HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011282January 12, 1982
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
COUNTY OF BUTTE )
82~ The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment.
v Present:- Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman wheeler. Clif
Mickelson administrative officer; Del Siemsen, county counsel; and Clark A.
Nelson, county clerk-recorder, by Nancy 47ilson, deputy clerk.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of. the United States of America
Invocation by Supervisor Moseley
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 9:03 a.m. to hold a closed session
regarding proposed litigation.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 9:25 a.m. after holding a closed session
regarding proposed litigation. See following minute order.
SUPERVISOR MOSELEX ABSEN'1 AT THTS TTPSE
59 BOARD TO PROCEED WTTH LITIGATION AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD
Chairman Wheeler stated the Board has decided to initiate action
against the Assessment Appeals Board on behalf of the Assessor. The action
is to restrain the Assessment Appeals Board from reopening a hearing and the
Bcard of Supervisors' will provide outside counsel for the Assessment Appeals
Board.
60 APPROVE ,MINUTES - CONTINUE ~+lINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 1982
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
carried. the minutes of January 5, 1982 were approved as mailed.
Continued approval of minutes of January 6, 1982 to January 19, 1982.
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni and Chairman P7heeler NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moseley
61 ADDITIONAL AGENDA TTEMS (BOARD MEMBERS) TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE DAY
Chairman Wheeler stated the Planning Director had indicated to the
public there would be discussion regarding interpretation of "C-2" zone at
the 11 o'clock hour. They should abide by this.
Chairman 47heeler indicated discussion regarding the Williamson Act
contracts would be held after the lunch recess.
OR MOSELEY PRESENT AT THIS TTME
62
ROVE `- AUDIT REPORT SUMMARX FOR CETA SUBGRAN2
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
ried, the CETA subgrant audit report summary prepared by the Auditor-Controller
CETA On--the~Job Training subgrant to State of California Employment Develop-
t Department covering the period October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1979
reviewed and the issuance of the initial determination was approved.
63 WAIVE FIR5T READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE Ab1ENDb1ENT
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni,
the first reading of a salary ordinance amendment establishing four new
classifications and reflecting wage increases for Superior and Municipal Court
Judges was waived.
Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated he felt the salary
ases for the judges would involve a budget transfer from the reserve.
will bring back the figures next week.
Page 55.
January 12, 1982
82 -
__-________= Janua~=12,=1982 ____ ____________
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Ilolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
bIotion carried.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-5 - PERSONNEL RULES CHANGE TO SECTION 7.18
0'4
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
carried, Resolution 82-5 changing Personnel Rules, Section 7.18 to correct a
problem regarding seniority rights towards annual merit increase for employees
reinstated from layoff was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
APPROVE VACATION ACCRUAL CARRYOVER - PERSONNEL RULES SECTION 13.1
65
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Pdoseley
and carried, pursuant to~Bersonnel Rules Section 13.1 excess annual leave
accruals for several department heads unable to take all of their vacation
days were authorized.ao;;be=carried over.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2262 _ URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING COUNTY CHARTER - SETTING
CHARTER AMENDPiENT ON JUNE 8, 1982 ELECTION
Del Siemsen, county counsel, set out the background on the urgency
ordinance his office prepared regarding the County Charter amendment to
consolidate the Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector and to
separate the Public Administrator from the District Attorney. There are
three measures.
56
Carl Morton, Chico, stated he had previously sent the Board a
memo on this Subject as well as the Treasurer--Tax Collector. Mr. Morton
presented a copy of correspondence from Fidelity and Deposit Company for
information. He voiced his opposition again to the consolidation. He did
not feel there would be a savings.
Supervisor Dolan stated this ordinance would place it on the June
ballot. She felt the public should vote on it. There was a savings when
the Clerk and Recorder were consolidated. She felt the formation would be
greater effeciency and a savings of money.
Mr. Siemsen stated the Constitution indicates the measure whseh-
gets the most votes will be effected. If one passes, it is the only one
effected. Tf two measures pass, then the two with the most votes will be
the one changing the charter amendment. It is set out in the ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
carried, Urgency Ordinance 2262 setting the charter amendment to consolidate
the Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector and to separate the Public
Administrator from the District Attorney on the June 8, 1982 election was
adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-6 - SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION TO COUNTY
SERVICE AREA NO. 23 (PLEASANT VALLEY DRAINAGE)
Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated this item and the
next agenda item must be set for public hearing.
67
Supervisor Dolan questioned if 100 percent of the population were
requesting the change, was a public hearing required on Pleasant Valley.
Mr. Mickelson felt it would not hurt to set it for public hearing.
Chairman Wheeler indicated a number of individuals have voiced
their concerns about being placed in this district.
PaSe 56.
January 12, 1982
82-
n8
69
70
January 12, 1982
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
carried, Resolution 82-6 setting a public hearing for February 2, 1982 at
10:00 a.m. for consideration of annexation to County Service Area No. 23
(Pleasant Valley Drainage} was adopted. and the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-7 - SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FORMATION OF COUNTY
SERVICE AREA NO. 83 FOR STREETLIGHTING AND STORM DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
carried, Resolution 82-7 setting a public hearing date for February 2, 1982 at
10:00 a.m. for consideration of formation of County Service Area No. 82 for
streetlighting and storm drainage maintenance in Lakeridge Village was
adopted. and the Chairman authorized to sign_
APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
carried, the following-budget transfers were approved:
B-123 - Public Guardian. Transfers $1,500 from professional and
specialized services to extra help for services provided by the Andex
Corporation.
B-124 - Fire Protection - Regular. Transfers $100 from maintenance
of structures to fixed assets - equipment in order to cover unanticipated
increased costs of a hose tester.
CONTINUE TO LATER IN THE MEETING - COMMUNICATIONS PROCEDURES FOR HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Discussion regarding Housing and Community Development recommendation
regarding policy for conmunications with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development held at this time.
Chairman Wheeler continued the matter to January 19, 1982 to enable
the Board to receive background information on this matter.
Supervisor Saraceni stated this was in regards to the letter from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development requesting correspondence
coming from Board of Supervisor letterhead rather than from the consultant.
Pat Osborne, Connerly and Associates, stated there was a new
program representative at HCD and they requested in the future when sending
letters of inquiry on behalf of the County to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to have the Chairman of the Board sign the correspondence.
There is no such requirement. She questioned if they must come before the
Board to clear each letter or have them typed in their office and sent for-
ward for signature. It would not take away the Boards prerogative. There
has been turn over of employees at .the state and each has different opinions.
Normally they reguest information or clarification.
Chairman Wheeler stated she would like to hold the matter until
this afternoon as she will.be responsible.
Supervisor Dolan questioned if .the letters should be coming before
the Board prior. to signature. She felt they should at least have copies of
letters sent to HUD. •
Supervisor Saraceni stated he did not feel they were setting..new
policy. He has no problem with the Chairman looking over the .correspondence
to HUD on items they have approved.
Ms. Osborne stated in the future when a question is asked over the
telephone of HUD, they will write it down and respond. If anything comes in
Page 57.
• January 12, 1982
82-
b
71
72
73
74
_----_-Januar~l2, 1982-~______________
_~_ _ _ = W = - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _
writing it will require the Chairman's signature.
Continued to later in the meeting.
TAKEN OFF THE AGENDA - MINOR HOME REPAIR PROGRAM CONTRACT AMENDMENT
The Housing and Community Development Minor Home Repair Program
contract amendment extension taken off the agenda at this time as it was
approved on January 5, 1982.
APPROVE TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TAX DEEDED LAND
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, a purchase agreement received from City of Chico .on AP 005-28-0-
001-0 for tax deeded property and subject to be sold pursuant to Revenue and
Taxation Code Chapter 8 was. authorized and the Chairman authorized to sign.
CONTINUE TO JANUARY 19, 1982 - DISCUSSION ON SESVAGE STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT
Chairman Wheeler stated she would like to discuss the Sewage Study
Committee report in public. She set out the individuals on the committee.
Dan Hays, chairman, Sewage Study Committee, stated there were a
lot of complicated requirements to go through. There is the possibility of
disbanding the committee, but there are other items they would like to discuss.
There is the issue of septic pits. It is a special system and requires
technical knowledge which is changipg on a daily basis. The Environmental
Health Director has requested the committe continue to meet, so when he
becomes aware of difficult problems they could meet and discuss them.
Chairman Ldheeler appreciated the work done 6y the committee. She
has not reviewed the study completely and would like to continue the discussion.
The matter was continued to January 19, 1982 at 1:30 p.m. for a
study session with the Sewage Study Committee.
APPROVE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROVISION OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM
AND PRE-HOSPITAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE PERSONNEL ACT, SB 125 OF 1980
Discussion regarding the implementation of the provisions of the
Emergency Medical Services System and Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Care
Personnel Act, SB 125 of 1980 was held at this time.
Dr. Svihus, director of public health, set out the background on
SB 125. The Wedworth-Townsend Act which set up the paramedic program expires
January 1, 1982 and is replaced by SB 125 of 1980 and they overlap. The
Board must implement SB 125 or the life programs will expire and be illegal.
SB 125 does not provide any money for the conduct of the program. They
presently have a contract with Butte College for lioensing of paramedics.
He has been managing the program since he came to Butte County. It would
mean more homework. He would be writing reports and drafting plans. He
will try to absorb the work as best he can.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated this is not man-
dated, it is permissive. If there are any costs, the county must handle them.
If they chose to not implement, the program is not legal.
Dr. Svihus stated they have asked Butte College what the costs would
be to license for the coming year. Other counties have implemented SB 125.
They have delayed as long as they can. The state has indicated they cannot
delay any longer or they will not be legal. Some counties have regional
programs or separate county departments which run them. If the county does
not handle the program, no one will. Butte College does certify ambulance
drivers. They can do it on behalf of the state. He has talked with Butte
College regarding their charging fees directly and only do management part.
Page 58.
January 12, 1982
82 -
'~
_ Janua~ 12, 1982 ~___ ___ ~___________
He met with Emergency Care Hospitals and with Oroville. This would free up
staff time to write reports. If not enacted, Enloe and Gridley would be illegal.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would like to look at the issue and
gather more information. He would like to meet with Dr. Svihus and gather
anticipated costs.
Continued the matter to January 19, 1982 in order to talk with staff.
RECESS: 10:07 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:13 a.m.
Supervisor Dolan stated during recess she discussed the matter with
Br. Svihus and staff. They have been operating for 11 days without legally
being in conformance. There is a problem with liability. They are dealing
with peoples lives. It is not going to become any clearer than the state has
already set out. The state has done it to them again.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley,
to implement the Emergency Medical Services as designated in SB 125 with
the Director of Public Health as medical director be approved; and not in
any way implying that the request eliminates the Board's concerns and to
investigate it further of the imposing of fees coming from the state that
is in disagreement.
Supervisor Saraceni stated the program was one of the best they
have had in the past. If you do not support it, you do not have it. They
must pick up the costs.
Dr. Svihus stated the costs will be in administration through report
generation. They have done it before.
Mr. Nickelson was concerned about the additional work. He felt
later there would be requests for typist clerks for the organization. If
you keep adding more it trickles down.
Supervisor Dolan stated they could ask the Emergency Medical Services
to report on how it will be implemented legally and share the burden
of new added requirements.
Dr. Svihus. stated he has been working on this. They have agreed.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
Motion carried.
75
PUBLIC HEARINGS: BUDGET TRANSFERS FAR ASSESSOR, MEDFLY CONTRACT, TRIAL JUROR
PER DIEM ANA CHICO RIVER ROAD LOW WATER CROSSING PROJECT
The public hearings on the following items were held as advertised:
1. Budget transfer-83 - Assessor. The Assessor requests a transfer
of funds in the amount of $4,000-from the reserve to professional and special-
ized services.
2. .Budget transfer--120 - Medfly contract. Increases appropriations
in the P1edfly Program. __..
3. Trial juror per diem. Report regarding consideration of trial
juror per diem and mileage reimbursement and Grand Juror mileage reimbursement.
Page 59.
January 12, 1982
82~-
January. l2, 1982
• ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ T = _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
4. Road project - Chico River Road low water crossing. Consideration
is requested for repair to a low water crossing on Chico River Road one-half
mile north of Ord Ferry at a cost of $22,000 €rom the road reserve.
Hearings open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearings closed .to the public and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
to approve the following budget transfers:
1. Budget transfer-83 - Assessor.. The Assessar requests a transfer
of funds in the amount of $4,000 from the reserve to professional and special-
ized services.
2. Budget transfer-120 - Medfly co_n_tract. Increases appropriations
in the Medfly Program.
3. Trial juror per diem. Trial juror per diem and mileage reimburse-
ment and Grand Juror mileage reimbursement.
4. Road project - Chico River Road low water crossing. Repair of
a low water crossing on Chico River Road one-half mile north of Ord Ferry at
a cost of $22,000 from the road reserve.
Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated there has not been
a determination of cost for the trial juror per diem and mileage reimbursement
and Grand Juror mileage reimbursement.
Motion amended:
76
On amended motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor
Saraceni and carried,. the trial juror per diem and mileage reimbursement
and Grand Juror mileage reimbursement deleted from previous motion.
PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY JAIL - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE PROPOSED RENOVATION
AND EXPANSION OF THE JAIL
The public hearing on the Butte County Jail consideration of adoption
of mitigated negative declaration regarding environmental impact for the
proposed renovation and expansion of the jail was held as advertised.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, set out the background
on the hearing. This is a requirement fox consideration regardless of where
the source of funds come from.
Steve Streeter, planning department, stated they have received no
comments. It is a proposed conditional negative declaration. This action
will not follow any. action unless there is funding for the jail. There are
three mitigated measures. Mr. Bruce Albert could speak of those concerns.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
carried, finding that althought the proposed Butte County Jail renovation
and expansion project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the following
mitigated measures. and a negative declaration is recommended:
Page 60.
January'12, 1982
82 -
a
__Ja_nuary 12y 1982 _ _____ ___ _____
'1= Shield and direct security hghtings so as to avoid distractions to
passing motorists and encroachment onto residential properties in the
vicinity.
2. Construct a left--turn lane at the intersection of County Center Drive
with the access road to the jail.
3. Retain eucalyptus trees and other mature trees except in the actual
areas of physical development or as needed for security purposes.
PUBLIC HEARING: GARY RAP7LINS PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND REZONE FROM "R-4" (MAXIMUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
RESTRICTED SERVICE} AND "A-R" (AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL) TO "PAuC"
(PLANNED AREA - CLUSTER), PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
EAST AVENUE AND ALAMO AVENUE, IDENTIFIED AS AP 42-07-168., 169 AND 170, CHTCO
The public hearing on Gary Rawlins proposed negative declaration
regarding environmental impact and rezone from "R-4" (maximum density
residential restricted service) and "A-R" (agricultural - residential) to
"PA-C" (planned area - cluster), property located on the southeast corner
of East Avenue and Alamo Avenue, identified as AP 42--07-x.58, 169 and 170,
Chico was held as advertised.
77
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated they had received a memo
from the Clerk of the Board regarding this application. There was a telephone
conversation this morning withdrawing his request .for hearing.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
carried, the withdrawal of Gary Rawlins proposed negative declaration and
rezone from "R-4" and "A-R" to "PA-C", property located on the southeast
corner of East Avenue and Alamo Avenue, identified as AP 42-07-168, 169 and
170, Chico was accepted.
ADOPT RESOLUTIONS°'82-8 AND 82-9 - PUBLIC HEARINGS: DAVID MCEWEN ABANDONMENT
OF A PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT AND RECREATIONAL EASEMENT, PARADISE PINES
UNIT 14, LOTS 111, 112, 113 AND 114 AND BARBARA BROGDEN ABANDONMENT OF A
PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT AND RECREATIONAL EASEMENT, PARADISE PINES UNIT 14,
LOT 134
The public hearings on the following were held as advertised:
78
1. David McEtaen abandonment of a public utilities easement and
recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 14, Lots.lll, 112, 113 and 114.
2. Barbara Brogden abandonment of a public utilities easement
and recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 14, Lot 134.
order.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated the applications were in
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 'No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the following were approved:
1. Adopted Resolution 82-8 abandonment of a public utilities
easement and recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 14, Lots 111, 112,
113 and 114 for David`MCEwen; and the Chairman authorized to sign.
2. Adopted Resolution 82-9 abandonment of a public utilities
easement and recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 14, Lot 134 for
Barbara Brogden; and the Chairman~;authorized to sign.
Page 61. '
January 12, 1982
January 12, 1982
82 -79
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2263 - PUBLIC HEARING: SAM AND RUTH GARDNER (ITEM DETERMINER
TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW) AND REZONE FROM "A-R"
(AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL) TO "AR-MH" (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE
HOME), PROPERTY LOCATED ON. THE NORTH SIDE OF WATERBURY LANE, APPROXIMATELY
500 FEET EAST OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, GARDEN RANCH AREA, IDENTIFIED AS
AP 36-54-17, SOUTHEAST Ok' OROVILLE
The public hearing on Sam and Ruth Gardner (item determined to be
categorically exempt from environmental review) from "A-R" (agricultural -
residential) to "AR-MH" (agricultural residential - mobile home), property
located on the north side of Waterbury Lane, approximately 500 feet east of
Foothill Boulevard, Garden Ranch area, identified as AP 36-54-17, southeast
of Oroville was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, .stated this is recommended forward
from the Planning Commission. They have received all information and any
additional correspondence. The applicant had previously requested an interim
zone and an "Aunt Minnie".
Supervisor Dolan stated the Planning Commission recommended "AR-MH-1".
Supervisor Saraceni stated they went in on an "AR-MH" and the Board
approved. it and they came back with a recommendation for an "AR-MH-1".
Ms. Blair stated there can be further subdividing if they can
arrange. for sewage disposal. She is recommending other than what was requested.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated the question that came up was
whether or not a public hearing should be held on the recommendation as it
was not noticed to the public.
Ms. Blair stated the recommendation coming forward was different
than the applicati:on.:
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded. by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, noting that the proposed project is categorically exempt from
the requirements of CEQA; further finding that the proposed rezone from
"A-R" (agricultural ~>residential) to "AR-MH" {agricultural residential -
mobile home), property located on the north side of Waterbury Lane, approx-
imately 500 feet east of Foothill Boulevard, Garden Ranch area, identified
as AP 36-54-17, southeast of Oroville is consistent with the Butte County
General Plan; Ordinance 2263 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
RECESS: The Board of Supervisors recessed at 10:30 a.m. to hold an Air _
Pollution. Control District Board meeting.
RECONVENE: The Air Pollution Control District Board reconvened at 10:30 a.m.
to hold a public hearing.
80 (PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE AIR POLLUTION DISTRICT FEE SCHED
The public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Air Pollution
District fee schedule was held as advertised.
Joe Bandy, air pollution control officer, set out the background on
the proposed fee schedule to recover costs of air pollution control. This was
the result of a series of meetings with his staff. The county portion of his
budget is $70,000 with. $34,000 funded from the state subvention funds. It has
'been brought up the Air Pollution Control should be given back to the state to
Page 62.
January 12, 1982
82
_ January 12, 1982______ _ ______ ___
handle. The fee schedule was developed to pick up some of the fundings~and
it not come from the General Plan. The cost is 62 cents per man, women and
child in the county for one year. Because of budget constraint<pproblems and
the upcoming year, his office was directed. to do this as a reasonable cost
recovery and to become self supporting by those that pollute the most whether
it is a burn or stationary source. This would reduce the county subvention
money by 80 percent which is the minimum that could be reduced in order to
obtain the $12,000. Mr. Richard Booth can answer all technical matters.
Mrs. Sidney Thornton from the State Air Resources Board is present in the
audience and if necessary could make comments back ~o the state.
Letters from Katharine G. Bolles and Diller Hefkruau read into
the record at this time voicing their opposition to the proposed fees.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he received many telephone calls all
of which were emphatically opposed to the additional costs. He received
two letters in opposition.
Mr. Bandy stated there have been many concerns regarding the type
of material that can be burned. For the home owners the annual permit fee
would be $5. Under Section 4-4 of the regulations are Health and Safety
regulations which are exempt.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Ray Hendrix, Golden Feather area, polled those in the room who
were opposed to the fee schedule. He felt the fees were ambiguous. He
questioned the fees on horsepower motors. He felt the schedule contradicted
itself. He felt it was another layer of government agencies. He indicated
the public notice did not show exempt.`: e::~ areas. The newspaper articles did
not state any exempt areas. The public was not given the full information.
Everything looked like a big dollar sign to achieve a $79,000 deficit.
2. Orin B. Stratton, Linhaven Drive, Chico, stated he felt this
was an attempt to balance the county budget. There is the $S fee for the
homeowner and a $15 first time fee. It might have flown in Los Angeles, but
it will not in Butte County. This document is blanket authority for Mr. Bandy.
He felt Mr. Bandy should check into the mandates and changes in legislation.
They are not following Proposition 4. They should take heed of what the
people said at that election. He felt the user should pay the costs in certain
areas. He should comply with the fire department guidelines and that is it.
He felt the Board should deny this fee schedule.
3. Lee Cellers, Victor Industries, Chico, stated he called the
Air Pollution Office regarding the fee schedule. He felt the fee was
tremendous. Victor has been one of the largest payrolls in the county. Over
the past three to five years they have had to pay $150,000 to come into
compliance with Air Pollution controls. He could not pay the proposed fees.
He was opposed to the proposed fee schedule.
4. Ed McLaughlin, Durham, representing Butte County Farm Bureau,
stated the Farm Bureau has a lot of interest in this issue. They are
categorically and totally opposed to this measure. it is a disguise to
circumvent Proposition 13 and put money into policing industry, rice people
and hullers. He was aware of the county budget problems. A lot of the
people in the Richvale area have complied with the regulations and are ones
who pay the bulk of the taxes in the county. It is not just fees, it is
double taxation they cannot afford.
5. Chris Hurshel, Yankee Hill, was concerned regarding the fees
for motors, gas lawnmowers, welders, sunken pumps and generators.
gage 63:
January 12, 1982
82
3
**
_ _ _ Janua_ry_ 12, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
• ~ Richard Booth, deputy air pollution control officer, stated alluof
the items referred to are exempt from fees. Fire places and wood burning
stoves are also exempt.
6. James Hanson, Oroville, stated when industry has to pay more,
people have to pay more., He was opposed to the fee schedule.
7. Milton Jessee, Butte County Rice Growers, stated the Rice
Growers were on record opposed to the fee schedule. Mr. Jessee read from
a prepared statement. He urged the Board to reject the resolution at hand. -
8. Aouglas Cook, Concow-Big Bend Road, questioned who would be
responsible for burned down dwellings and burning in wood. stoves. The
$5 and $15 fee is a lot to people in the mountain area. There is talk if
the fee schedule is passed',• people will bring their burnable items down to
Oroville and dump them. It will cost more to clean up the refuse than the
fee would have been.
9. Mike Greer, City of Gridley Councilman, stated both young and
old people in the Gridley area are very concerned about the fee schedule.
He questioned why the Air Pollution Control budget had jumped from $59,000
in 1980-81 to $118,000 in 1981-82.
A4ike Pyeatt, assistant administrative officer, stated those figures
were incorrect.' The actual expenditure fn the 1980-81 budget was $110,000,
The budget for 1981-82 was $126,800 which was an increase of approximately
$16,000 from actual expenditures from the previous year budget.
t%ir. Bandy stated that they are 100 percent mandated by the state.
He informed Mr, Greer the $15 fee was for stationary sources. For homeoarners
the fee would be $5 per year.
Mr. Booth stated burn barrels are not considered to be stationary.
From the existing permit fee to a fixed fee to conduct the operation is a
new source. The fees on the present schedule were approved January 1972.
They clearly have the authority to control emission points. They do nothing
than permit what they already have authority to do. The schedule is not
based on emission of energy. He does not have the authority to charge for
emission through the permit process.
Mr. Greer was concerned that people without permits would continue
to burn. He questioned how many additional people would be needed to enforce
the proposed schedule.
bir. Booth stated they already do enforce on land burning, there are
already people who burn without the proper permits. The new schedule will not
change this.
Mr. Greer stated he would like to go on record that the people of
Gridley are opposed to the new fee schedule, even though they see some
necessity for it. One reason is that it will hamper industry. They agree
with industry and oppose it.
Mr. Booth stated the regulations are basically standard throughout
the state and this would not hamper industry from coming into this county.
Y0. Jack Bryson, Concow, stated he goes to Jarbo Gap to obtain his
permit and goes by their rules and regulations. They get permits for a certain
time period and only after_calling the county for a burn day can they accomplish
a controlled burn. He questioned why he should pay another fee to the county.
Page. 64.
January 12, 1982
82
b
January 12, 1982 _ _ _ _
11. Frances Bresyon, Berry Creek,^stated he gets smudged out by the
rice growers and other grower s_. He does not think this is any kind of an
answei. It is a thiny veiled attempt to increase costs of government. It
is contrary to Proposition 13. He felt if one-third of the county employees
were discharged they could probably operate more efficiently and a lot more
economically. ,
12. Bill tforris, operations manager, %oopers of Oroville, stated
they are operating in complete compliance with air regulations. They have
done so at a considerable cost from capital funds. He did not feel the new
fee schedule would help the air quality in Butte County. He felt this was
creating more government control of the worst kind. it will limit the growth
in the future. Koppers Company and himself are opposed to the fee schedule.
13. Dennis Robison, Robinson Construction, Oroville, stated he
agreed with the majority of the previous speakers. This is another means
to tax the people within the county. They are taking away the incentive
for people to put clean air back into the air. He felt it would be tremendous
to investigate and maintain.
14. Roger Green stated he worked for a rock crusher business and
the additional $18,000 fee would be unfair. They comply now at a cost of
$3,500 to keep the dust down and now they are asking for more. They have
put out enough, there is no more .money.
15. Bill Cutler, Magalia, was representing the Pomona Grange and
they were opposed to the regulations as it is proposed. They are against
pollution. He felt there were better ways to fund the regulations.
15. David Wilson, Berry Creek, stated he cannot afford electricity.
They have three generators and three chainsaws. They are on Social Security
and cannot afford to pay the additional money. He knew several people who
would get physical if it is tried to be enforced.
Mr. Bandy stated the items just mentioned are exempt from the fee.
17. Sue Vanella, Route 3, Box 65, Chico, was representing the
California Women for Agriculture, and they wanted to go on record as being
opposed to the fee schedule. It was not a set fee. You could not determine
previous to applicatian for a permit what the fee would be. They are opposed.
18. Ron Crawford, plant manager, Libby, IdcNeil and Libby, Gridley,
stated he resides in Gridley and the company is violently opposed to the
fee schedule. They use 15,000 motors and other items which would be required
to run the business. This would be a serious increase to cast. They are
very concerned about air pollution and follow the regulations and are
possibly ahead of all~b'usinesses in this area. He did not understand why this
type of schedule is going to help the county other than to collect money.
People want to reduce government expenses. He would recommend people in
government begin to understand they do not want and will oppose any additional
rise in taxes. They are violently opposed.
Mr. Booth stated the only device Libby, McNeil and Libby has which
they can permit is the boiler. The other items mentioned are exempt.
19. Edward Smock, Palermo, Master of Grange, stated they are
against the proposed fee schedule and the Grange so voted. The legal
advertisement was difficult to understand and most people felt the same way.
It could have been written so they were aware of what was exempt.
20. Rita Moore, Yankee Hi11, stated the articles in the newspaper
did not indicate there were exem~~ions. Everyone is going to be hung by the
fees. Page 65.
January 12, 1982
_ _ _ _ _ _ January_ 12, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
82 ~ _ 21. Bruce McClintock, Nord Highway, Chico, stated he was~an almond
b and walnut grower. He is opposed to the-fees. He questioned what would happen
to Butte County should the program be turned over to the state.
Mr. Bandy stated there was an individual in the audience who worked
for the State Air Resources Board and could perhaps answer the question. He
was instructed to bring to the public and this Board the fee schedule. He
did not feel he should.be:.ehastised for doing his job. For nearly six years
he has worked with the Air Resources Board and has had difficulty several
times. He felt there would be problems if local issues and concerns were
directed to the state. During budget session there was discussion of turning
it back to the state. The decision was made to find out just how much the
Air Resources Board would fund and if County County could no longer fund it.
If the county cannot fund from the General Fund and the fee schedule is not
acceptable, the only recourse is to give it back to the state. Ms. Thornton
has been very candid with his office during the past four years. Perhaps she
can give some insite to the problem.
22. Sidney Thornton, member, Air Resources Board, stated her job
is to represent the Board to the Boards of Supervisors and staff. Her main
area is the Sacramento Valley. The Board is appointed by the goveznor and
are the final authority of Mr. Bandy and his staff. The county is under an
obligation to protect peoples health from air pollution. They must comply
with both state and federal laws. ..California is unique where local agencies
handle the control for the state. The state supports the local option. The
law does allow them to set fees to cover costs. They could contract with
neighboring districts. On an economic scale you lose local control. If you
do not want it anymore, it puts it all at state cost. If they choose to give
it back to the state, they may take legal action to make you handle the
responsibility. They would hold a public hearing and find that they were not
exercising their authority. Then the Air Resources Board would take over the
duties and use the money they have already appropriated and staff. The Air
Resources Board would have to make findings after an appropriate notice, then
they would have the authority to adopt rules and regulations to enforce all
of the rules and regulations. They would have to do it from Sacramento.
But are they going to do this. Some subvention money they could use, they
are ih the process of paying the county. At this point she did not know if
the county would be gracious enough to allow the state to use their offices
or facilities. The overhead would be higher coming out of Sacramento. They
could hire the present staff through a contract, but they do not have the
money to do this. They are €acing budget cuts themselves. Their travel budget
has been cut. The proposed budget in July has less money than is needed for
them to do their purpose. The bottom line is, they do not want to take legal
action, the county should do the work. The present staff is doing a great job.
The reading from the county is improving. She felt they should look at what
the benefits are. The state would not take control until they had held a
public hearing and followed all of the procedures of the law.
23. Lee Seller, Victor Industries, Chico, questioned if they held
public hearings would they be local_ ' or in Sacramento. There, is a loss of
income when they must travel I00 miles.
Ms. Thornton stated their travel budget has been cut. They were
using too much money going around to all of the hearings. Her executive
officer and staff are trying everything to give more than just lip service.
They can request that it be held local. She was not sure it would be
accomplished.
24. Ira whitiker, Magalia, Master of DeSabla Grange, stated they
are opposed to the new fees for burning permits. The state forestry issues
them permits. He felt the $5 fee would continue to increase. People are
Page 66.
January 12, 1982
82
_ _ _Janu_ary 12, 1982_ _ _ _ _ _ _
revolting against taxes. This is what was done in the 1700'sTwhen they broke
from Englands heavy taxation. .
Mr. Bandy stated the $15 filing tee is not applied to homeowners.
It is for stationary sources to construct. Mr. Bandy questioned Ms. Thornton
if the Air Resources Board took over the program, would there be a fee schedule.
Ms. Thornton stated if the Air Resources Board took over the program,
they do not have the resources to totally run the program. They would have the
same powers as the Board of Supervisors. Yes, they could reflect fees.
Supervisor Dolan stated it is a circular arguement.. Regulations
for the program are 98 percent state and 2 percent local, but the funding
for the program are 29 percent state, 70 percent local and 1 percent fees.
We cannot afford to do what you tell us to do either and we do not have the
authority in the state to tell what they can do.
Ms. Thornton stated the funds as proposed, that money available
from the state to local sector every year was to increase, but this time
the sources were reduced 80 percent in the amount-the state is willing to
give to local government.
25. Ralph G. Miller, Yankee Hill, stated if wood stoves are exempt
there is something not being presented to the public. They are trying to
destroy the trust of the people.
Mr. Booth stated the wood stoves are exempt. Regarding the published
public notice, the Board through the Government Code does not need to publish
the entire text.
Chairman Wheeler stated one of the reasons a public hearing is held'
so such items can be clarified.
26. Jim Brayden, Chico, felt it was nice Ms. Thornton attended the
hearing. He felt nobody understands or wants the air pollution control.
Mr. Booth stated they understand the ordinance and they will enforce
the present system. Mr. Booth set out a statement in a letter from the Regional
Program. The fees lower the costs to individuals paying the fees than in some
other county programs and it appears they were proposing a mix of general
county funding, state funding, and "user" fees sufficient for their own needs.
He felt it indicated if the state came in they would adopt fees to cover the
costs of operation from Sacramento.
27. Brnie Lindburg, Concow Road, felt as the schedule was presented
it would strap people. He felt it was a threat to farmers. He felt they
could not appeal a document for less than $300 fee and. it not be returnable..
Pdr. Booth stated the appeal fee would be at the Hearing Board level.
It would only apply to stationary sources that already have a permit. They
are set up through a variance and is heard by outside individuals to listen
to the problems, It defrays the county cost and is nonrefundable.
Mr. Lindburg stated that was another answer that took away the sting.
If this had been more clearly published and staff had answered the questions,
they would not be here today.
28. Douglas Cook, Oroville, questioned the appeal fee. It was not
clear. If an individual should burn, how would it be enforced.
Mr. Booth stated there would be a verbal warning, a written warning
and then a citation to appear tetra.. '2-t is a misdemeanor. with maximum fine
of $500 or six months in jail.
Page 67.
January 12, 1982
82
January 12, 1982
bar. Cook was concerned that he had received a three year permit from
the state at Jarbo Gap. There is two years left on the permit.
Mr. Booth stated. their office would receive a copy of the permit
and he would be required- to pay the $5 fee once a year or pay what is
remaining on that permit. His permit would be a dual fire safety permit
and theirs would be an air pollution permit.
29. Jim Gomer, assistant manager,. Butte Creek Rock Company, stated
he opposed this fee schedule. He felt they should fund the program by the'
method they are presently doing so.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni,
to not implement the fee schedule as proposed.
Supervisor F~doseley stated she would like to clear up this issue.
She has met with County Counsel, Administrative Officer,. ..:P4s. Thornton
and the ARB staff. They instructed Mr. Bandy and his staff to find a way
to cut their budget and possibly charging fees. Mr. Bandy did this because
he was instructed to do it. He was doing his job.
Supervisor Dolan stated she moved to not implement the proposed
fee schedule because it was not fair or right. It was so misunderstood.
There was a lot of opposition from industry and agriculture. The only
endorsement was from the Air Resourses Board. It was inequitable. You
can burn in the urban area, if you are a farmer you cannot. No matter how
big or small you were the fee was the same. At some point they must address
that. It is for new sources and remodeling sources which must be reviewed.
She does not want the state to have it.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would like to see more of a concensus
to maintain control so they will have that local control. Maybe they should
look where they can cut back on administrative costs in that particular
department. Possibly there is a way they can save it. Possibly information
could be fed to Mr, Bandy so his office would not have to make on-site
inspections. Maybe they will decrease the department in such a way they
cannot do that because of cost.
Chairman Wheeler stated they were all tired of being measured and
regulated in there lives.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
Motion carried.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
carried, should the issue of Air Pollution Control permit schedule of fees
arise again the Board of Supervisors should study the public notice prior
to notice being published for their approval.
ADJOURNMENT: The Air Pollution Control District Board adjourned their
meeting at 12:06 p.m. as there was nothing further for discussion.
RECONVENE: The Board of Supervisors reconvened at 12:06 p.m:
RECESS: The Board of Supervisors recessed at 12:07 p.m. to reconvene at
1:30 p.m. for further action.
Page G8.
January I2, 1982
82 -
a
81
January 12, 1982
RECONVENE: 1:36 p.m.
RECESS: 1:37 p. m.
RECONVENE: 1:47 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE NORTHWEST-PACIFIC RESOURCES LATE APPEAL
APPEALING CONDITIONS NO.•8 AND 9 (SIDEWALKS) AND MITSGATION MEASURE 15
(TRAFFIC SIGNAL) ON THE OAKVALE TERRACE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION, AP 34-27-113,
72 PARCELS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OAKVALE AVENUE, SOUTH OF
HILLDALE AVENUE, OROVILLE AREA
The public hearing on consideration of the Northwest-Pacific
Resources late appeal appealing Conditions No. 8 and No. 9 (sidewalks) and
Mitigation Measure 15 (traffic signal) on the Oakvale Terrace Tentative
Subdivision, AP 34-27-113, 72 parcels, property located on the west side of
Oakvale Avenue, south of Hilldale Avenue, Oroville area was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated this is to adjust
to another subdivision which was .before the Board three weeks ago. This
project was approved several months ago and is before them on a late appeal.
They are requesting reconsideration of staff decision made on the other
subdivision. This is one of four subdivisions in the same area. Tt is
adjacent to Oakvale School. It will make 100 lots when they are all developed.
Last week they waived .the requirements for sidewalks within the subdivision.
They did not waive the requirement on Oakvale or participate in the Oakvale
traffic signal. Staff did not see as the Board did. To be consistent the
Board Should make a similar decision. As he sees i~ it would be to waive
sidewalk requirements inside. He has discussed sidewalks with the applicant.
He would request they waive the sidewalks on Oakvale and the issue of asphalt
was the other item. If concrete was not required on the other subdivisions,
it should not be here. Asphalt will cost more to maintain in the future.
Steve Streeter, planning department, spoke to the mitigation
measures. Tt was to either install or contribute a pro rata share of a
left hand turn on Oakvale. He would like to hear more of the findings if
they open up the EIR issue. Traffic was a concern. Tt would increase 700
to 800 per day. There was pedestrian safety to consider. Asphalt is a
maintenance problem.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated he understood the applicant
was wanting to contribute to the traffic signal rather than install it.
It is a mitigated change, not doing away caith mitigation measures. They could
not,. do away with all the mitigated measures, the appeal process does not
allow for that before the Board.
Tea Crivello, applicant, withdrew the appeal of mitigation measure 15.
Hearing open to: the public. Appearing:
1. Ted Crivello, Northwest Property Resources, stated they appealed
t at a late date as it was under protest. They want the sidewalks done away
ith to be consistent.
Supervisor Dolan stated they should make it the same requirement as
other subdivisions. Sidewalks would be removed from the adjacent property.
should be consistent. The asphalt sidewalks involve a lot of money.
Mr. Castleberry stated hir. Cravella was at the urban Borden and
own the center of Oakvale Avenue. There is no development on the east side.
mprovements are on the west side. He is not sure they waived the condition
f sidewalks on Oakvale, he would check the minutes. He hoped they would be
onsistent on Oakvale, there is where the traffic is.
2. Jolene Blake, representing Oakvale Meadows, stated they were not
wired to place sidewalks on Oakvale, it was on the inside and the Board did
urinate them. Page 69.
January 12, 1982
82-
. ________ ~T ~~ January 12L 1982___= J ~_~ _--______
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he made the motion on the Blake subdivision
and talking to people that. use the area were concerned about conditions,
especially sidewalk area. There was a grass area, the sidewalk expense would
have been passed on to the property owners.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the appeal of sidewalks on Condition No. 9 was upheld on the
Northwest-Pacific Resources, Oakvale Terrace tentative subdivision, AP 34-27-113,
72 parcels, property located on the west side of Oakvale Avenue, south of
Hilldale Avenue, Oroville area; Public bPorks Director to look into the
consistency of the. outside walkways.
APPEARANCES: GRIN STRATTON
Orin Stratton, Chico, commended the Board for joining the law suit
against the state regarding mandates. He felt they Caere equally guilty in
a great many respects. The constitution requires that mandates of a higher
level of services the state would subvent the costs for the increasa91eve1
of services. He felt a lot of mandates were in violation of the constitution
since 1975. He has spoken to the Board at least two times regarding his
concerns and the Board ignored it since there was sufficient money. Now
the money is scarse in the coming budget. He felt they should refuse to
fund any of the programs that are illegally brought before them.
82
ADDITIONAL INFORAlATION REGF~RDING NORTHt7EST-PACIFIC RESOURCES LATE APPEAL
ON QAKVALE TERRACE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
Supervisor Moseley stated I9rs. Hartman of Oroville had called her
regarding the Northwest-•Facific Resources late appeal on Oakvale Terrace
Tentative Subdivision voicing her oposition to the appeal. She felt it
should have the sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
83
APPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH ITEiaS
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and
carried, the following Public Health items were approved:
84
1. Authorized the Director of Public Health to submit to the
State Department of Health Services a renewal application for the family
planning services contract for funding in the amount of $75,000 for fiscal
year 1982-83.
2. Authorized submission to the state for the water sample testing
contract for the third year of service for the period October 1, 1981 to
September 30, 1982 in the amount of $3,300 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC HEALTH PERMITS FOR FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, stated they were
ready for the Soard to go with the ordinance on the advice of County Counsel.
The state does not conduct the inspections of food establishments within the
county. Tt is up to the county Health Department. In the last 30 years they
have made some changes and it is the responsibility of the local health
department.
85
Supervisor .Dolan stated 20 years ago a system to inspect restaurants.
and kitchens on a trial system was established. They are still charged with
doing the inspections. It provides a fee schedule`'for these services.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated they had a difficult
time recruiting for the positions.
Page 70.
January 12, 1982
82 -
a
=____ _-_____= 3anau~=12, 1982 ___________ _____
NIr. Vanhart stated the program they were suppose to be doing was
put offs.because of other pressing matters. The Grand Jury made _a recommendation
to the Board that the program be implemented. They did hire two sanitarians
who have since resigned. They have requested the recruitment be started.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and
carried, the first reading of an ordinance implementing Public Health permits
for food establishments was .waived.
Mr. Vanhart stated they would. come back with a resolution setting
out the fee schedule.
APPROVE PUBLIC V1ORKS ITE~'9S - ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-10 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
DATE FOR INTENTION TO RENAME ROADS IN BUTTE COUNTY
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and
carried, the following Public Works items were approved:
**~~
86
1. Approved the final Cedar Springs Village Condominium Subdivision
map for a single lot on Running Spring Circle at Burnap Avenue, Chico,
AP 44-33-10 with a maintenance bond provided to guarantee maintenance of
improvements for a period of one year starting December 14, 1982; and
accepted easements as described on 1 and 2 of the owner`s certificate as
offered for dedication. and-the Chairman authorized to sign the subdivision
agreement.
2. Approved the final Swedes Flat Subdivision map, 44 lots at
the southeast corner of Forbestown Road..and Hurleton Swedes Flat Road, Swedes
Flat area, AP 72-29-26 and 72-32-4, 5 and 19; performance, labor and materials
bonds have been provided to guarantee construction of the improvements within
a period of one yeas; accepted the Black Bart Road, Hurleton Swedes Flat Road
and Hurleton Road in fee simple and the Chairman authorized to sign said
subdivision agreement.
3. Adopted Resolution 82-10 setting a public hearing date of
February 16, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of intention to rename roads
in Butte County and the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated he would be meeting
on Thursday with the city engineer regarding the placement of stations inside
of the East Avenue area. He is hoping they will be able to resolve it.
87
Chairman bVheeler stated she accompanied the Public Works Director
into the mountain areas of the county to observe the conditions as a result
of the recent storm. She was appreciative of the help.
district.
Supervisor Dolan stated maybe this is the time to form a service
APPROVE THE ALLOWANCE OF A RETAIL SALES TRUCK GARDEN IN THE "C-2" ZONE
Discussion regarding the interpretation of the "C-2" zone was held
at this time.
88
Chairman Wheeler stated Mr. Stiles was present earlier and poss~,bly
he could come back next week.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated they had received her memo
and there is a difference of opinion. The Board is final authority. County
Counsel has reviewed the request. They are of the same opinion. Possibly
they should not object in the agriculture designation as it could open up
doors they may not want to open up_ She will contact him and apolmgize.
Page 71.
January 12, 1982
82 -
a
-- January l2, 1982 _-__--_--_ ~___~-
The matter was continued to January 19, 1982 at 10:00 a.m.
Supervisor idoseley stated he is not going to want to come back.
Talking is not going to change her mind.
Supervisor Saraceni stated it would be consistent with the commercial •
zoning. V7here ease would you have this type of operation.
Frank Bennett, planning commissioner, stated Mr. Stiles had flown
a man in from Claremont to show the Board a slide show regarding his truck
garden. They went to the Personnel Training Room and he viewed the presentation.
It was facinating. He is sure it will be a thing of the future. It is
hydropontics, not just growing a plant in water, but a material station in a
confined area. Mr. Stiles is willing to lease the property for five years
and put this project together. Shop 'n Save will handle it. People come in
and pick their own vegetables for a price, they can undersell anyone. Shop
'n Save will take the surplus to se~l.~at their market. It is very interesting
and facinating. If the lanuage of "C-2" does not allow this garden, it should
be looked at. Mr. Stiles would be happy to fence the location and there was
no problem of parking on the three to four acres. The gardens exist in southern
California.
89
90
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and aarried.,to allow Mr. Stiles to operate a retail sales truck garden
operation within the "C-2" zone was approved.
RECESS: 2:28 p.m.
RECONVENE: 2:38 p.m.
CLARIFICATION REGARDING "GREENLINE" MEETINGS
Chairman SVheeler stated she would like to make a point of clarifi-
cation regarding recent meetings held concerning "Greenline" issues. People
are asking when are they going to make a decision and vote on the issue.
Last week she chose to meet with Supervisor Moseley, Planning Commissioners
Rae Wheeler and Frank Bennett. They talked about the hearing and all of
the testimony that had been discussed at the meeting. Hopefully they can
resolve the issue. Everyone is welcome at all of their meetings.
Supervisor Pdoseley stated they are trying to talk to the people and
meet with those~that are effected.
Chairman Wheeler stated people want to be active participants. She
will continue to do that. It is her prerogativeas a legislator. There is
no violation of the Brown Act and they are within their legislative right
in representing the people.
ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO SENSSTE BILL 2D74 CANCELLATION OF WILLTAMSON ACT
CONTRACTS
Discussion regarding Senate Bill 2074 cancellation of V7illiamson
Act contracts was held at this time.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated she had met with Supervisors
Dolan and Wheeler. She combined. the information presented by all members
and was submitting the document to them for decision. The legislation provides
they have certain responsibilities in implementing this act. She felt the
Board might want to place a policy statement within the document so it is
clear to the public. Ms. Blair set out the background on the cancellation
clause. She has asked them to decide urban for the public, committee and
staff assistants. It must show it is consistent with the County General Plan,
not just the Land Use Element. Both the map and text must be consistent.
Page 72.
January 12, 1982
82
January 12, 1982
W Ms. Blair set out several corrections at this time. In the Special
Notice document, paragraph 3 should read: "contiguous patterns of urban
development", and 'Contiguous is defined as:' rather than discontiguous. Page
3 should read "If you apply to cancel your Williamson Act contract in 1982,
the Board of Supervisors [OUST" instead of 1983. They must decide what is
a complete application., Assessor Ed Brown has indicated there is appioximately
300 individuals to be noticed.
Chairman Wheeler' indicated again they are forced to deal with another
piece of legislature. It was meant to help a contractor in southern California.
They mearly set a window by which applicants can hop through. The state says
they must do this. It is possible people could make application and still
not get through it.
Supervisor Dolan felt this was the reason it must be carefully and
clearly set aut for the public. They must make the findings before they can
be allowed out.
~s. Blair stated the application formSupervisor Saraceni presented
last week would work as the form to withdraw.
Supervisor Dolan stated she did not have any problem with the
findings. She questioned how much they wanted the applicant to tell them.'
There should be an indication whether it was to be residential. She liked
the step by step procedure.
Supervisor. Saraceni stated the steps would be after tentative
approval. No one would come in with an environmental impact.
Ms. Blair stated they would be under the requirements of CEQA.
On page 3, paragraph 3, is straight from the code. They must answer to
the environmental determination within 100 days before it can be acted upon.
del Siemsen, county counsel, stated it takes 150 days to start an
application whether the Board makes the findings. It is not required within
the 150 days. The applicant has up to 150 days and still meets. the require-
ments until such time as it is determined as complete your Board is not in
the position to act. If it is determined ahead of time it is
going to be signed that way.
Discussion was held regarding the Special Notice AB 2074 document.
Ms. Blair felt unless they knew the degree of intensity, they would not know
if it was to be residential-26 units or one acre. It is up to the local
agency.
Supervisor Moseley stated this is to be a window to allow people
out, they should not make it any harder than they should. She felt the
General Plan would take care of a lot of concerns. It was frustrating to
her to have the same old rules and regulations and then adopt new ones.
Paragraph 2, subsection a, to include: Conformance necessary as it
'regards.:- to the. General Plan.
Delete on page,3paragzaph 5 "Development leaving a gap between the
proposed new development and an existing built-up area or land which have
ali discretionary permits."
Mr. Siemsen stated the cancellation fees would be a condition of
approval. The contracts set out the minimum acreage per designation. They
would be subject to the same conditions as the original contract.
Page 73.
January 12, 1982
82-
91
92
•R~*,~
93
January 12, 1982
The REMEI~ER at the bottom of page-3 to be inserted as paragraph
2 on page 1. -
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
carried, to adopt as proposed, amended and deleted to statements to be sent
out as Special Notice AB 2074 (Robinson) per Exhibit A was approved.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and
carried, the guidelines of Sequence of Events Steps was adopted and distribution
was authorized.
REFERRED TO PLANNING COf~ISSION - SEN&fTE BILL 1160 AMENDMENT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE RELATING TO LAND USE REGULATIONS TO ALLOVd AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT
Discussion and consideration of an ordinance amending the Government
Code pursuant to Senate Bi11 1160 relating to land use regulations to allowr.an
additional dwelling unit was held at this time.
Bettye Blair,_planning director, stated the Board suggested she bring
back an ordinance for adoption. Ms. Blair set out the background on the
bill at this time. She does not like it. She does not see how after the
first occupancy they will ever know who the person is who owns the unit.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated if there was a question of
the county not having implemented the law, state law would intercede and
implementation could go through the Planning Commission and the state law
would override it.
Referred the item to Planning Commission. Should a request come
in regarding the land use regulations to allow an additional dwelling unit,
the state law would take precident and the Planning Commissicn would begin
implementation procedures.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET FOR JANUARY 19, 1982 AT 2:30 P.M. -- JOINT MEETING
WITH PLANNING C0~7MISSION
A public hearing date was set for January 19, 1982 at 2:30 p.m.
to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission as requested by the
Commission.
REPORT TO THE BOARD FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR ON SIDE YARD SETBACKS
There was a report to the Board by the Director of Planning regarding
side yard setbacks at this time.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated the request from PG&E was
referred to the Planning Commission. They responded that this would be
granting special privileges and were against the request.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, that they were in agreement with
the Planning Commission.
Motion withdrawn as it was not necessary.
94
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET FOR FEBRUARY 2, 1982 AT 10:15 A.M. FOR CONSIDERATION
OF TOM DAUTERMAN PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATTON REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AND REZONE FROM "C-2" (GENERAL COMMERCTAL) TO "M-2" (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL), PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 32, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH OF
WEST 8TH AVENUE, IDENTIFIED AS AP 42-14-5, 6 and 93, CHICO
A public hearing date was set for February 2, 1982 at 10:15 a.m.
for consideration of Tom Dauterman proposed negative declaration Yegarding
environmental impact and rezone from "C-2" (general commercial) to "M-2"
(heavy industrial), property located on the east side of State Highway 32,
approximately 500 feet north of West 8th Avenue, identified as AP 42-14x5, 6
and 93, Chico. Page 74;
January 12, 1982
82 r95
96
APPROVE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES - CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVTCES COUNSELING
AGREEMENTS
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
carried, the Child Protective Services counseling agreements with Family
Service Association of Butte for 1980-81 and 1981-82 pursuant to state
requirements to claim in-grant funding for the service were authorized and
the Chairman authorized to sign said agreements.
APPOINTMENTS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 19, 1982
The following appointments were continued to January 19, 1982:
Appointment to the Butte County Housing Authority -.District 2.
Appointments to the Mental Health Advisory Board.
97
98
99
APPOINTMENTS TO HOUSING ELEMENT TASK FORCE TAKEN OFF AGENDA
The appointment to the Housing Element Task Force - District 4
taken off the agenda at this time. To be brought back at such time as
Housing and Community Development makes comments to the Housing Element.
APPOINTMENTS TO PARADISE MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE TAKEN OFF AGENDA
Appointments to the Paradise Memorial Hall Committee taken off the
agenda until such time as there is a supervisor appointed to District 5.
APPOINTMENTS TO BUTTE COUNTY FAIR BOARD
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following appointments were approved to the Butte County
Fair Board:
Melvin E. Richins - District 4
Homer Lundberg - District 3
loa
COMMUNICATIONS
Adams Esquon Water District. Attorneys representing Thomas and Samuel Nevis
have forwarded a petition in favor of formation of the Adams Esquon
Tr7ater District. Set for public hearing on March 2, 1982 at 10:00 a.m.
Minasian, Minasian, Minasian, Spruance & Baber. Paul Minasian, attorney,
representing Thomas and Samuel Nevis formation of Adams Esquon;,'..
Water District forward two plat maps indicating location of subject
property. Information; no action taken.
Minasian, Minasian, Minasian, Spruance & Baber. Paul Minasian, attorney,
writes requesting a change of hearing date from January 26th to
March 2nd. Information; matter considered earlier.
Mike Smith, Marysville. Mr. Smith, the engineer on behalf of Dominion
Enterprises, appeals a denial from the Advisory Agency for an
extension of time to file a final map on the subdivision for De11-
Haven Estates, AP 24-09-62, located south of Gridley at the inter-
section of Highway 99 and Nielson Avenue. Set for public hearing
on February 2, 1982 at 10:30 a.m.
Douglas A. Crouch, Huntington Beach, California. Mr. Crouch appeals a
decision of the Building Department regarding the extension of
a building permit. Staff to write letter informing Mr. Crouch
there is no provision for extension of a building permit.
Ronald R. Logan, Oroville. Mr. Logan writes the Planning Commission with
copies to the Board of Supervisors regarding a mining permit and
reclamation plan. Referred to Public Works and Planning Department.
Page 75.
January 12, 1982
82
~.
_ January 12, 1982
!1cCain Associates. The engineer, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Engelbert,
writes appealing the-denial of a tentative parcel map, two parcels,
AP 42-21-Oi, Chico. Set for public hearing on February 2, 19$2
at 10:45 a.m.
ADDITIONAL .ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moseley stated she felt they should begin discussions on
this years budget.
101
A report to the Board £rom the County Auditor to be held January 19 ,.
1982 regarding the upcoming budget.
APPROVE HOUSING AND COti'ktiIUN1TY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS PROCEDURES
102
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the communications procedures as presented by Housing and
Community Development consultant were approved with copies of correspondence
to be forwarded to members after chairmans signature.
County letterhead to be forwarded to Connerly and Associates.
DISCUSSION: TRIAL JUROR PER DIEM AND GRAND JUROR MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
1D3
Discussion regarding trial juror per diem and Grand Juror mileage
reimbursement was held as continued.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated his staff was working
on an alternate proposal.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, to increase the Grand Juror
mileage reimbursement one way to 25 cents.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he felt because of the cost of fuel
they should make an adjustment.
tdr. Nickelson stated this would be an increase of $10,000 one way
or $36,000 for round trip.
Supervisor Moseley seconded the motion.
Vate on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni
NOES: Supervisor Dolan and Chairman Wheeler
Motion fails.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS
104
Chairman Wheeler stated they should be looking at a replacement for
the Administrative Officer position.
Continue to January 19, 1982 consideration of duties of Administrative
Officer and replacement.
Chairman Wheeler stated Assessor Ed Brown would like to discuss at
the January 19, 1982 meeting legislation on the assessing of registered mobile
homes at the local level. It has the support of Senator Johnson.
RECESS: There being nothing further at this time, the Board recessed at
4:22 p.m. to reconvene on January 13, 1982 at 9:00 a.m.
Page 7y,
January 12, 1982