Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012980January 29, 1980 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF BUTTE ) 80- The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment. b Present: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America Invocation by Supervisor Moseley 146 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ' On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, the minutes of January l5, 1980 and January 22, 1980 were approved as mailed with the following amendment to the minutes of January 15, 1980: Minute order 80-60, amended to reflect $4,277 going to extra elp instead of $10,277 for budget transfer B'=56, Chico Municipal Court. 147 OFT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE CALL FOR BIDS FOR BOARD OOM SOUND SYSTEM IN ADMINISTRATION CENTER On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler ~nd unanimously carried, the plans and specifications for the engineering, onstruction, installation and testing of a sound re-enforcing and recording ystem for the Board of Supervisors chambers in the Administration Center ere adopted and the call for bids to be opened in the Purchasing Office t 2:30 p.m. on February 26, 1980 was authorized. 148 UTHORIZE PURCHASE OF LEASED COPYING MACHINE - RECORDER On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Winston nd unanimously carried, the purchase o£ the leased 3M copier (VQC III) hat has been leased fnr five years for the Recorder's Office was uthorized with the cost of the purchase at 10% of the original selling rice of $154.50. 149 EEK ENTITLEMENT STATUS FOR REGION C AREA AND ACT AS THE PRIME AGENT OR THE ENTITLEMENT - CCCJ OPERATION53 Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that after everal meetings and several changes they have come up with a position and roposal regarding Region C, CCCJ operations and continuation of the unction, This proposal is supported by the current CCCJ Board. The oard approved the concept of the Region C as it currently stands being eld together. Butte County would be the lead county for the CCCJ fforts in this region. He understood there was about $20,000 still vailable to operate the program between now and October 1, 1980. e Board should take the position that they are not going to invest any everal fund money. Supervisor Winston stated that in looking at the charts combining he entitlement by continuing the Region C with the four counties that the otal available would be $117,200. This includes administrative costs and ny monies to the three counties other than Butte County. Butte County ould be responsible for administration. At any time one of the three ounties could service notice and get out. If Butte County went for an ntitlement alone with the cities there would be $78,240, which is $134,000 ess. The county would still be providing the administration. He wondered Nether these facts were considered during the deliberations of the proposal. Page 23. January 29, 1980 _ _Ca_nuary 29, 1980 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 80- Mr. Nickelson stated that these matters were considered. In - v xecent years a great majority of the funds have been used in Butte County. The other three counties have had some money, something like $30,000 to $35,000. Butte County is using most of the money. Butte County has the most to gain by operating the program. There is $20,000 worth of administrative funds still remaining in the operational budget of CCCJ. If the Board decides to go for an entitlement with just the county and the cities there is a chance that the county would not receive the $20,000. If the county tried to operate the program on the small amount of funds without the $20,000, they could not make it. They would have to go balance of state. If they continue the program with the configuration as it is, they are pzetty well assured the $20,000 will be available for planning. Once the plan has been filed with the state and federal government the maintenance will not he to great. It should be possible to maintain the program with the administrative costs allowed. If they cannot do so, he would recommend that the program be dropped immediately. The work could be handled in two ways. It could be done through the CCCJ Board who could contract for administration or a person could be brought on board to be paid out ' of the $20,000 until October 1, 1980. Tf the county finds they are not able to do the work then they would have to notify the member counties. Chairman Lemke felt that if the Board would assume the individual county posture with Butte County as entitlement with the cities participating, they would be out of the regional concept. The county would be able to enjoy more under the contract period by not going to a regional concept. Mr, Nickelson stated that they would not get as much money if they went to an individual concept. It would be better to show the state that the county is willing to be a team worker. If the other counties do not want to be involved with the regional concept, then Butte County could go after the entire $20,000 themselves. If the county cannot get the $20,000, they should tell the state they are going balance of state. Chairman Lemke stated that he had been an opponent of the regional concept. Butte County has been hurt with everything they have done on a regional basis. The regional concept makes no ane responsible to constituents. The county still has the option of going balance of state, which is the worst option of the three. He felt the county should take over their own entitlement with the cities. Howard Cassagrande, CCCJ, stated that the recommendation of the board was to retain the region as it is. Butte County represents about $45,000 to $50,000 of the total allocation which is around $80,000. By going with a regional concept there would be $84,000 to $85,000 to put in as opposed to around $50,000. There is about $20,000 of this year's budget that can accomplish the administration to October 1, 1980. He could not guarantee the $20,000 if Sutte County decides to go alone as an entitlement. That would be decided by the state. Mr. Nickelson set out what the plan would consist o£. This would be a three-year application on how the entitlement plans to spend the money. There is a need for a certain percentage in certain areas. There must be a formation of an advisory board and meetings of the board. This would be in addition to trying to put together the plan. Discussion of using existing staff in the various departments to put together the plan held at this time. Mr. Cassagrande felt that this could not be done.. It would take 1-1/2 full time people to deal with the application as the plan must be done by June 1, 1980. They have not as yet received all of the instructions. Page 24, January 29, 1980 80- 5 _January 29,1980 Mr. Nickelson felt that the Probation Officer should be-designated is the person in charge of this effort. The Board could either have the existing CCCJ Board contract out for the services or designate a department lead as the responsible person. The importance of continuing this program Ls that there are certain programs that the Board may find necessary and iesirable to implement in two to three years. He felt it was insurance for the county. Discussion of whether possible state shortage may affect the program and amount of funds to the counties held at this time. Mr. Cassagrande stated that these are not state funds. Under the new act the entitlement jurisdictions are entitled to specific amounts of money based on their current criminal justice expenditures. This is based on a formula average. They are using the 1977 statistics at this time. These funds cannot be taken from the counties. There is nothing the state can do to take funds. LEAA can resolve any problems that might arise regarding the applications. Mr. Cassagrande stated that he would be leaving his position as of February 29, 1980. He would not want to continue with the position after that time. Following the Board's decision, he will contact the other counties to advise them of the action by Butte County. There are two individuals that are willing to negotiate with Butte County between now and June to get the plan done. Mr. Cassagrande supported the concept of keeping the region as it now exists. Over the last ten years there is a certain amount of rapport that has taken place with the counties regarding the criminal justice system. The President is asking for $100,000 more to keep the program going. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, the recommendation of staff relative to the continuance of the CCCJ functions relating to the four county Region C~was approved; and to seek entitlement status with Butte County acting as the prime agent for said entitlement. AXES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler and Winston. NOES: Chairman Lemke. Supervisor Winston thanked Mr. Cassagrande on behalf of the people of the county for the good job he has done with CCCJ for ten years. Mr. Cassagrande stated that he had appreciated working with the Board and with the(CCJ Board within the system. He would convey the Board's appreciation to the CCCJ Board. 150 APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS Supervisor Winston stated that it was his understanding that there would be a meeting between the Administrative Officer and Auditor regarding investigation of the animal control system. He was concerned with the transfer of the $2,000., from the reserve for the animal control when this matter had not been completed. B-72 to be held until February 5, 1980. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved: B-67 - Public Defender. Transfers $4,282 from the reserve to professional and specialized services in order to provide an additional appropriation to cover the increase in the contract amounts based upon cost of living increases contained therein. B--68 - Sheriff - Services. Transfers $587 from extra help within the incarceration budget to extra help within the services division budget as a result of clerical help neieded due to a temporary shortage of manpower. Page 25. Januaxy 29, 1980 80- '5 151 152 ._~~--__===--January-29, 1980 _________________ - B-69 - Public Works. Transfers $34,587.54 from preliminary engineering to various projects as needed: East Avenue at El Paso, $436.74; Clark Road at Elliott, $33,082,10; Humboldt Bridge, $231.70; and Chapmantown (miscellaneous), $837.00. 8-71 - Sheriff. Transfers $1,981 from the office expense account in investigation bureau to office expense within the services division budget and also transfers $1,000 from transportation and travel within the services division budget to office expense within the Sheriff's administration budget. The purpose of these transfers is to adjust appropriations within the budget units to cover expenditures in office expense for the printing of new forms. APPROVE RENEWAL OF VARIANCE - IRIS SOLIS On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on.AP 72-05-20, 7040 Feather Falls Star Route, Oroville (off of Olive Highway near The Oaks General Store), zoning: "A-2" for Iris Solis was approved. ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-21 DESIGNATING THE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER AS PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR DELINQUENCY PREVENTTON OFFICER GRANT Wa11y Herring, probation officer, stated that his request to the Board at the end of the grant period would be to present the workload as it exists in the Probation Office for the amount of money funding available. This is not a new program. -With the grant they will be doing some of the work required ~ by law with the existing staff. He will be able to do a far better.•.job. He would ask the Board at the end of the grant if there was funding available for the position. This is not a program that if the funds go away, the department will dissolve. He will be able to do a much better job and save local money if they can divert the kids out of the criminal system. If they do not get involved in the criminal system, there will be a savings to the taxpayers, state and federal governments. He felt the funds could be used for this period of time. These funds are specifically earmarked for projects such as being recommended. If these funds are not used for this project, they will not buy another police unit or officer. It is designed for the area of juveniles. There would be the addition of one person for this position. It will be with the understanding that the hiring is for the period of time the funds are available, When the funds are no longer available and there is no alternative funding, that position will be dissolved and the person will be layed off. It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler that Resolution 80-21 designating the Chief Probation Officer as the project director to submit the delinquency prevention officer grant application on behalf of the county which covers the salary and benefits and operating cost for a probation officer TT with the period from March 1, 1980 to April 30, 1981 in the amount of $28,419 in federal funds with no county matching funds be adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. Supervisor Winston stated that he could not support the motion. Supervisor Dolan stated that her views on the duties of the Probation Officer is to work with juveniles to divert them from the criminal justice system as his primary goal. Mr. Herring during budget session made the comment there are 25 people doing the work that should be done by 42 people. She recognized that this would not do what they need to do. Sugervisor Winston stated that if innovative means continuing to do it through money there is a problem. He felt that innovative thinking should be doing something different with the same people. Page 26. January 29, 1980 80- ___-__-___ January 29, 1980 =_-_ _____________ Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler and Chairman Lemke NOES: Supervisor Winston Motion carried. 153 154 155 15b ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-22~PERMITTING THE TREASURER AN- TAX COLLECTOR TO INVEST IN REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS OR REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53601 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, Resolution 80-22 permitting the Treasurer and Tax Collector to invest in repurchase agreements or reverse repurchase agreements in accordance with Government Code Section 53601 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. C HEARING DATES SET The following public hearing dates were set: 1. A public hearing date of February 26, 1980 at 10:15 a.m. was set for consideration of Lee Colby - Wynoka Homes - proposed negative declaration and General Plan Land Use Element Map amendment to change from low density residential designation to an industrial designation, property located on the east side of Lincoln Blvd. fxom a point located 1,320 feet south of Monte Vista Avenue to a point located 3,300 feet south of Monte Vista Avenue,' to a depth of 1,320 feet identified as AP 36-20-7, 27 and 28, Oroville. 2. A public hearing date of February 26, 1980 at 10:30 a.m. was set for consideration of Wallace Herring - proposed negative declaration and rezone from "R-N" (residential - non-conforming) to "C-2" (general commercial), property located between Wyandotte Avenue and Pearl Street, approximately 150 feet east of Lincoln Boulevard, identified as AP 35-063-4, 7 and 12, Oroville. ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-23 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING -ATE FOR W. P. ROGERS - ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT, PARADISE PINES UNIT 12, LOT 96 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, Resolution 80-23 setting a public hearing date of March 4, 1980 at 10:00 a,m. for consideration of W. P. Rogers abandonment of public utilities easement, Paradise Pines Unit 12, Lot 96 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. RECESS: 9:58 a.m. (RECONVENE: 10:16 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION - APPEAL OF !ADVISORY AGENCY'S CONDITIONS 3 & 10 (PORTION) FOR THE KELLY RIDGE ESTATES (UNIT N0. 8 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, AP 34-04-103, 51 LOTS, NORTH SIDE IOF HILLCREST AVENUE, WEST SIDE OF LODGEVIEW DRIVE AND EAST OF KELLY RIDGE ROAD, OROVILLE The public hearing on Southern California Financial Corporation appeal of Advisory Agency's conditions 3 and 10 (portion) for the Kelly Ridge Estates Unit No. 8 tentative subdivision map, AP 34-04-103, 51 lots, north side of H311crest Avenue, west side of Lodgeview Drive and east of Kelly Ridge Road, Oroville was held at this time. Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background of the appeal at this time. The subdivision provided two sets of flag lots with narrow roads. The Planning Commission recommended access be improved to subdivision standards rather than driveway standards. Page 27, January 29, 1980 80- a _______~--_-_-_Ja_nu_ar_y_29_, 19_80 =__--_____________ Phe other condition proposed was the Public Works recommendation. There are a series of roads into Kelly Ridge Road. It would be better to be served by a frontage road rather than driveways backing out into the road. This Baas a staff recommendation for safety reasons. Staff felt it would be better to have off road access. There is an old subdivision that was not developed on the east side of the road. There is no access control. Bettye Blair, planning director, stated that the Planning staff in the existing administration of the subdivision ordinance did not find any relief for flag lots. A proposed ordinance has been drafted and reviewed by Public Works and Environmental Health regarding an amendment to allow flag lots. The existing ordinance does not provide relief. Supervisor Winston felt that the road standards were ridiculous. This is a drive way and not a road use. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Mike Glaze, Cook and Associates. Mr. Glaze stated that this unit was reserved as a buffer ' strip for single family residences. It would be a buffer for Kelly Ridge to the south. The lots are not flag lots per say. They are rectangular lots with access easements across the parcels in front of them. They do not have a fee title strip running to the lot. The situation of the driveway of the flag lots is similar throughout the project. The developer is proposing paved driveways. These four parcels will have paved access to them. The condition being required is RS-3C standards. They have asked that these be reduced to the paved driveway standard. Condition ~~10 is being appealed in part. They are appealing the second and third sentence. This is the condition for frontage road to be constructed along lots 42 through 51. Mr. Glaze set out the general plan for the Kelly Ridge area. This plan was prepared by Cook and Associates in 1968, 1969 and 1970. The plan was submitted for review along with the first unit of development. In letters from Planning Commission and Public Works which states that April, 9, 1970 per recommendation of Public Works and Planning Department the general plan was approved. Along lots 42 through 51 the parcels are shown in the similar configuration fronting Kelly Ridge Road. On April 9, 1970 the Subdivision Committee approved Unit 1 and also the general plan. On April 16, 1970 the Planning Commission did the same thing. On April 21, 1970 the Board of Supervisors approved Unit 1. Lots 42 to 51 are one-half acre lots. The concept of limited access on Kelly Ridge Road has merit and logic the difference being the one-half acre lots. The subdivision across the street is existing and have similar sized lots and they do not have access limited on Kelly Ridge Road. When Kelly Ridge Road was constructed the shoulders were made wide. This would allow the people on the parcels to pull off on the wide shoulder so they do not have to slow on the paved street of Kelly Ridge Road. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. Supervisor Winston questioned Mr. Castleberry as to whether these two.lots were true flag lots. Mr. Castleberry stated that was right. Supervisor Winston stated that as far as frontage roads are concerned on the lots fronting Kelly Ridge Drive, there are properties up and down that road that have no such restrictions. There is a subdivision of record across the street that fronts on Kelly Ridge Drive. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the appeal of conditions 3 and 10 by Southern California p'inancial Corporation for Kelly Ridge Estates Unit No. 8 tentative subdivision map, AP 34-04-103,-~51"lots, north side of Hillcrest Avenue, west side of Lodgeview Drive and east of Kelly Ridge Road, Oroviile was upheld, Page 28. January 29, 1980 80 157 .-__________-___ January 29, 1980 _____-~T___ J J_--_ PUBLIC HEARING: TERRY B. C. BARNES - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL) TO "TM--10" AND "TM-20" (TIMBER MOUNTAIN - 10 & 20 ACRE PARCELS) POR PROPERTY LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF PONDEROSA WAY, APPROX. TWO MILES SOUTH OF BALD ROCK ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS AP71-02-27 & 29, NORTHEAST OF OROVILLE The public hearing on Terry B. C. Barnes appeal of Planning Commission's denial of proposed negative declaration and rezone £rom "A-2" (general) to "TM-10" and "TM-20" (timber mountain - 10 and 20 acre parcels) for property located on both sides of Ponderosa Way, approximately two miles south of Bald Rock Road, identified as AP 71-02-27 and 29, northeast of Oroville was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. The recommendation from the Planning Commission on December 5, 1979 was to deny the rezone. In the new General Plan the area was part"A-R" and the remainder was in the "TM" classification. That has not changed. The more severe grades would be TM designation. None of the rezone is within the agricultural designation. There is probably about 2/3 of the property to the northwest in the TM designation. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative decl~rtation. This was a borderline project as to whether there should be a negative declaration or an EIR. The initial indication was that an EIR be required because of the ten acre parcels for the entire project. The applicant revised his application to include twenty acre parcels. The greatest concern was the steep slopes and the larger parcels would be better. This was before the new General Plan. He recommended a negative declaration. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Robert Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert stated that he owned the property adjoining. the proposed rezone. He was of the opinion that easements were needed to get to the property. He thought that 60-Foot rights-of-way would be necessary..,. He was against this because of the unavailability of water. There is a subdivision about one-half mile from this one that is a disgrace. There is no water available. The percolation tests are poor. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. 158 Supervisor Winston thought that TM designation under the new General Plan required a 40 acre minimum. He felt it would be wise if the applicant was advised of the General Plan requirements. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the agpeal of Terry B. C. Barnes on denied proposed negative declaration and rezone from "A-2" (general) to "TM-10" and "TM-20" (timber mountain - 10 and 20 acre parcels) for property located on both sides of Ponderosa Way, approximately two miles south of Bald Rock Road, identified as AP 71--02-27 and 29, northeast of Oroville was denied. PUBLIC HEARING: FRANK BRAZELL - APPEAL (OR CLARIFY) OF THE ADVISORY AGENCY'S CONDITION 4 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 42-34-71, TWO LOTS, EAST SIDE OF CUSSICK AVENUE, APPROX. 500 FEET EAST OF CUSSICK AVENUE AND 400 FEET NORTH OF SHASTA AVENUE CHICO The public hearing on Frank Brazell appeal (or clarify) of the Advisory Agency's condition 4 on a tentative parcel map, AF 42-34-71, two lots, east side of Cussick Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of Cussick Avenue and 400 feet north of Shasta Avenue, Chico was held at this time. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Russ Croninger, Ringel and Associates. Page 29. January 29, 1980 SO- --_______- -=January-29, 1980 =__-•_____________ Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that the questions is that the ordinance requires one acre ttet and the applicant is proposing one acre gross. Mr. Croninger stated that the original map is shown on the original map with parcels one and three. If the lines on the original map had been different there would have been enough property for a 50 or 60- foot easement. Mr. Castleberry stated that when Parcel 2 is divided up again the road was not considered there would be splits of less than one acre. The Board has the right to grant an exception. The acreage is close enough but does not meet the very letter of the ordinance. It is within about i/10 of an acre. Mr. Croninger stated that it would be very difficult to get a boundary line modification. This is actually speaking to gross versus net. The road involved would only service two parcels. SUDAD has an easement at the back of the property. Bettye Blair, planning director, stated that her concerns on this particular parce]~Inap is that it is in an "SR-1" zoning district and an offer for dedication has been requested for the easement. If and when the dedication is accepted then the yielding parcels would be less than those required in the zoning ordinance. Supervisor Winston stated that this issue has been debated before. Look to the intent of the ordinance and the minimum lot size as a matter of residential density. He felt they should be looking into changing the definition and including easements. The intent is being complied with in that one acre minimums as to the nature of density is being complied with.. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the appeal of Frank Brazell of condition 4 on tentative parcel map, AP 42-34-71, two lots, east side of Cussick Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of Cussick Avenue and 400 feet north of Shasta Avenue, Chico was upheld and the facts showing the special circumstances and would allow the exception is to allow the gross parcel size instead of the net parcel size because of the topography. ADOPT ORDINANCE 2072: PUBLIC HEARING: DOROTHY HARRIS - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A-R" (AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL) TO "AR-MH" (AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME) FOR PROPERTY LOCATEA APPROX. 400 FEET NORTH OF V-6 ROAD, APPROX. 700 FEET WEST OF LOWER WYANDOTTE ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS AP 36-022-22, OROVILLE The public hearing for Dorothy Harris proposed negative declaration and rezone from "A-R" (agricultural - residential) to "AR-MH" (agricultural residential - mobile home) for property:Llocated approximately 400 feet north of V.=6~Road, approximately 700 feet west of Lower W~randotte Road, identified as AP 36-022-22, Oroville was held as advertised. 159 Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. The easement provided was discussed at the Planning Commission level. The easements rights were grandfathered in. This is an easement to V-6 Road. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. He recommended a negative declaration. Page 30. January 29, 1980 80- 3 January 29, 1980 Y Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Dorothy Harris. Ms. iarris stated that the reason for the rezone was so that she could place a mobile home on the property for her mother. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. 160 161 162 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was accepted. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, finding the project in compliance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and finding in the public interest, the rezone for Dorothy Harris from "A-R" (agricultural - residential) to "AR-MH" (agricultural residential - mobile homed far property located approximately 400 feet north of V-6 Road, approximately 700 feet west of Lower Wyandotte Road, identified as AP 36-022-22, Oroville was approved; Ordinance 2072 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. RECESS: 11:00 a.m. RECONVENE: 11:15 a.m. DURHAM CEMETERY TO BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 4, 1980 AT 10:15 A.M. AT FEBRUARY 5, 1980 HEARING Chairman Lemke stated that last week the Board continued the notice of intention to abandon Durham Cemetery and dedicate it as a Pioneer Memorial Park to February 5, 1980. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that it would take a longer time for the District Attorney to have the report ready. He recommended that the Board continue the Durham Cemetery hearing to March 4, 1980 at the hearing on February 5, 1980. The hearing scheduled for February 5, 1980 regarding notice of intention to abandon Durham Cemetery and dedicate it as a Pioneer Memorial Park will be continued at that time to March 4, 1980 at 10:15 a.m. DIRECT COUNSEL TO FILE QUIET TITLE ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON OLIVE HIGHWAY AND UINCY HIGHWAY Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that there is a piece of property that there is a title problem with. He asked permission to file a quiet title action on the property located on Olive Highway and. quincy Highway. The property had been purchased for relocation of the road. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, Counsel was directed to file quiet title action for property located on Olive Highway and Quincy Highway. WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE CORRECTING SECTION 2-25 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE RELATIVE TO CHANGING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THIRD SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that there had been concern relative to the boundary lines of the supervisory districts. This was between the second and third districts. The general understanding was that everything on the east side of the Esplande was going to be 3n the third district and everything in the second district would be on the west side. The maps tended to reflect that. There is a portion on the east side of the Esplanade around the cemetery that was placed in the second district. This ordinance would be correcting that change. Page 31. 7anuary 29, 1980 January 29, 1980 80- On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan ~ and unanimously carried, the first .reading of the ordinance correcting Section 2-25 of the Butte County Code relative to changing the boundary between the Second and Third Supervisorial Districts was waived. 163 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2073: PUBLIC HEARING: SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND COMPANY REZONE (NOT SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW) FROM "A-2" (GENERAL) TO "TP-160" (TIMBER PRESERVE - 160 ACRE PARCELS) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED APPROX. 1.5 MILES SOUTH OF BALD ROCK ROAD, APPROX. TWO MILES EAST OF OROVTLLE- QUINCY HIGHWAY IDENTIFIED AS AP 71-02-23 NORTHEAST OF OROVILLE The public hearing on Southern Pacific Land Company rezone (not subject to environmental review) from "A-2" (general) to "TP-160" (timber preserve - 160 acre parcels) for property located approximately 1.5 miles south of Bald Rock Road, approximately two miles east of Oroville- Quincy Highway, identified as AP 71-02-23, northeast of Oroville was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. The parcel is less than 160 acres. It was contiguous to many holdings of the company and was in the opinion that it was a part. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one. Rearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. on motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley nd unanimously carried, the rezone for Southern Pacific Land Company from A-2" (general) to "TP=160" (timber preserve - 160 acre parcels) for property located approximately 1.5 miles south of Bald Rock Road, approx- mately two miles east of Oroville-Quincy Highway, identified as AP 71-02-23, .ortheast of Oroville was approved finding it in conformity with the General lan; Ordinance 2073 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 164 RIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.28 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE RELATIVE TO MOBILEHOME5 Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that he had sent the Board a memo regarding AB 887 on the zoning regulations for mobile homes on permanent foundations. Bettye Blair had advised him that in the practice of the county, the county has allowed travel trailers to be classed as mobile homes. Under the definition of a mobile home a travel trailer of 22 square feet or less is a recreational vehicle. The Board would be eking a change in the way the ordinance is interpreted. He suggested that on the first page, line 8 of the proposed ordinance be changed to delete the words a recreational vehicle. Chairman Lemke stated that these travel trailers have been owed on the construction site and were allowed to hook up to the tic system on property. This ordinance does not include a commercial ch. Chairman Lemke set out a meeting that he had attended regarding ile homes. The term has changed from trailer to coach to mobile e to factory built housing over the course of the years. When the tern Manufacturing Housing Association meets, it is mobile home lders. They do not allow prefab builders in the association. Ralph Beemer stated that the definition of mobile home is d out in Title 25. It is an 8 foot by 30 foot trailer. This include anything that can have a permit on the highway. Chairman Lemke stated that the new mobile homes have the earances of conventional housing. They are subject to conventional ancing. If they are on a foundation, they must be conventional taxation. felt they could then be used in "R-1" zoning. Page 32. January 29, 1980 January 29, 1980 _ ~ _ _ _ 3 _ _ gp_ Mr. Blackstock stated that there-was a difference between a 3 nufactured home and a conventional home. The difference between the anufactured and conventional home and the mobile home are the requirements for building. Bettye Blair, planning director, stated that she was in agreement ith having the words a recreational vehicle taken out of the ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, the first reading of the ordinance amending ection 21.28 of Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code relative to mobile owes was waived. 165 POINTMENTS TO THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT COMMITTEE The following persons were appointed to the Chico General Plan and Use Element Committee: Jnhn Stutz by Supervisor Winston Dan Galassi by Supervisor Wheeler Frank So'lnsky by Supervisor Moseley James Magner by Supervisor Dolan Bernard Richter by Chairman Lemke Discussion of how the two committees would be worked held at his time. It was felt that the Board member Council member committee-and he citizens committee should be combined into one committee. Staff should eet together first and come up with recommendations for the committee. 166 POINTMENTS CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 5 1980 The following appointments were continued to February 5, 1980: 1. Appointments to the Mental Health Advisory Board. 2. Appointments to the Citizens Advisory Committee on Drug buse and Alcohol Advisory Board. 3. Appointment to the Agricultural Advisory Commission - istrict 4. 167 POINTMENTS TO COh3MUNITY ACTION BOARD - PUBLIC SECTOR APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were made to the Community Action oard public sector appointments: Tam Dimas member, Chairman Lemke,alternate Pat Warren, member, Supervisor Winston, alternate Dennis Lesser, member, Supervisor Wheeler, alternate Supervisor Dolan, member Supervisor Moseley, member Appointment of alternate members for District 2 and District 4 ontinued to February 5, 1980. 168 OMMUNICATIONS ingel & Associates, Chico. The engineers, on behalf of Carlton Lowers, appeal the Advisory Agency`s condition ~~Z on a tentative parcel map, AP 42-15-30, two lots, north side and adjacent to Bidwell Avenue, west of State Route 32, Chico. Set for hearing February 26, 1980 at 10:45 a.m. Page 33. January 29, 1980 Janua~ 29~ 1980 _ - _ _ _ _ 80- 3 John D. O'Donnell, et al, Oroville. A petition containing 19 signatures has been received in opposition to the Doris Miller us.e permit to allow professional offices on property zoned "H-C" (highway commercial), AP 36-71--5, corner of Foothill Boulevard and Oroville-Bangor Highway, Oroville. Hearing has been previously set for February 5, 1980 at 10:15.a.m. Richard S. Hammersmith, Paradise. Mr. Hammersmith writes requesting a refund of his drainage deposit in the amount of $3,544 for his parcel map that has been approved, AP 51-08-110 and 11 (old parcel AP 51-08-26 & 27), four lots, east side of Graham Road, south of Wagstaff Road, Paradise. Referred to Public Works to contact Mr. Hammersmith. Roy Stripe, Chico. Mr. Stripe writes with regard to the county financial situation and offers suggestions concerning employee pay increases. Information; no action taken. Child Abuse Steering Committee. The committee writes requesting an opportunity to be placed upon the agenda to make a presentation with regard to the continuance of the Parental Stress Program. Set for February 5,1980 at 1:30 p.m. with Administrative Officer to notify of time. Unified School District. The district forwards an invoice in the amount of $525.64 for costs incurred for school crossing guards for the month of September 1979. Referred to Administrative Officer and Counsel. Mastagni and Marsh, attorneys at law. The attorneys, on behalf of John Muldown, file a claim in the amount of $500,000 as a result of alleged injuries for an accident occurring October 25, 1979. See motion following communications. C. Ielati, et al, Oroville. Claims have been received for Pete C. Ielati, $250,000; Donna Ielati, $250,000; Gonnie Ielati, $150,000; and Connie Ielati {on behalf of minor child Pepsins C. Ielati) $150,000 as a result of alleged damages occurring October 11, 1979. See motion following communications. tare Air Resources Board. Thomas C. Austin, executive officer, forwards notification that the Butte County Air Pollution Control:District subvention application for 1979-80 has been approved. Information; no action taken. E. Hartman, Oroville. Mr. Hartman appeals the Advisory Agency's approval of draft EIR and 'Valley View tentative subdivision map, AP 34-27-116, 80 lots, northeast side of Oakvale Avenue, 1500 feet southeast of Hilldale, Oroville. Set for hearing February 5, 1980 at 11:30 a.m. S. Starr, Forest Ranch. Mr. Starr writes appealing the Planning Commission's denial of a use permit for a mobile home park in the Forest Ranch area, AP 56-28-33. Set for hearing February 26, 1980 at 11:15 a.m. Nichols, Chico. Mr. Nichols appeals the Advisory Agency's denial of draft EIR and tentative parcel map, AP 63-01-118, four parcels, on the west side of Doe Mill Road, south half of southeast quarter of Section 19, T23N, R3E, Forest Ranch. Set for hearing February 26, 1980 at 11:30 a.m. Page 34. January 29, 1980 January 29, 1980 80- 169~REJECT CLAIM - JOHN MULDOWN b On motion of Supervisor.Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the claim of John Muldown in the amount of $500,000 as a result of alleged injuries for an accident occurring October 25, 1979 was rejected and referred to Counsel and Risk Management Coordinator. 170 REJECT CLAIMS - PETE C. IELATI, ET AL On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, the claims for Pete C. Ielati, $250,000; Donna Ielati, $250,000; Connie Ielati, $150,000; and Connie Ielati (on behalf of minor child Pepsine C. Ielati), $150,000 as a result of alleged damages occurring October 11, 1979 were rejected and referred to Counsel and Risk Management Coordinator. 171 PUBLIC HEARING: DENNIS HARFORD - APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S CONDITION ~~4 ON TENTATI3fE PARCEL MAP, AP 39-37-73, FOUR LOTS, EAST SIDE OF DAYTON ROAD, APPROX: 500 FEET SOUTH OF STANLEY AVENUE ,_ CHI_CO- The public hearing on Dennis Harford appeal of Advisory Agency's condition 4~4 on a tentative parcel map, AP 39-37-73, four lots, east side of Dayton Road, approximately 500 feet south of Stanley Avenue, Chico was held at this time. Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background of the appeal. This property is within the urban area of Chico. The ordinance requires urban improvements. There is one--half mile before there are any curbs and gutters. He suggested that Mr. Harford be allowed to postpone the improvements for curbs and gutters subject to applicant signing a covenant. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Cal Bachman. Mr. Bachman did not see any problem with the covenant. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Winston d unanimously carried, the appeal was upheld providing the owner signs covenant pertaining to urban improvements. i72IAPPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: NORTH CHICO FIRE STATION On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the plans and specifications for the North Chico Fire Station for curb, gutter and gravel were approved and the bid (opening was set for February 20, 1980 at 2:30 p.m. in the Purchasing Agent's Office. 173IAPPROVE SENDING OF MEMO OF COMMENDATION TO SHERIFF'S UNUSUAL INSTANCE Supervisor Wheeler reported that on January 20, 1980 the Sheriff's usual Instance Team was called out in Gridley. The mission wasssuccessful. th the criteria used there were no hostages or officers inured and there s no property damage sustained. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, a memo of commendation is to be sent to the Sheriff's Unusual Instance Team. 174 ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Winston questioned what was happening with the State Fire Marshall's report regarding the jail. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated this was telling .the county what was wrong at the-::3ati. Page 35. January 29, 1980 so- Januar~* 29~ 1980 _-_____~ Supervisor Winston addressed the memo from Supervisor Dolan regarding the Big Chico Creek Estates Subdivision hearing that was held. He read a news article in the Chico Enterprise nn January 24, 1980 about Supervisor's appeal goes unanswered. There was a memo presented by Supervisor Dolan that was 2-1/2 pages of single space typewritten material. It was handed to the other Supervisors during the middle of the debate on adoption of the motion. He was incapable of absorbing that lengthy of memo in any ten or fifteen minutes. He addressed a few items at this time. Reference was made at one point in the memo to the red line. earch has shown him that the City of Chico reaffirmed the red line not have to do with single family residential it was a line of areation.for multiple family units to stop. Comments made about the p down in zoning to the west. There are several items in this memo has not had the time to research thoroughly. There is reference rural and agricultural zones in the memo. He did not know what Supervisor an had meant by rural zoning. Supervisor Dolan stated that rural to her was very cursory. There some changes she would like to make to the memo, most~.y additions. the context of reporting the history of the area, rural was one-half five acres. Supervisor Winston stated that he wanted the people to be re of the fact that he would always like to be able to respond. took exception with some of the statements in the memo. He felt t researching the matter would bear him out. He did not feel it would ve a useful purpose to answer the memo point by point as there has n a committee formed to study the Chico area. Supervisor Dolan stated that certainly Supervisor Winston disagree with her. She was getting her information from minutes of tings. She was also on the Planning Commission. As far as appeal not approve the subdivision, it did not unanswered as there was a ee to one vote. Chairman Lemke stated that he had received a letter from leers McCann, Newland Road, Paradise regarding the license penalty dogs. She had to pay the late charges. She had been previously fled when the licenses were due. This did not hagpen this year. felt it was unfair to now have a suspended penalty fee for those have not paid their license fees. The letter was refexred to the Administrative Office. 175 APPEARANCE: TERRY BARNES Mr. Barnes stated that the Board had held a hearing regarding is denied rezone earlier in the day. He asked what he would have to do to have the matter approved. Mr. Barnes was advised to contact the Planning Director and _ find out the reason that the rezone was denied and what he could do to ave his property divided. :y~. TIVE SESSION: The Board recessed at 12:10 p.m. to hold an executive session regarding litigation and meet and confer. Page 36. January 29, 1980 January 29, 1980 _ _ 80- RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 12:55 p.m. following an executive ~ session regarding meet and confer and litigation. Nothing to report at this time. There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, February 5; 1980 at 9:00 a.m. ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk ~~ of the Board of Supervisors ` ~O/f ~/ ~~ C airman, Boa Supervisors gy ~ [~. Page. 37. January 29, 1980 PAGES 38 TO 175 OMITTED BY MISTAKE