HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012081S,. .
January 20, 1981
OF CALIFORI~7A )
SS.
OF BUTTE )
81-
3
'91
92
''93
94
'95
96
The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment.
sent: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley.
f Nickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and
rk A. Nelson, county clerk-recorder, by Nancy Wilson, deputy clerk.
edge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
vocation by Supervisor Lemke -
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
animously carried, the minutes of January 6 and 13, 1981 were approved as
i1ed.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
animously carried, waived the second reading of salary ordinance amendment
ding two positions to Superior Court for the Family Conciliation Services
tivity and one additional typist clerk in the Oroville Justice Court; deletes
fe deposit box examiner classification; Ordinance 2183 was adopted and the
airman authorized to sign.
P.rl LVLVH-11VLV V!- HU-1VMV951LL' - MliLV J:HL tLC:AL'1'tl
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
nimously carried, the donation of a 1972 Buick Riviera to the county for
in Mental Health Department by employee Carol.. ..Bryson. was accepted.
PPROVE PURCHASE OF WALKIE-TALKIES - SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
nanimously carried, t€~e purchase of two walkie-talkies for the Sheriff's
epartment at a cost of $1,500 each as part of implementation of three new
eputy sheriff positions was approved°. `
Supervisor Lemke stated he felt a letter of appreciation should be
ent to Carol Bryson for her donation of the automobile to Mental Health.
PROPOSAL OF PROSPECTOR DISPLAYS OF EL DORADO FOR 1981 CALIFORNIA STATE
There was a motion by Supervisor Lemke and seconded by Supervisor
ler that the proposal from Prospector Aisplays of E1 Dorado for the build-
of the Butte County display at the 1981 California State Fair-and Los
les County Fair be approved.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated there was no cost to
county. The ribbons and prize money is what they are after.
Supervisor Wheeler stated the display at the State Capitol was faded
d ugly. She questioned if the Administrative Office could look into the
tter.
Supervisor Lemke felt they should contact the Mount Lassen Boy Scouts
America Headquarters in Chico and explain the situation. There are boys
work on their Eagle projects and need a good sized project. They make a
play and keep track of the plans and expenses. It is a community service
ject for the Eagle badge.
Page 18.
January 20, 1981
81-
January 20, 1981
'Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
Motion carried.
97
98
APPROVE AMENDMENT TO POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL
Supervisor Dolan questioned item 24.02, B, Subsection 3o Whereby
an agreement with HCD to rent their units to low or moderate income families
for a period of not less than three years.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated. it was
consistent with number 1 and 2, In their block grant application they
must be consistent with Section 8 requirement. It could go as long as
15 years if the Board wished.
.Supervisor Lemke stated if the time was extended there would be
difficulty getting contractors. Peaple would not want to tie up their
money in the program.
Mr. Lively stated there is no red line written agreement, but
the incomes are low and the banks do not make loans. in that area. HUA
did not comment on the loan period of 15 years. They axe working on 150
residential rehabilitations..After a 3 ydar period they will not be active
in the area as they hope to go to Chapmantown., One other change is 24.04
item 4. Where the County Administrative Officer shall have the authority
to approve any rehabilitation project. There is a problem with sanitation
reports, they must be fixed whether the loan is approved or not. Under Sec-
tion 312 a sanitation report is required. They are trying to minimize the
risk. The loan agreements will go to bid.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
carried, the amendment of the Board of Supervisors Policy and Procedure
Manual Section 24.00 - Housing and Community Development to provide changes
for operation of the program in the 1980-81 grant year was approved as
presented.
AYES: Supervisor Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
DISCUSSION: PROGRESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - REAPPOINTMENT OF LEE
COLEY TO COMMITTEE
Discussion was held on the report of progress of the Land Develop-
ment Committee at this time.
Supervisor Sarenci stated he would like to reappoint Lee Colby
to represent District i on the Land Development Committee. He would like
to see them have more time.
Supervisor Lemke stated he would .encourage them to speed up, but
he was more than willing to allow them all the time that was necessary to
bring forward any changes. Over the years there have been very few~arue~, _:
studies. He would allow the committee more time even if it effects the
budget.
Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated the proposed budget
would go to the printer about the first week of June. .Adjustments can be
made after that.
Gerald Lively, deputy:adminstxative officer, stated the committee
had made one recommendation regarding office space. The Environmental Review
Page 19.
January 20; 1981
January 20, 1981
$1= Department had moved to offices at the former Superintendent of Schools build-
~; ing. They have 200 square feet of space. Tb.e°..remaining portion of land
development will remain at public works. The Welfare Director has been
contacted to present a proposal by next week regarding utilization of a portion
of the office space.
99 PPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS
On motion of Supervisor Iaemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved:.
B-80 - Su lemental Man ower Pro ram Title IV SYEP and Title VII
PSIP . Within Title IV SYEP increasing the appropriation for extra hely,
$34,000; employee benefits, $1,200; clothing and personal supplies, $1,300;
special department expense, $4,887; and travel, $1,100. Within Title VII
PSIP increases the appropriation for special department expense, $b75 and
contributions to other agencies, $39,500. Total amount of the transfer is
$82,662 with funding coming from federal aid - Manpower Revenue Sharing.
The purpose of the transfer is to increase the appropriations in the CETA
budgetary accounts for the federal fiscal year 1987. in accordance with notices
of fund availability dated December 9, 1980.
B-85 - Administrative Office. Establishes an appropriation of
$12,000 in professional and specialized services recognizing revenue received
from the Stgte of California for the California Arts Council grant as approved
by the Board of Supervisors on -0ctober 28, 1980, Minute order 80-1697.
B-87 -Fire-Protection - Reeular Service. Transfers $500 from
fixed assets - equipment to special department expense to correct the budgetary
appropriation for the purchase of five backboaxds that were erroneously class-
ified as fixed assets and should have been indicated as a special department
expense account.
B-88 - Community Action Program Special_Assistance - Building
Modification. Establishes a budgetary appropriation for the CAA 1981 building
modification grant as approved by the Community Services .Administration on
November 18, 1980 in the amount of $25,125. Funding is from federal revenue
in the amount of $20,500 and in-hind contributions in the amount $5,051.
Budgetary accounts are as follows: consumable supplies, $500; rents, leases
and purchase of equipment, $5,715; other costs, $14,285; and matching contrib-
utions $5,051.
B-89 - Family Conciliation_Cou__rt. Establishes the budgetary appropri-
an on for the Family Conciliation Court covering the period February 21, 1981
through June 30, 1981 in the amount of $2b,198. The budget for the court is
as follows: salaries and wages, $10,133; extra help, $5,000; overtime, $100;
employee benefits, $3,600; communications, $500; general insurance, $40;
equipment maintenance, $100; office expense, $1,500; professional and
specialized services, $3,000; transportation and travel, $650; utilities,
$750; equipment, $400; and allocated costs received, $425. Funding is as
follows: transfers from the Welfare Administration budget, $b,996 from
salaries and wages aad $2,099 from employee benefits and from distributed
cost centers, general insurance, $100; utilities, $750; allocated costs
received, $425; and alsa transfers $15,828 from ttce reserve.
B-91 - Sheriff - Patrol. Transfers $38,424 from the reserve, with
$17,874 to salaries and wages, $6,000 to overtime, $9,000 to employee benefits,
$2,550 to clothing and personal supplies and $3,000 to equipment. The purpose
of this transfer is to provide an additional budgetary appropriation for the
three additional deputy sheriffs and related costs in accordance with Board
authorization in augmenting the Sheriff's Department.
Page 20.
January 20; 1981
January 20, 1981
gl_ _ B-94~- Building and Grounds Maintenance. Transfers $1,150 from the
b reserve to structures and improvements to provide a budgetary appropriation to
cover the purchase of 50 trees to be planted around the Administration Build-
, ing upper parking lot and the west side of the Butte County Cemetery.
B-95 - Superior Court - 3ury Utilization Grant. Transfers $5,000
from the reserve, with $4,800 going to extra help and $200 to employee benefits
in order to establish a budgetary appropriation for extra help within the
Superior Court fury utilization grant for the purpose of providing clerical
assistance in the implementation of the grant.
B-96 - Oroville 3ustice Court. Transfers $9,574 from the reserve,
with $5,057 going to salaries and wages, $500 to extra help, $2,500 to over-
time and $1,517 to employee benefits in order to cover current and projected
budgetary deficiencies and to establish a~a appropriation for the new position
being authorized by the Board.
100 APPROVE MENTAL HEALTH SPECIAL BOARD AND CARE NURSING FACILITY CONCEPT AND
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the special board and care nursing facility concept
by Mental Health was approved; and request to prepare proposals. (itFPs) was
authorized.
101 APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWAL - DA14 L AND CAROL G. CODY AND G. J. STEPHENS
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the following variance renewals were approved:
1. Approved Dan L. and Carol G. Cody renewal of variance to Sections
19-ZO and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on
AP 63-09-022, Forest Ranch area, zoning: "TM-5".
2. Approved G. J. Stephens renewal of variance to Sections 19-10
/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on
59-23-002, Box 123, Stirling City area, zoning: "A-2".
102 DENY PENALTY RELIEF - TREASURER-TAR COLLECTOR
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke and
uaanimously carried, the penalty relief request by Matson Family Trust for
P 42-18-13 and 28 was denied.
103 PPROVE PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS - ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-15
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
unanimously carried, the following Public Works litems were approved:
1. Approved the right-of-way contract with Sacramento Avenue.Assess-
ant District storm drain easement for Davis, Chico Investors (AP 43-29-86)
arcel E for $3,800; authorized the Chairman to sign and authorized the Auditor
to make payment from the Sacramento Avenue Assessment District ~~I funds upon
errand from the county's escrow agent.
2. Approved the Elaim revision for SB 620 funds to be submitted to;
utte County Association of Governments for the Intercity Transit System and
Interchange of Taxi Tickets Program as original figures were transposed to
reflect Intercity Transit System, $132,777 and Interchange of Subsidized Taxi
Tickets Program, $10,000.
3. Adopted Resolution 81-15 authorizing the loan of $740 to the
ridley swimming pool (County Service Area 34) to rewind the motor on the
irculating pump motor with estimated cost of repair $740, in accordance with
overnment Code .Section 25210.9c; aAd'the~Chairman authorized to sign.
Page 21.
January 20,'1981
81~ 104'
a
105i
106
107
108
January 20, 198.1
APPROVE FINAL MAP r- BIG CHICO CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION UNIT ~~2
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke and
carried, the final map for Big Chico Creek Estates Subdivision Unit ~~2 was
approved; performance and labor and material bonds have been furnished to
guarantee confitruction of required improvements to county standards on the
one lot subdivision, AP 42-15-34 and 37, property located on .West Sacramento
.Avenue, 1,800 feet east of Glenwood Avenue, Chico; a maintenance bond will
be provided at a later date to guarantee maintenance of all improvements
for a period of one year after their acceptance; a ten foot easement along
Sacramento Avenue granted for public utility purposed (including water,
sewer, drainage, electric, gas and communications facilities) was accepted;
and the Chairman authorized to sign subdivision agreement.
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
DISCUSSION: JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF OROVILLE REGARDING TENATIVE PARCEL
MAP ON NELSON AVENUE IN THERMALITO
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated he has discussed
the proposed meeting with City of Oroville with Mr. D'Arcy. This is regarding
the 816 lots on a tentative parcel map on Nelson Avenue in Thermalito. There
is a problem with drainage. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January
27, 1981 at 1:30 p.m.
ADDITIONAL MATTER BY BOARD MEMBER
Supervisor Dolan stated there had been a meeting of the Intercity
Transit Committee regarding the routes in which Greyhound also services. Grey-
hound is concerned about competition. The committee has agreed to subsidize
the trips which Greyhound can verify the Intercity Transit buses have taken
away from them.
Ciay Castleberry, public works director, stated they were not trying
to drive private enterprise out of the area. They will be recommending a
contract with Greyhound similar to one in Tulare. The SB 325 money will
supplement where there is local fare.
,Supervisor Lemke stated it is a government subsidy of costs for
a need that is being made by private enterprise.
SUPERVISOR SARACENI TO WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ON SWEDES FLAT ROAD
PROBLEM
Supervisor Saraceni requested permission to work with°Pub.lc.WoPks
Director Clay Castleberry to rectify the road problem on Suedes Flat Road
before wintero He would also like to meet with residents.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated last year there was
money budgeted but it was used elsewhere.
Supervisor Wheeler requested the staff provide .Supervisor .Saraceni
with all the minutes and testimony that was given at Board meetings to give
him a better knowledge and background of the area, .Of costs involved and
what was involved.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS BY BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman Moseley questioned the fact each week there are numerous:
abandonments on the agenda.
$50.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated there is a fee of
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated the majority are in
the Paradise Pines-area. :Baggy 22.
January 20, 1981
January 20, 1981
81-
b.
109
llo
111
ll2
Bettye Blair, planning director, .stated they are coming in-piece
meal. They have been unable to get a unit commitment in the Paradise Pines
area. In the Kelly Ridge area there were fewer property owners involved.
There are I5 different subdivision units with 100 lots in each unit.
ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 81-16 AND 81-17 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING-DATES ON ABANDONMENT
OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND RECREATIONAL EASEMENTS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
unanimously carried, the following items were approved:
1. Adopted Resolution 81-16 setting a public hearing date of
February 24, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of the Edgar H. Heald
abandonment of public utilities and recreational easement,. Paradise Pines
Country Club No. 4, Lot 287 and the Chairmani authorized to sign.
2. Adopted Resolution 81-17 setting a public hearing date of
February 24, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of the Richard Crow
abandonment of public utilities and recreational easement, Paradise Pines
Unit 15, Lots 58 and 59; and the Chairman authorized to sign.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE
A public hearing date of February 10, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. has set
for consideration of the proposed negative declaration and rezone from "A-5"
(agricultural - 5 acre parcels) to "SR-1" (subuxban residential - 1 acre
parcels), property located on the east side of Lott Road between Cummings
Road and Garden Road, identified as AP 40-11-46, 51, 63, 64 and 27, Durham
for Glen and Elda Lowry..
There was a report to the Board regarding the Jack R. Atkinson/
Larry B. 'Young proposed negative declaration regarding environmental impact
and denied rezone from "TM-5" (timber mountain - 5 acre parcels) to "TM-22"
(timber mountain - 2'~ acre parcels), property located approximately 1'~ miles
north of the intersection of Steiffer and Pinon Roads on the Torrey-Pine
Road extension, identified as AP 55-47-29, Magalia at this time.
REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING DENTED REZONE
RECESS: 9:40 a.m.
RECONVENE: 9:54 a.m.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2184: CLOSED HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY-PLANNING COMNICSSION
REZONE (CHICO AIRPORT ENVIRONS)
The closed hearing on the Butte County Planning Commission rezone
(item on which an environmental impact report was previously certified) from
"A 2" (general), "M-1" (light industrial) and "A-40" (agricultural - 40 acre
parcels), to "A-160" (agricultural - 160 acre parcels), "A-40" (agricultural
40 acre parcels), "SR-3" (suburban residential - 3 acre parcels), "SR-1"
(suburban residential - 1 acre parcels), "SR-5" (suburban residential - 5
acre parcels}, "S-R" (suburban residential), "A-SR" (agricultural - suburban
residential), "RT-1-A" (minimum density residential trailer), "RT-1" (min-
imum density residential mobile home), "R-1" (single family residential),
"P-Q" (public-quasi public}, "C-2" (general commercial), "L-I" (limited
industrial), "M-1" (light industrial) and "M-2" (heavy industrial), for most
of the unincorporated portions of the area bounded generally by Rock Creek
on-the north, Highway 99 on the west, Sycamore Creek on the south and Land
Conservation Act agreements on the east, identified as AP Boaks 44, 47 and
48 was held at this time.
Supervisor Wheeler stated the "A-40" zone is property in the William-
son Act General Plan designation for open field and she feels it is proper.
Charlie Woods, planning department, had placed the original map
and the proposed map on the boerd,s Mr. Woods stated he had taken a
Page 23.
January 20, 1981
January 20, 1981
81- clarification back to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed zone
b reclassification around the Chico Airport. The Garner property was recommended
for "N!-2" rather than "L-I" as requested by the property owners. The Comm-
ission recommended the adoption of a new zone called limited industrial.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was concerned about the change of
existing orchards and changed existing uses. Larger existing parcel size
and larger than the 10 acre minimum.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated there was a recommendation
for "A-40", but it did not come down as originally recommended.
Supervisor Dolan stated there was a lot of discussion as to the
development and the density. She felt there were going to be traffic-and
drainage problems. There would be increases in the channels west of Tiwy 99.
Ms. Blair stated the Commission felt concerns were cleared up
after the Public Works .Director had attended their meeting. These items
will be addressed before any final action is taken on individual basis.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated he would have a
report before the Board within two weeks as to how t~ proceed`.tosuse~-'the
land use they are considering. It will help them with drainage problems
and how to solve them.
Supervisor Lemke stated at the previous hearing he had excused
himself but because of the Hays et al property no longer being a part of
this proposal he felt there was no conflict.
There was a motion by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor
Wheeler •- having reviewed and considered the final environmental
impact report for-the Chico Airport Environs rezone as certified on July 22,
1980, the following findings-were made:.
1. Development which occurs pursuant to project approval may result in
significant effects on the environment in the areas of traffic increases
with a resulting need for road improvements, need for additional school
facilities, increases in surface water runoff with a resulting need for
drainage improvements within and outside the project area, possible loss
of archaeological resources, loss of prime agricultural lands, possible
loss of riparian vegetation and rare plants, and possible failure of
sewage disposal systems in areas of soils poorly suited to proper
functioning of such systems.
2. Significant effects related to loss of archaeological resources, loss of
riparian vegetation and rare plants, and failure of sewage disposal
systems can be mitigated at the subdivision approval level on a project-~~
by-project basis. The loss of prime agricultural soil cannot be mitigated
(although the extent of this impact has been limited by a change in the
rezone proposal which applies A-l0 zoning to a portion of the prime
agricultural soils)o Impacts related to traffic circulation and drainage
can be partially mitigated on a project-by-project basis by developer's
contributions, and the balance of funds required to achieve an acceptable
level of service will have to come from other funding sources, such as
gas tax, property tax, assessment districts, grant funds or other public
revenue sources.
3. Except as listed above, mitigation measures are not applicable to this
type of rezone project, although project alternatives can serve to
reduce environmental damage. Project alternatives which reduce-the
potential for environmental degradation have been implemented to the
Page 2/~.
January 20•, 1981
$1-
a
January 20, 1981
greatest extent possible consistent with project objectives. Specific
findings with regard to alternatives are as follows
(a) Alternative 1 - I3o Project. This alternative is being rejected
because it would retain A-2 zoning over much of the groject area,
which would permit development with potential environmental impact
more adverse than the proposed project.
(b) Alternative 2 - Zone specific portions of the project to PA-C
(Planned Area - Cluster) zones. This alternative is being rejected
because the detailed site specific planning necessary for a
PA-C zone can more appropriately be done by individual land owners
at the time of development. The project as proposed does not preclude
owners from requesting PA-C zoning at a later time if cluster
development more accurately reflects their development plans,
although such rezones will have the greatest likelihood of approval
if the gross densities of dwelling units per acre are not increased.
(c) Alternative 3 - Lower density development, from SR-1 and SR-3 to
SR-3 and SR-5. This alternative is being rejected because, the
environmental•benefxts are-not great-when viewed in"connection with
the loss of-.tax base-needed to finance improvements'such as roads
and drainage"sys~temsy!'whi Eh would be necessary in either case.
(d) Alternative 4 - Residential development at urban densities. This,
alternative is being rejected because the detriments outweigh the
benefits as listed on page 83a of the EIR.
(e) Alternative 5 - Preservation of prime agricultural land. This
alternative, while not feasible to implement as 'proposed because
of the location of existing parcel boundaries and land use patterns
in relationship to the distribution of the prime agricultural soils,
did influence a modification of the original proposal resulting in
the application of A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acre minimum parcel size)
to a portion of the project area where the best agricultural soils
are found. This modification represents a reasonable compromise
and has become the project under consideration.
4. Although there may be significant adverse environmental effects resulting
from the approval of this project, there are overriding considerations
which justify project approval. These overriding considerations include:
(a) The proposed zoning is environmentally superior to the zoning currently
in effect, and represents a major step forward in the phase-out of
A-2 zoning.
(b) The proposed zoning was developed to provide a measure of protection
for the Chico Airport, by establishing compatible uses and densities
near the airport.
(c} The zoning as proposed will bring zoning of this area into consist-
ency with the Butte County General Plan policies.
(d) The project will establish harmonious land use patterns, appropriately
zoned, which will provide areas for future suburban growth of the
Chico area.
further moving that the rezone- _ to "A-160" (agricultural - 160 acre
parcels), "A-40" (agricultural - 40 acrepparcels), "SR=3" (suburban residential
3 acre parcels},."SR-1"'`'(suburban residential - 1 acre parcels), "SR-5"
Page 25,
January 20; 1981
81-
January 20, 1981
(suburban residential - 5 acre parcels), "S-R" (suburban residential), "A-SR"
(agricultural - suburban residential), "RT-1-A" {minimum density residential
trailer), "RT-1" (minimum density residential mobile home), "R-1" (single
family residential), "P-Q" (public-quasi public), "C-2" {general commercial),
"L-I" (limited industrial), "M-1" (light industrial) and "M-2" (heavy
industrial), for most of the unincorporated portions of the area bounded
generally by Rock Creek on the north, Highway 99 on the west, Sycamore
Creek on the south and Land Conservation Act agreements on the east, identified
as AP Books 44, 47 and 48 be-approved; the ordinance to include the
"L-I" (limited-ndnstr~al) zone designation and the designation is to be
included in the planning and zoning ordinance books with the draft to be
distributed to all Board members; Ordinance 2184 was adopted' and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
. _Supervso~~:D'plan`.statedzSh''e~ wasaware 6f ..the tremendous job the
Planning staffshad'done on this project. She did not feel the traffic and
drainage problems had been addressed. She does not support the proposal.
Vote on motion:
113
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman,Moseley
NOES: .Supervisor Dolan.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-18 AND 81-19 - ABANDONMENTS
The public hearings on the Mat Mathews abandonment of public utilities
and recreational easement,, Paradise Pines, Unit ~k5, Lot 38 and the John Gamby
abandonment of public utilities and recreational easement, Paradise Pines
Coue:try Club Estates, Unit 2, Lot 42 were held as advertised,
Hearings open to the public. ,Appearing;.: No one.
Hearings closed to the public and confined to the Board,
114
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
unanimously carried, the following abandonments were approved:
1. Adopted Resolution 81-18 on the Mat Mathews abandonment of
public utilities and recreational easement, Paradise Pines, Unit ~F'5, Lot 38
and the Ghairman authorized to sign.
2, Adopted Resolution 81-19 on the John Gamby abandonment of public
utilities and recreational easement, Paradise Pines Country Club Estates,
Unit 2, Lot 42 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING: CLOSED HEARING ON NAOMT SCHILLING APPEAL OF DENIED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 22-202-O1, TWO PARCELS, PROPERTY
LOCATED ON NORTHEAST CORNER OF HASTTNG AVENUE AND AZEVEDO AVENUE, BIGGS
AREA
The hearing on Naomi Schilling appeal of Advisory Agency's denial
of a negative declaration and tentative parcel map, AP 22-202-01, two parcels,
property located on the northeast corner of Hasting Avenue and Azevedo Avenue,
Biggs area was held as continued.
Supervisor Dolan stated the hearing was continued because the
segregation of homesites was under consideration and now they have been
approved.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated it will be necessary for
her to apply for a use permit before filing a parcel map. It was strictly
for agriculture use. Ms. Blair requested that action be deferred until she
could contact her office.
Continued to later in the meeting.
Page 26.
January 20,' 1981
81- 115
a',
116
117
118
II9
120
121
cJanuary 20, 1981
WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 21 OF COUNTY
CODE -
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
unanimously carried, the first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 1
(authorization of Environmental Health Department to issue citations for
violations of health laws) and Chapter 21 (mobile homes subject to real
property taxation will also be subject to real property transfer taxi of
the Butte County Code was waived.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-20 AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 7fl-20
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler-and
unanimously carried, Resolution 8i-20 amending Resolution 79-20 setting forth
procedures for making additions to existing timber preserve zones was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO OROVILLE MOSQUITO_~.BATEMENT DISTRICT
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and unanimously carried, the appointments of Rodney Mims and•Russell Jones
to the Oroville Mosquito Abatement District Board of Directors were approved.
APPROVE APPOINTMENT TO LAW LIBRARY BOARD OR TRUSTEES
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor-Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the appointment of Robert V. Blade to the Law
Library Board of Trustees was approved..
APPROVE APPOINTMENT TO AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION - DISTRICT 4,
CONTINUER TO JANUARY 27. 1981 APPOINTMENT OF DI5TRICT 5
On motion of Chairman Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
unanimously carried, the reappo~o-ntment of George Tanimoto to the Agricultural
Advisory Commission in District 4 was approved.
Continued to January 27, 1981 the appointment in District 5.
CONTINUE) TO JANUARY 27 1981 APPOINTMENT TO AIR POLLUTION HEARING BOARD
The appointment to the Air Pollution Hearing Board was continued
to January 27, 1981.
APPROVE REAPPOINTMENT OE COUNTY COUNSEL
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
unanimously carried, the reappointment of County Counsel Dan Blackstock for
a period of four years was approved.
Supervisor Lemke stated he knew of nobody that knew more about
county law. He has kept the Board out of trouble and the county. He has
a remarkable record in the courts.
122{ CONTINUED HEARING ON NA0_MI_SCHILLING APPEAL FROM EARLIER TN THE MEETING
Supervisor Lemke stated it had been delayed because the county was
in the middle of changing an ordinance. He felt it was incumbent upon the
Schilling's to proceed according tbethe ordinance. He suggested khey continue
the hearing and have the infor¢tation forwarded to the applicants.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated she would send them a
letter on the parcel map. The Advisory Agency had denied the project. She
stated there had been no applications filed in her office.
On motion of Supervisor-Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and
unanimously carried, the appeal of Naomi Schilling negative declaration and
tentative parcel map, AP 22-202-O1, two parcels, property located on the
northeast corner of Hasting Avenue and Azevedo Avenue, Biggs area was denied
without prejudice; and Ms ..Schilling to lii~-»~ejv3sed:to reapply, through the new
ordinance. Page 27.
January 20; 1981
glr. 123
January 20, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING: PHIL RAUCH APPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FORA REZONE FROM "A-2".(GENERAL) TO "ARMH-1" (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL
MOBILE HOME - ONE ACRE MINIMUM PARCELS),_AP 30-19-15 AND 20,.PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE WEST. SIDE OF LARKIN RO,AD,,SOUTHWEST OF THE OROVILLE AIRPORT, OROVILLE
AREA - CONTINUED TO FEBRUARX 3 1981 AT 11:15 A.M.
The hearing of Phil Rauch appeal of requirement for an environmental
impact report for a rezone from "A-2" (general) to "ARMH-1" (agricultural
residential mobile home - one acre minimum parcels), AP 30-19-15 and 20,
property located on the west side of Larkin Road, southwest of the Oroville
Airport, Oroville area was held as advertised.
Chairman Moseley stated she had received a memo from the Clerk
of the Board's Office r~gardag a telephone call from the engineer on the'
project requesting a two week postponement.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
The hearing was continued to February 3, 1981 at 11:15 a.m.
124
125
APPROVE APPOINTMENT T'0 PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler-and
unanimously carried, the appointment of George Gilbert, Oroville to the
Private Industrial Council as business representative was approved.
A letter of appreciation is to be sent to Dan Cook who resigned.
COMMUNICATIONS
Annetta Taylor, Oroville. Ms. Taylor writes concerning damages to her
property as a result of road construction in the area of Oro
Bangor Highway. Referred to Administrative Office.
Paradise Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber writes asking that the Board
support the protection of the county's-prime agricultural land.
Information; no action taken.
Wheatland School District. The district writes requesting the Board
recognize January 18 through January 25 as Phi Delta Kappa
Week. Administrative Office to sentt letter;i~t<::.''support:
County of Maxin. The Board of Supervisors write forwarding information
with regard to the 36 month limitation on federal assistancee
available for refugees under Federal Law 96-212. Referred to
Welfare Director.
Town of Paradise. The town forwards their Resolution 81-2, a resolution
authorizing county officials to cancel any and all portions of
taxes, penalties and costs where such have been levied on behalf
of the town and such levies were illegal or erroneous. Information;
no action taken.
Major E. and Marie E. Lillard, Oroville. Majorand Mrs. Lillard write supporting
the establishment of a leash law in the unincorporated area of the
county. Information; no action taken.
John A, Branagh, Oakland. Mr. Branagh writes complaining of the nuisance
of an abandoned fruit stand located at the intersection "X" at
West Sacramento and Nord Avenues in Ch'~eco. .Referred to Planning
and Public Works Departments.
Page 28.
January 20~, 1981
81-~
a?
126
January 20 ,1981 _ _ _ _ _
Berneice M. Pratt, Chico. Mrs. Pratt writes concerning damage to the road
by her property and forwards information concerning what she
believes to be the start of an illegal subdivision north of Keefer
Road in the Chico area. Referred to Public Works Department.
State Department of Transporta ti on. The department forwards a questionnaire
to the Board for completion concerning public transit needs and
the allocation of Transportation Development Act funds. Referred
to Public Works Department.
Butte County Grand Jury. The Grand Jury forwards its interim report on
data processing operations. To be handled later in-the meeting,
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation. Plant Manager Joe Brown writes regarding
the proposed rezone of property south of Oroville Municipal
Airport (After Bay Estates). Hearing continued to February 3rd.
Pacific Coast Produces. Plant Manager Robert C. Graf writes regarding
the planned development near the Oroville Airport. Hearing continued
to February 3~d.
Oroville Area Chamber of Commerce. President Joe Tucker writes regarding
the rezone south of Oroville Municipal Airport {After Bay Estates)
which would allow higher density uses. Hearing continued to
February 3rd.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Dolan questioned when the matter of the. Animal Control
contract would be heard before the Board. .She felti there should be a public
hearing.
Administrative Office to report back on January 27, 1981 regarding
the Animal Control contract and the leash law.
Supervisor Lemke referred to the letter from County Counsel regard-
ing the two nonrenewal of Land Conservation Act Agreements which were protested.
The matter referred to the Land Conservation Act Committee.
127
Supervisor Wheeler stated she had received a memorandum from
Butte County Superintendent of Schools, Pat Casey, Assistant Superintendent,
regarding the Programmer and Systems Analyst's Needs of Superintendent of
Schools.
Chairman Moseley stated there are problems with the Fair Board
appointments. There needs to be appointments made from District 3 and 5.
To be handled on January 27, 1981.
Chairman Moseley stated she would, like a report back regarding the
unfair use of county cars.
PUBLIC HEARING: WAYNE PAUL - APPEAL OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
DENIED RE20NE FROM "S-R" (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO "R-3" (MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL), PROPERTY LOCATID ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 32,
APPROXIMATELY B00 FEET NORTHWEST OF OAK WAY, IDENTIFIED AS AP 42-14~-1b,
CHICO - CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 17 1981 AT 1fl:45 A.M.
The hearing on Wayne Paul appeal of proposed negative declaration
and denied rezone from "S-R" (suburban residential) to "R-3" (medium density
residential), property located on the southwest side of State Highway 32,
approximately 800 feet northwest of Oak Way, identified as AP 42-14-16,
Chico was held as advertised.
Page 29.
January 20, 1981
81-
~'
January 20, 1981
Chairman Moseley stated the applicant had requested the hearing+be
continued to after February 15, 1981.
Hearing open to the public. ,Appearing: No one.
Bettye Blair, ~3lanning director, stated the Board must take action
on this matter before March 3~d.
The hearing was continued to February 17, 1981 at l0s 45 a.m.
128
~c~
APPROVE. MOTION OF INTENT REGARDING DATA PROCESSING FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY (SCT)
Consideration of data processing facilities management agreement
with Systems and Computer Technology (SCT) was held at this time. Consider-
ation was also given the Grand Jury Interim Report.
Supervisor Lemke stated he has been in meetings and negotiations
regarding ktataSErocessing and felt there should be a decision made in this
matter. He has read the Grand Jury report and agrees with several of their
recommendations. He referenced Page 8 of the report, items 1 through 4.
He felt they should have included 'Board of Supervisors' rather than county.
He feels the buck stops here, they are responsible. 1) Approue and; :` -'`
complete a longorange Data Processing plan. He talked about that four weeks
ago. 2) Negotiate the renewal of SCT's contract. 3) On the basis of the
current Butte County Data Processing ca~iabilities, he felt they should refer
to the letters they have received. Chico, Paradise and Oroville are going to
go with Superintendent of Schools. 4) Select future computer equipment based
on defined requirements of a long range plan.
Supervisor Lemke stated these are the things the Data Processsing
Executive Committee have been working on. They feed: they should not-negotiate
a new contract but continue the present contract for this year., But to not
institute the phase back portion. Data Processing has to operate. ,SCT has
operated and done as well as anyone. When they were negotiating a contract
he was not in favor of the one presented by SCT. They have proved to him
they can do the job. They have had problems with new programs.
There was a motion by, Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor
Wheeler, a motion of intent to negotiate the last yearsof Systems and Computer
Technology (SCT)econtract that does not include the phase back provision
giving the county a year to develope a comprehensive Butte County Long-Range
Data Processing Plan, whatever that includes which ma~be the Assessor's
wishes fora segarate computer in his office; never in the 22 years the
county has had a Data Processing Department have they developed a long-range
plan and they are in the process of negotiating a joint powers agreement
with other interested agencies alsoto include the input in the county's
capabilities as recommended by the Butte County Grand Jury and no decision
be made on future agreements until they have a long-range-plan and include
possible selection of equipment on the basis of that plan including the
requirements of any associated agencies on the JPA was approved.
Supervisor Lemke stated it would include all kinds of ramifications
such as the RFPs from other agencies and a proposal of RFPs on equipment.
His motion is to approve the. SCT contract and negotiate the balance in 1981,
to include the four major recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. He
stated they have a draft contract before them and it has been changed. It
will be a motion of intent to negotiate this amendment that was given to them.
The final amendment. should have the approval of the Auditor, Counsel and
Board approval.
Page 30.
January 20; 1981
January 20, 1951
gl- Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated the amendment is a matter of
3' the language, He will have the amendment ready be tomorrow in order to give
the Board a chanee to review it.
Clef Nickelson, administrative officer, stated there would be a
slight increase of about $700.
Supervisor Lemke suggested because of the fiscal-difference of
over time and contract they struggle with he would like to see the negotiations
be for 3z years. In order for the fiscal year to agree with their fiscal
year. He would like this included with the proposal by County Counsel. He
wants a year to look at all aspects of Data Processing on the comprehensive
plan, He wants to see the Data Processing question cleared up, it has not
been for 22 years. It could include the suggestions of Assessor Brown..
Carl Morton, treasurer-tax collector, stated he would like to
refer to the Grand Jury Report. There are seven recommendations. .One
of the things Mro Brown and himself have been saying is listed on nu~ber
5. He couldn't emphasize enough how important that is for the implication
of the Grand Jury report. He personally agrees with the, report. He has
no arguments. If item 5 is accomplished he would be glad to get back on
the Data Processing Executive Committee. But only if it is done. Mr. Morton
stated Supervisor Lemke had not mentioned item 5 and he felt i~ was an
important point.
Supervisor Wheeler stated the Executive Committee had read the
Grand Jury report. She feels the committee could deal with the issues.
They could take this report and begin to implement the long-range plan.
It is a good proposal. She would like to see the committee come back with
a reply to the report. They have addressed and been working on the items
referred to in the report. They will certainly be considered.
Supervisor Dolan questioned if they are going to approve a motion
to start developing a comprehensive long-range plan, who is to wr~he the
plan. Who are they going to ask to help with the recommendations of the
Grand Jury and determine what the Data Processing needs areo
Supervisor Lemke stated he was not ready to include in his motion
that they allocate a specific amount of money to retain a technical advisor.
He does feel it should be a part of the deliberations of the long-range plan.
He is ready to accept every recommendation. He is not putting a dollar amount
on the advisor. It should be included in the total scope. He feels the
Tax Collector and Assessor should be included. He is hoping with the motion
they can forge forward and get the Tax Collector and Assessor back into the
process of helping them make the county decision they need to make the Data
Processing Department work in the future.
Ed Brown, assessor, stated he felt a technical qualified person.
was essential before the Board cold make a decision. There is no way he
will participate as it presently exists. He tried it and it did not work
and he will not try again. If they can formulate some guidelines so the
committee knows how to operate from the users advisory people, he would be
happy to go forward. He does not feel that a Board member should be-the
Chairperson. He did not believe-they should be a voting member because they
are voting on the committee level and again at the Board level. He questioned
whether the Administrative Officer should be a voting member because of-his
association through the Board. The CAO has substantial input to the Board.
He feels the committee should be formulated of userso All recommendations
should be by virtue of vote. .Some members of the committee serve at the
pleasure of the Board.
Page 31.
January 20; 1981
ST-
a':
~,''
January 20, 1951
Supervisor Lemke stated he did not necessarily think the Board member
appointed to the committee would need to be the chairman. He did feel a
Board member should be on the committee as a liason for more knowledge. The
CAO is only on the committee because }~e is the contract administrator. It
does not have to be the CAO, but the contract administrator should be on
the committee.
Supervisor Wheeler stated these, are many committees the Board
members serve on and are voting members. She.tcasno difficulty with not,.
being a voting member. They do need a representative from the Board on
every committee. The Grand Jury did not go into the structure of the
aommittee.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
Motion carried.
129
Supervisor Wheeler stated the Executive Committee would use the
study done by SCT to use as a basis to move forward and to impliment the
long-range plan. Supervisor Wheeler stated she would-like to compliment
the Grand Jury on the fine job they did putting the report together to
report. They spent many hours working on this report. ,She hopes that it
will put to rest the political hassle which has been in the county for 22
years.
PUBLIC kiEARING: BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY,,APPEAL OF CONDITION N0. 11
ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 40-40-02 AND p7, FOUR LOTS, PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 99E, SOUTH OF ENTLER AVENUE, CHICO AREA
The public hearing on the Baldwin Contracting Company appeal of
Advisory Agency's Condition No. 11 on a tentative parcel map, AP 40-40-02
and 07, four lots, property located on the east side of State. Highway 99E,
south of Entler Avenue, Chico area was held as advertised,
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated Mr. Teie has a
proposal and agreed with some alternative fire protection measures.. The
developer has agreed to 10,000 gallon storage tank at the location. He
would like them to approve the map with the revised fire requirement with
a note on the map.
William Teie, fire warden, stated they are still working on the
new proposal. He appreciated Baldwin Contracting Company working with them.
They are trying to propose a plan which is not so idealistic as realistic so
they can get some fire protection. They are working towards that goal.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
130
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
unanimously carried, the appeal of Baldwin Contracting Company on Condition
No. 11 on tentative parcel map, AP 40-40-02 and 07, four lots, property
located on the east side of State Highway 99E, south of Entler Avenue, Chico
area be denied with agreement that fire protection services as delineated as
those agreed upon by Fire Warden William Teie, Public Works and the contractor.
APPEARANCE: GENE MERCER
Gene Mercer, secretary of Fish and Game Commission. Mr. Mercer spoke
regarding the deer season as recommended by the Fish and Game Department. The
scheduled opening in the D2V area north of the Feather-River was recommended
to open the last Saturday in-Sepfiember and close the first Sunday in November,
Page 32,
January 20, 1981
81-
January 20, 1981
At their meeting last night this was discussed and the Unit Manager for
Butte County stated they were opposed to it. It is similar to the one
last year. It is too late to open the deer season. The majority of the
deer have moved from the high country. Our season starts with the archery
season. Their commission recommends the season open September 12 and close
on the last Sunday of October, October 18. This change was also recommended
to the Plumes Board of Supervisors. .Plumes County is asking to open their
season September 26 and close November 1. .The length of time is the same.
Mr. Mercer set out the address of the Fish and Game in Sacramento where
correspondence could be directed. Mr. Snowden and Sid Sperry of Plumes
County have watched the deer. The State wants to go by the old system.
They are turning these deer into the rutting season. It might be necessary
for the Board to send someone to the final board hearing of the. Department
of Fish and Game.
There was a motion by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor
Saraceni, to follow the recommendation of Mr. Mercer to request the deer
season be moved back.
Roy Roney, Chico, stated he was an avid deer hunter. He hunts
in a club at the lower foothills. If the recommendation was forwarded to
the State, they would not be able to hunt in their club the last week of
the season. They do not get down that low until the last week of October,
gun clubs.
Mr. Mercer stated all of the valley foothills are tied up with
Supervisor Lemke stated he was inclined to agree with Mr. Mercer.
the D2i1 is a big area. He does not hunt.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he does hunt. He informed Mr. Mercer
he would like to take a little more time to meet with those speaking and
have a better understanding.
Supervisor Lemke withdrew his motion.
Mr. Mercer stated the sportsman of northern California make
recommendations to Fish and Came meetings. Most of the meetings are
scheduled for southern California. They must travel to the meetings. He
would like the Board to request that meetings concerning and involving
northern California should be held in northern California.
Mr. Mercer stated he had another item which was unanimously approved
by the Fish and Game Commission. For the game warden in Oroville they would
like a stream line flashlight. It is similar to the one they previously
requested. The cost was approximately $120. The rifles they have been using
for the hunter safety courses in Oroville, Paradise and Chico had :been used
for l0 years. They were starting to break down and need repairing. The
Commission felt they should replace 20 of the rifles. They do have the
money for a portion of them. They are approximately $600, they would like
20 rifles, which were approved at their meeting. They would also like a
camera with telephoto lens. There is a used one available.
The items were referred to the Administrative staff for their
approval and report back for budget allocation.
APPEARANCE; BETTYE BLAIR. PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: REQUEST FOR INTERIM ZONE
l31
BettyelBlair, planning director, read from a written request of
Bobb Gowen, Chico, to plan an interim zone on his property in order to place
an "Aunt Minnie" on the property. Ms. Blair stated all of the property in
the area is "SR-1", "SR" or "R-4" and they have no provisions for mobile
Page 33.
January 20', 1981
81-
~'.
132
Janaary 20, 1981
•homes. It would be an intrusion in the area. Ms. Blair set out the area of
the request. She was not sure they could consider it even with the new. laws
regarding mobiles on footings. She does not support it. The Sanitation
Department directed them to go for an "Aunt-Minnie".
Supervisor Wheeler requested that the item be continued to
January 27, 1981.
PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN CROWS APPEAL OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
DENTAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP. 39-27-58, FOUR lATS,.PROPERTYI.LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FRONT. STREET BETWEEN YOCUM AND GERKE STREETS DAYTON
The public hearing on the John Crowe appeal of proposed negative
declaration and denial of tentative parcel map, AP 29~=27-58, four lots,
property located on the south side of Front Street, between Yocum and
Gerke Streets, Dayton was held as advertised.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, stated he had posted
two maps on the board. It is a request for a four way split of parcels, it
does not comply and four way divided which does comply with the ordinance.
A set back would be required. The parcel sizes prior to these were consider-
ably smaller.
Hearing open to the public. .Appearing:
1. John Crowe, Chico. Mr. Crowe stated he lives in Dayton .and
would like his proposal approved. It is nn 124 lots in Dayton. Mr. Crowe
set out the area parcels. They are approximately .45 in size. It is
consistent. Mr. Crowe presented a map to Board members.
Mr. Crowe responded regarding the conditions he was not in favor
of the cul-de-sac.
2. Mike McEnespy, Chico, stated they are standard conditions of
Pdhlic Works.
.Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated they are standard
conditions and are not unreasonable. If additional appeals are coming up
they could come back at a later time.
Mr. McEnespy stated basically the appeal was the Health Department
requirement for required use because of the subdivision ordinance. He has
not discussed the conditions with Mr. Crowe.
Supervisor Saraceni suggested they con~tinze further action-until
Mro Crowe has reviewed the conditions further.
Mr. Vanhart stated the appeal was whether there should be the 3 or
4 parcel proposal and then-there is a list of conditions .
Mr. Crowe stated he would be willing to discuss this further with
Public Works before he advanee~ further.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, find that the proposed project could not have a
significant effect on the environment and a negative declaration was
recommended.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, a motion of intent to uphold the appeal of John
Crowe denial of tentative parce~~wmap, AP 39-27-58, four lots, property
Page 34.
January 20, 1981
I
81--
$',
133
January 20, 1981
located on the south side of Front Street, between Yocum and Gerke Streets,
Dayton and approve the map for necessary exception of the ordinance; it is
in conformance with the General Plan as defined by Planning Commission as
special circumstances is the location of surrounding areas.
Final decision to come forward on January 27, 1981.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS SY BOARD M~fBERS
Supervisor Lemke addressed the Board regarding a position statement.
Long before the Butte Creek Canyon rezone and prior to the pximary election
he received a telephone call threatening him should he approve the project.
This was even before the Planning Commission had approved the project. He
met with a committee of Canyon project ppponents in a home of approximately
$100,000 value in the Ramsey Subdivision. At that time they-asked a question
he did not respond to at the time. He was asked if he thought they were
"plankers", yes he does think they are "piankers". .Last Saturday he was
verbally asa~ultedby individuals obtaining signatures on the petitions to
have the rezone placed on the referendum. He has been blamed as accepting
campaign contributions that would be bribe money. He has been branded as
immoral by the press and unethical and heyre"seats itfi He does not feel
that anything any of the Board members did was unethical or immoral. The
rezone 2~ years ago was done by the people. They are personally responsible
and that was accepted. He feels that if an election or special election is
held because of a rezoning decision they are going to be in big trouble. If
people do not like the actions the Board takes, get rid of those members.
He does not agree with the philosophy of the referendum or where it is going.
He resents being shouted at and the various abuses heaped on many of the
Board members.
Gene Mercer stated he and two other individuals were confronted
by individuals seeking signatures on the same petition. T+7hen he refused
to sign because of the great expense to the county the individual became
very upset.
Supervisor Dolan stated they can disagree, it is a constitutional
right and people can over turn a singledecisione .She recognizes-there is
a lot of harsh language going around.
Supervisor Lemke stated he is not adverse to criticism. He would
have dropped it last year. He resents being verbally attached in public.
ADJOi1RNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board at this-time, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:03 p.m. to reconvene on January 27, 1981 at
9:00 a.m.
AfiTBST: CLARK A, NELSON, COUNTX CLERIZ.:;
RECORDE d ex-officio'Clerk /
oard of Supervisors / Chair€nan, Board of upervisors
By
Page 35.
January 20; 1981