'ITEMS: ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-3 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler (land unanimously carried, the following Public Works items were approved: 1. Authorized the Chairman to sign the letter amendment 4P2 to grant agreement for Meyers Street EDA Project X607-01-02056 which revises the project development time schedule. 2. Adopted Resolution 80-3 approving Program Supplement No. 8 Revision 1 to Local Agency - State Master Agreement No. 03-5912 (traffic signals on East Avenue at E1 Paso Way and Pillsbury Road) which provides ,use of State Budget Item 169.1 ftii~~"s in the amount of $11,852 to be Page 476. January 8, 1980 January 8, 1980 80- used in lieu of the county's matching funds for construction of the project b' with the total cost of $85,200 (federal $73,348 and state, $11,852) and the Chairman authorized to sign. 3. Accepted the improvements on Kelly Ridge Subdivision Unit No. 6, authorized release of performance and labor and materials bond and commenced the one-year maintenance period. 27 AUTHORIZE CALL FOR PROPOSALS TO EXPAND PRESENT SYSTEM TO ALLOW FOR GENERAL PUBLIC USE ON OROVILLE AREA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, call for proposals on expanding the present system to allow for general public use on the Oroville area public transportation system was authorized. 28 ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-4 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR RUTH E. MOONEY - ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT, PARADISE PINES, UNIT 4, LOTS 289 AND 293 On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, Resolution 80-4 setting a publio hearing date of February 19, 1980 at 10:00 a.m, for consideration of Ruth E. Mooney abandonment of public utilities easement, Paradise Pines, Unit 4, lots 289 and 293 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 29 ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-5 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR F. C. NASH - ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT, PARADISE PINES COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, UNIT 3, LOT 28 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, Resolution 80-5 setting a public hearing date of February 19, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of F. C. Nash abandonment of public utilities easement, Paradise Pines Country Club Estates, Unit 3, Lot 28 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 30 PUBLIC HEARING DATES SET The following public hearing dates were set: 1. A public hearing date of January 29, 1980 at 10:45 a.m. was set for consideration of Dorothy Harris proposed negative declaration and rezone from "A-R" (agricultural - residential) to "AR-MH" (agricultural residential - mobile home) propexty located approximately 400 feet north of V-6 Road, approximately 700 feet west of Lower Wyandotte Road, identified as AP 36-022-22, Oroville. 2. A public hearing date of February 5, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. was set for consideration of Craig-Mooretown Ridge area rezone (EIR has been certified) from "A-2" (general) to "R-C" (resource conservation), "P-q" (public - quasi public), "C-1" {light commercial), "H-C" (highway commercial), "C-F" (commercial forest), "FR--2," "FR-5,"."FR-10," "FR-20," "FR-40" and "FR--160" (foothill recreational - 2, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 160 acre parcels) for the area Located between the South Fork and the Middle Fork of Lake Oroville and west of the town of Feather Falls. 3. A public hearing date of January 29, 1980 at 11:15 a.m. was set for consideration of Southern Pacific Land Company rezone (not subject to environmental review) from "A-2" (general) to "TP-160" (timber preserve - 160 acre parcels) property located approximately 1.5 miles south of Bald Rock Road, approximately two miles east of Oroville-Quincy Highway, identified as AP 71-02-23, northeast of Oroville. Page 477. January 8, 1980 80- 31 a. 321 331 _January 8, 198_0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = ADOPT ORDINANCE 2070: WAIVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE-REPEALING SECTION 13-116 OF. THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE RELATING TO SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the second reading of the ordinance repealing Section 13-116 of the Butte County Code relating to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was waived; Ordinance 2070 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. AUTHORIZE SENDING OF LETTER TO THE STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD IN RESPONSE TO TWO LETTERS RECEIVED FROM THEM Dan BFaekstock,,-county-counsel, was authorized to send a letter to the State Mining and Geology Board in response to two letters received from them relative to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR REGISTRATION OF PEST CONTROL AIRCRAFT PILOTS, PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND PEST CONTROL OPERATORS IN THE COUNTY OF BUTTE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 15, 1980 WITH REQUEST THAT AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER BE PRESENT The proposed resolution setting fees for registration of peat control aircraft pilots, pest control advisors and pest control operators in the County of Butte was continued to January 15, 1980~with the Agricultural Commissioner to be present. 34IREPORT ON PROPOSED POLICIES RE: FACILITIES AT NEW ADMINISTRATION CENTER CONTINUED TO JANUARX 22, 1980 The ~~report on proposed policies regarding facilities at the Inew Administration Center was continued to January 22, 1980. 35IREPORT CONCERNING CHANGING OF COUNTY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICE HOURS Discussion concerning-the changing of county departmental office hours held at this time. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that .their position is that the 8 to 5 is just fine and should be held at that. If you have instances for specific purposes this ccould be changed. Supervisor Winston stated that Mr. Brown wanted to stagger the work crew in the Assessor's Office. The basic hours the county would be open would be 8 to 5. Supervisor Moseley asked if there would be any difference by leaving the building open from 7:30 a.m, to 5:30 p.m.? Chairman Lemke stated that this was done by the Assessor to offer his services before and after normal working hours. It is a very valid offer to make. He wondered if the dooxs were locked at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Nickelson stated that very shortly after 5:00 p.m. the building was locked. In the winter it would be dark in the morning and at night. Supervisor Winston suggested that Mr. Nickelson talk with Mr. Brown regarding this matter and explain the problems. Mr. Nickelson felt that the off icelvurs would encourage dissent. When a person shows up at the Assessor's Office at 7:30 a.m. and finds they must talk with another office, they will have to wait until 8:00 a.m. REPORT REGARDING WORDING OF LETTER REQUESTING REPEAL OF SECTIONS 601 AND 201 ON JUVENILE CRIMES HELD OVER UNTIL AFTER JUVENILE JUSTICE HEARING Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that he had sent the Board a memo regarding Sections-.601 and 201 on juvenile crimes. Page 478. January 8, 1980 ~i _January 8, 1_98_0 _ _ _ _ _ _ The matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Committee for their recommendations. 37 APPOINTMENTS TO BIGGS MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, the following were appointed to the Biggs Memorial Hall Committee: Evelyn Kelleher Frank Mathauser 38 I DISCUSSION OF APPOINTMENT TO PARADISE MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE Discussion of the appointment to the Paradise Memorial Hall Committee was held at this time. Chairman Lemke stated that he was aware of the appointment of the Paradise Memorial Hall person. He has done some research on the matter and still has more research to do on the matter. This is a four year term that the people were appointed to. The Board has appointed two people to the committee. He felt that the Board should establish a policy similar to the Planning Commissioners. He will look into the matter further. 391 APPOINTMENT TO BUTTE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT - DISTRICT 5 On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, Karen Vercruse was appointed to Butte County Mosquito Abatement District, District 5. 40 APPOINTMENT TO MENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the following were appointed to the Mental Health Advisory Board: Dr. Virginia Harich G. H. Goddard, M. D. Candince Toyoda APPOINTMENT TO AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 15, 1980 The appointment to the Agricultural Advisory Commission was continued to January 15, 1980. APPOINTMENT TO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DRUG ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ADVISORY BOARD - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 15, 1980 The appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee on Drug 'Abuse and Alcohol Advisory Board was continued to January 15, 1980 43 APPOINTMENT TO OROVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, Waldo Yates was appointed to the Oroville Cemetery District. CHAIRMAN TO SIGN LETTER RE: SB 1367 - LICENSE FEES FOR BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTORS The Ektairman was authorized to sign letter regarding SB 1367 license fees for building and construction inspectors. PUBLIC HEARING ON NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ABANDON DURHAM CEMETERY AND DEDICATE IT AS A PIONEER MEMORIAL PARK TO BE HEARD ON JANUARY 15, 1980 WILL BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 29 1,980 AT 11:30 A.M. Chairman Lemke stated that he had received a call from Jan Holman requesting that the hearing on the Durham Cemetery be continued. Page 479. January $, 1980 January 8, 1980 g0 Chairman Lemke advised that the hearing would be opened on 3 '', January 15, 1980 and then continued to January 29, 1980 at 11:30 a.mc ': 4 COMMUNICATIONS ', Robert E. Paulus, county fire warden. Mr. Paulus submits his notice of resignation as the County Pire Warden. Letter of appreciation to be sent. Richard C. Shipley, Paradise. Mr. Shipley writes appealing the Planning Commission`s proposed zoning change far his property identified as AP 71-19-30 which is part of the Craig-Mooretown rezone. Considered earlier in the meeting. Doris Miller, Oroville. Ms. Miller writes appealing the Planning Commission's denial of proposed negative declaration and use permit to allow professional offices on property zoned "H-C" (highway commercial), AP 36-71-5, corner of P`oothill Boulevard and Oroville-Bangor Highway, Oroville. Set for hearing February 5,..1980 at 10:15 a.m. Bachman & Associates, Chico. The engineers, on behalf of Dennis Harford, appeal the Advisory Agency`s condition ~l4 on a tentative parcel map, AP 39-37-73, four lots, east side of Dayton Road, approximately 500 feet south of Stanley Avenue, .Chico. Set for hearing January 29, 1980 at 11:45 a.m. Mary E. Hyde, Laguna Hills. Ms. Hyde writes in opposition to the granting of a use permit. for Steven Lester for AP 50-23-59 which was denied by the Planning Commission. Hearing has been set for January 15 at 11:30 a.m. Ann M. Wertis, Laguna Hi11s. Mrs. Wertis writes in opposition to the the gxanting of the Steven Lester use permit which was denied by the Planning Commission for AP 50-23-59. Hearing has been set for January 15, 1980 at 11:30 a.m. Joseph 5. Smatko, Santa Barbara. Mr. Smatko writes in opposition to the granting of a use permit for Steven Lester which was denied by the Planning Commission for AP 50-23-59. Hearing has been set for January 15 at 11:30 a.m. John F. Connelly, Chico. Mr. Connelly writes advising that he is not able to sign the use permit as presented because of the special conditions for AP 44-41-27, southwest corner of Esplanade and Tonea West, Chico. Referred to Counsel. Morris J. Keeney, Agnes Keeney, Morris B. Keeney and Joan Keeney, Durham. The Keeneys write sending notification that they are terminating their Land Conservation Agreement in Agricultural Preserve No. 2 and are starting their ten year withdrawal period as of December 30, 1979. Referred to Planning and Assessox. Morris J. Keeney and Agnes Keeney, Durham. The Keeneys write sending notification that they are terminating their Land Conservation Agreement in Agricultural Preserve No. 2 and are- starting their ten-year withdrawal period as of December 30, 1979. Referred to Planning and Assessor. Robert J. Wray, Oroville. Mr. Wray writes in follow-up to tYee discussion before the Board on December 18, 1979 concerning his request fox a well permit as part of his tentative parcel mag. Handled earliex in the meeting. aga 480. January 8, 1980 b January 8, 1980 Aden-Feather Community Association. The association writes commending Bob Geiser in the Planning Department for work in conjunction with upcoming zoning consideration. Copy of letter to go to Bob Gaiser. City of Oroville. Mayor D'Arcy writes extending the city's appreciation for the assistance received which lead to the construction and completion of the Huntoon Street railroad overpass in Oroville. Information; no action taken. Boles, Chico. Mr. Boles writes thanking the Board for actions requiring the Casa De Flores Mobilehome Park to conform to the keeping of the 'White Avenue gate closed except for emergency traffic. Information; no action taken. erry McGuire, Chico. Mr. McGuire, on behalf of the North Chico Traffic Committee, writes thanking the Board for its considerations and actions regarding the recommendations of the committee. Information; no action taken. 9ellie G. Flavin, Palm Springs. Ms. Flavin writes requesting that excess proceeds due from the sale of her former property (AP 62-50-0-109) at the delinquent property tax sale last year be returned in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code Secfion 4675. Referred to Auditor and Tax Collector. Citizens Committee for "Jaws of Life." The committee writes forwarding information concerning their activities and requesting assistancetx, for the purchase of "Jaws of Life" (Hurst tools) for use by the Butte County Fire Department. Referred to Administrative Office for report back. J. McClanahan, certified public accountant. The accountant forwards his audit in accordance with the terms of the Grand Jury/Board of Supervisors audit agreement for 1978-79. Administrative Office to refer to departments for comment. Lumber Company, Marysville. The company forwards information concerning revenue losses to various counties that are affected by withdrawal of U. 5. Forest Service multiple use lands and placed in wilderness status and urges support of HR 5586. Referred to Assessor for recommendation on January 15, 1980. Coalition, Fairfield. The organization writes forwarding information ' concerning the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and requests that the Board support the deletion of Title 2, Part C of 5-914. To be considered on January 15, 1980. ty of Chico. Mayor Evans writes requesting that a ten-member citizens committee (five from the city and five from the county) be appointed to review the county General Plan Land Use Element for the-Chico area and the City of Chico General Plan Land Use Element to alleviate areas of conflict. Handled earlier in the meeting. of Chico. Mayor Evans writes requesting that a committee of three Council members and two Supervisors be to discuss and dissolve discrepancies between the city and county general plan within the areas surrounding the city and also forwards its resolution concerning urban development west of the city limits. Handled earlier in the meeting. Page 481. January 8, 1980. January 8, 1980 80- State Office of Emergency Services.The department forwards information $ ; concerning the county's .participation in the Emergency Services Program for the period ending June 30, 1979. Information; no action taken. George Deukmejian, attorney general. The Attorney General forwards information concerning the declaration of 1980 to be California Crime Watch, the first year in a decade long plan to restore public safety. Referred to the Sheriff. Assemblyman Alister McAlister. Assemblyman McAlister forwards information concerning the California Crime Watch Program. Referred to the Sheriff. State Department of Water Resources. The department sends notification that they have executed Amendment 6 to the water supply contract and also indicates that the amendment provides that in the event bonds are issued under the Bond Act or other authority, with the repayment period extended beyond 2035, that the repayment period for costs of facilitiea financed by bonds will be extended to the maturity date of the last maturing bond. Referred to Counsel. USDA - Farmers Home Administration. The Department writes concerning the South Oroville Drainage Project and advises that the date for completion has been extended to June 1, 1980. Information; no action taken. Congressman Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson. Congressman Johnson sends notification that the Farmers Home Administration has approved a total of $288,700 in federal grant and loan funds for the South Oroville drainage project. Information; Administrative Office to write Congressman Johnson letter for Chairman's signature. Department of Energy. The department sends notification that they are planning to rehabilitate a portion of the Cottonwood--Elverta No. 3, 230-kV transmission line in northern Tehama County and run it to a point just north of Oroville. Information; no~.action taken. U.S. Department of Labor. The department sends notification of its requirement that Butte County initiate a Private Industry Council (PTC). Handled earlier in the meeting. 4 ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-6 IN APPRECIATION OF SERVICES BY HAL BISHOP ON BUTTE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, Resolution 80-6 in appreciation of services by Hal Bishop for the Butte County Senior Citizens Council was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 4 ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-7 IN HONOR OF MRS. VERNON °LEFTY° GOMEZ On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, Resolution 80-7 in honor of Mrs. Vernon "Lefty" Gomez to state that behind every good man is a good woman was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 49 ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY SUPERVISOR DOLAN Supervisor Dolan stated that she had received a note from the City of Chico that on January 9, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. the transit buses will be available for viewing. Page X82. January 8, 1980 January 8, 1980 80= 50 COMMUNICATIONS CONTINUED $ Town of Paradise.' The Town submit their ordinance that wherever the term "Board of Supervisors" is mentioned in Chapters 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 26A 27 and 28 of the Butte County Code it shall be deemed to mean "Town Council of Paradise" regarding appeals. Information; no action taken. ADDITLONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Moseley asked what was happening in Gridley with Valley Oaks Health Care Center. They would be happy if the Board would write a letter in support of their position. The Administrative Officer to work up a letter for signature. Supervisor asked about the letter from Judge Rutherford. Mr. Nickelson advised that this was a request for transfer of funds that will be on the agenda next week for the Chico Municipal Court. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 4:36 p,m. to reconvene on Tuesday, January 15, 1980 at 9:00 a.m. ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-- RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chairman, Board of S erviso~~- By Page 453. January 8, 1980