HomeMy WebLinkAboutM042881April 28, 1981
STATE OF CALTFORN?A )
SS.
', COUNTY OP' BDTTE )
_81- The Board of Supervisors~:met at 9-QO a.m~ pursuant to adjournment.
b ', Present: Supervisors Dolan,,Lemke, Saracens -LZheeler and Chairman Moseley
', Clif Nickelson, adms~istrative 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 fiy Supervisor Lemke
683 APPROVAL OF 1KINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded &y Supervisor Wheeler
'and unanimously carried, the minutes of April 14 and April 21, 1981 were
', approved as mailed witFi the following corrections and amendments:
Minutes of April 14, 1981, minute order 81-b05, page 235 to
reflect: Supervisor Saracens felt that it was necessary to go out to bid
', so that if the bids are over, the architect can design within the county
budget.
Minutes of April 14, 1981, minute order 81-624. to reflect that
', the Chairman was authorized to sign the grant deed for the following
', exchange of properties:
', Robert Cadwalader et ux, parcel 5, Skyway FAS Y742(3) ProjecC.
Howard Churchill et ux parcel 8, Skyway FAS Y742(3) Project.
684 ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE DAY
Supervisor Saracens stated fie would report on the meeting of
CSAC in Sacramento and the meeting with the Socsal Services Director.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she would report on her activities
at CSAC,
Supervisor Lemke would be discussing the leash. law and the
convention about economic development the county is hoping to sponsor.
685 PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A puBlic hearing date o£ May 19, 1981 at 11:15 a.m. was set
for consideration of revenue sharing proposed use Bearing for 1981-82.
686 APPROVE PENALTY ABATEMENT RE VESTS CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP REPORT
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saracens
and unanimously carried, the penalty abatement requests, change of
ownership reports were approved:
', 1. Matt V., Vernon L. and Venita E. Tuter, AP 008-29-0-071-0
2, Guido F. Marchstelli, AP 044-17-0-0.93-0.
687 APPROVE CATALYST WOMENS ADVOCATES, TNC._DOMESTTC VIOLENCE PRQGRAM CONTRACT
', On motion of Supervisor Saracens, seconded t5y Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the contract with. Catalyst Womens Advocates, Inc.
'; for operation of a Domestic Violence Program (Senate Bill 1246) in Butte
', County throug£i the end of the current fiscal .year at a monthly rate of
resmbursement of $6.9.0.. was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
Page 270.
April 28, 19.81
81= 6.88
v''
689
~1gx~1 28 ~ 1281
ADOPT I2ESpLUTIQN;81=83'LOANING $4,150 TO.COUNTX SETtYICE',AREA 4
Qn.mation.of Supervisor.Lemke.second.edLh~'.Supervisor Saracens
and unanimously caxxi'ed~.~esolutiori.8I-83.purs,nant to Government Code
aect%ori 25210-, 9c transferring ~from`the~.xesa.~:ve end.loaning to County Service
Area 4 th.e sum of $4,150 to provide ,~oz .unanticipated drainage maintenance
with the: lean to_.be.repaid no later thane ,7une30=, 5982 was adopted and the
Chairman autfiorized to sign.
APPROVELBUDGET TRANSFERS
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and unanimously carried, the following budget txans£ers were approved:
B-202 ~ Board of Supervisors. Transfers $2,000. from transportation
and travel to extra help ~n order to provide an additional appropriation to
cover tfie greater than anticipated use of aide and clerical assistance.
B~203 -Paradise Justice Court. Transfers- $1,00.0 from the reserve
to office exgens~e in order to cover current budgetary deficiencies and to
gxovide an appropriation for the balance of tFie fiscal year brought about
by the increase workload and costs. '
B-204 - Buildings and Grounds Maintenance. Transfers $30,550 from
the reserve; with $15,500 going to extra help, $10.,000- to household expense,
$50 to office expense and $5,000 to travel. The purpose of this transfer is
to cover the unanticipated increased costs brougfit about by illnesses, increased
waste disposal costs and increased fuel costs.
B-20.5 - Court Rem. Transfers $8,500 from the reserve to
professional and specialized services in order to provide an additional
appropriation to cover the increased demand for court reporters brought
about by increased workloads in the courts.
B-206 - Treasurer-Tax Collector. Transfers $3,00.0 from regular
salaries, $3,500 from extra help and $1,000 from overtime; with $7,500 going
to office expense in order to provide an additional appropriation to cover
the unanticipated increases in postal costs and printing charges.
B-207 - Probation - OCJP Victim/Witness Program. Transfers $450
from regular salaries and wages to fixed assets and $600 from rents and
leases of structures to rents and leases of equipment. The-purpose of this
transfer is to transfer appropriations between budgetary line items within
the Victim/Witness Program pursuant to budget modification ~~1 approved by
the Office of Criminal Justice Planning on April 6, 1981.
B-208 - Elections. Transfers $12,064 from the reserve; with $7,500
going to extra help, $4,200 to office expense, $150 to professional and
specialized services, $150 to publications and legal notices and $60 to
rents of structures. The purpose of this appropriation is to cover current
and projected budgetary deficiencies as well as costs for the June 2, 1981
Thermalito Irrigation District election; the cost of which will be reimbursed
to the county.
B-204. - Welfare. Transfers $800 from equipment to maintenance of
equipment in order to cover the set up costs of equipment ordered in the
prior year budget and also to cover tfie costs of reupfiolstering existing
chairs rather than purchasing new equipment.
B-210- ~ Superior Court. Transfers $30.,500- from revenue sharing --
jail addition project to professional and specialized services within the
Superior Court budget to cover current budgetary deficiencies and to provide
an appropriation fox the balance of the. fiscal year to cover the. substantial
page 271.
April' 28, 1481
_--___-__===A~x;L128, 1981__________________
81- increase ~,n majox• caaminal cases .being heard wh~,ch_ have necessitated funds
b', being expended.for~private investigators, count reporters' transcrigts
and doctors' examinations,
B~211 -~'PaFilio Works ~- Gerieral'Services. Transfers $50 from
office expense to overtime in order to cover overt~ue costs generated from
attending a night meeting wittl regard to tfie house uumliering program.
Clif Michelson, administrative officer, advised the Board that
tfiis week there fiord been $52,000 from tfie reserve and another $30,000
from the revenuesHaring funds wfiich make a total of $80,00.0 coming from
the reserve this week. There will b:e many more transfers proposed before
the end of the year with funding coming from tfie reserve. Most of the
transfers are in the law enforcement area,
Supervisor Dolan asked for a report on the amount of money
remaining in the jail addition revenue sharing account.
690 PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
', A public ffearing date of May 14, 19.81 at 10-:04 a.m. was set for
consideration of Charles L. Silveira petition for variance to sections
19--10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 58-21-23, Route 1, Box 243, Big Bend Road, Oroville. Zoning: "A-2'and
"S-H„
691
692
693
APPROVE VARFANCE RENEWALS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the following were approved:
1. George and Lois Silva renewal of variance to Sections 19-LO
and/or Sections 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile
home on AP 40-17-104, 2026 Vista Lane, Durham area. Zoning: "A-5".
2. Lawrence Towner renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 40-30-001,
10168 Jones Avenue, Durham area. Zoning: "A-5"
APPROVE MEADOW ESTATES UNIT ~~3 FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the deposit by the developer of $3,094.83 for
taxes or special assessments which are a Lien, but not payable yet for
Meadow Estates Unit 4~3;Subdivision, 48 lots, AP 43-04-129, AP 43-054-18,
AP 43-07-08 and 05, property located south of West 11th Avenie, between
Fern Avenue and Holly Avenue, Chico area was approved; the final subdivision
map was approved; grant-in=fee right-of-way for Cecelia Lane, Dias Drive,
Durango Way, Carlos Place and Meadow Road were accepted; easements granted
for light and air were accepted; easement for public utility purposes
(including water, sewer, dra3:nage, electric, gas and communication facilities)
were accepted; and the Chairman authorized to sign the subdivision agreement.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CDNNERLY ASSOCIATES AND COUNSEL TO PREPARE ORDINANCE
PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33101 DECLARING THE NEED
FOR AN AGENCY TO FUNCTION IN BUTTE COUNTY AND EXPRESSING THE BOARD S
INTENTION TO DECLARE ITSELF TO BE THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE SECT TON 33200 HELD OVER TO LATER TN THE MEETING
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
',that Connerly and Associates and Counsel be instructed to prepare an
'ordinance pursuant to Health-and Safety Code Section 33101 declaring the
need for a redevelopment agency to function in Butte County, and expressing -
the Board FS intention to declare itself to Fie the agency pursuant to Health.
and Safety Code Section 33200.
Page 272.
April' 28, 1481
81-
3',
69:4
695
696
~1pzi1 28i 19.81
Supervisor Dolan stated she had a.~eaz•ques:tions.relative to
the redevelopment agency. While she: is. npt opposed to a redevelopment
agency-, tiie county-hay complaints against two cites. £or estab fishing
redevelopment agencies; I£ the county sets up a.redeyelogment agency, is
the county going to complain against itself.£or funding of other required
county governmental services?
The matter was continued to later in the meeting.
_. _. __
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2212;'APPROVE PTJBLIC WORKS ITEMS'
On motion of S'upexvisor Wheeler; seconded. by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, tfie following action was taken:
1. Autfiorized house numbering for an island block surrounded
by Gridley for the City of Gridley to number houses in the block surrounded
by Sycamore, Idaho, Randolph and Laurel Streets according to the city's
system or that tFie county renumber the houses to fit tfie city's system.
2. Waived the building permit penalty for Bob C. Tuttle as a
result of confusion on the applicant's part, but not waiving the actual
permit fee itself.
3. Waived the second reading of the ordinance establishing
25 mph speed limit on Conners Avenue between the Esplanade and East
Avenue; Adopted Ordinance 2212 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
4. Approved agreement with, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service covering improvement of a portion of Humbug Summit Road by
the Forest Service that will not involve county funds and the Director of
Public Works was authorized to sign the agreement.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-84 MAKING APPLTCi8TI0N TO LAFCO PROPOSING ADDITIONAL
STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE TO EXISTING SERVICES IN COUNTY SERVICE AREA 26
(THERMALITO SEWER}
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and unanimously carried, Resolution 81-84 making application to LAFCo
proposing the addition of storm drain maintenance to existing services
for County Service Area 26 (Thermalito Sewer} was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
ENCOURAGE PUBLIC WORKS AEPARTMENT TO PROCEED AND MAKE EXACT BOUNDARY LINES
FOR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE DISTRICT WITHIN 173E AREA OF ROCK
CREEK AND UPPER MUD CREEK
Clay Castleberry, public works director, asked the Board if
he concurred with the need for a maintenance district in Rock Creek
and Upper Mud Creek areas. He hoped the Soard would consider this in the
future. There are b0.0 additional lots in process in that area. There are
1,500 to 2,000 parcels existing now. This district would allow negotiations
with the downstream property owners. Action by the Board would allow his
office to do the exact boundaries of the district. The small county
service area of Quatl Run would be included within this district. There
are maps being field up because the county does not have this maintenance
district.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Public Works Department was encouraged to proceed
and make exact boundary lines for the proposed storm drain maintenance
district within the area of Rock Creek and Upper Mud Creek.
Page 273.
April 28, 14.81
>i_~
:t
81- fi9.7
a
6 g8
---------~px~'i 28~ 19.81,________________ __
ADOPT RESOLUTION .81<85 SETTENG.~'UBL1C HEk1RING D~TE_FOR.ROBERT SFTENDEMAN
ABANDONMENT 0~ :RUBLIC ~AELES',irIQ,X BETWEEN LAKELAND AND :GOLD STREETS, AND
BET[QEEN ARROW".AND;COLINA ~IN THE WESTERN'.PA,C~k'IC"ADDITION
On motion of~supervisor.Lemke, secondedfiy Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried,.Resolution 8 185 setting a public Tiearing date
of June 2, T981 at~1Q;OQ a.m. for Rofiert Swendeman-abandonment of public
alleyway betweea Lakeland and Go 1d Streets,~and_:betvzeen Arrow and Colina,
in the t~Testern Pacific Addition was adopted and tha Chairman authorized
to sign.
__... _ ..
APPOINTMENTS = CONTINUED TO S~AAX 5; 1981
Tfie' following appointments were continued to Slay 5,1981:
1. Appointment to Yout$ Planning Council (apprenticeship agencies)
2. Appointment to the Butte County Justice System Advisory Group.
69.9
700
701
702
APPOINTMENT TO AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Jerry Meiidon was appointed to the Agricultural
Advisory Commission, District 5.
APPOINTMENT TO BUTTE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY CONTINUED TO MAY 5 1981
Appointment to the Butte County Housing Authority, District 5,
was continued to May 5, 1981.
APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT TASK FORCE
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Dan Halvig was appointed to the Housing Element
Task Force, District 5.
Appointment to the Housing Element Task Force, Districtz5, was
continued to May 5, 1981.
CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT FOR SB 814 AND SB 503 - CONTINUED T6 MAY 5 1981
Consideration of the following was Field at this time:
Request by California Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
of Sacramento to Support SB 814 repealing the requirements to pay the
prevailing wages in the State of California
Support for Senate Bill 503 (poolittleZ concerning parole
registration.
Supervisor Saraceni felt that when a request to support or
oppose a certain piece of legislation is presented to the Board, the
matter should 6e submitted to CSAC for more information.
The matter was continued to May 5, 1981,
703
CONSIDERATION OF LEASH LAW IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that the county
considered a leash law in the unincorporated areas of the county about
ten or Fifteen years ago. Both animal control and the Sheriff could enforce
the law. Normally, it would be the animal control people enforcing the
law. This type law makes it easier for the courts to fine someone.
Supervisor Dolan felt tfiis was an urfian type. regulation. -
She felt that the Board should consider an ordinance only for the urban
areas and not on a countywide basis. She would not like to see the
leash laFr enacted for the rural areas where. there is agriculture.
Page 274.
April 28, 19.81
~gx~.l 28, 1681
81=
3,
70Lr
She would like to seethe urban areas identi~i,~d, She would also like
to see th~oard hold .public hearings on this matter.
Supervisor Lemke:. stated this is a problem throughout the
county and agreed that some of the area sHould $.e excluded. That is what
the hearing could .fie for. He had very serious concerns about not allowing
dogs on agricultural land.
Staff was instructed to identify some. of the urban areas where
there might 5e a need-for the ardinance. The matter was referred to the
Agricultural Advisory Commission. The matter was referred to the
contractor, Animal Control and Health.5'ervices, for an official comment.
The contractor is to also be asked about the impact on services by adoption
of such an ordinance. Report to Tie made on whether anyone has been fined
under the current ordinance.
INSTRUCT CONNERLY ASSOCIATES AND COUNSEL TO PREPARE ORDINANCE DECLARING THE
NEED FOR A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND EXPRESSING THE BOARDS INTENTION TO
DECLARE ITSELF TO BE THE AGENCY
Ward Connerly, Connerly and Associates, stated that the most
serious problem confronting Butte County is that of economic development.
In some parts of this state there are more jobs than people. He felt
that in the next few years the effort to move in economic development
would be to get some type of effort in which the public sector furnishes
jobs. There are a number of laws under a redevelopment agency in which
the agency can issue development bonds, acquire land and offer it for
private sector development. He suggested that the county imbark on a
redevelopment agency. He felt the Board could provide the leadership.
He felt it was time, the county went to the federal: government and asked
if they could use the income from the HCD project outside the target area.
Supervisor Dolan understood that a redevelopment agency was
really a mechanism for funding public works projects and the flexibility
of using tax increment money. It seemed to her that the tax increment
money would not be going for basic services. The Board is complaining
that there might not be funding for police, roads, fire and necessary
services. If the county has a complaint with the cities and approves
a redevelopment agency, what does the county do when it comes to providing
police and fire services.
Mr. Connerly felt where would be diminished capacity for
general purposes services. With employment looking up tFiis would be a
good tool to use. If there are more jobs then there is a stronger
economy.
Supervisor Lemke stated that a redevelopment agency was not
necessarily housing developments but could Iie industrial centers that
would require less services. This would also attract hidden money
to investments to the county in industry or housing.
Mr. Connerly stated there had been a study done on that.
There are multiple factors that for every public dollar there are six
and twelve dollars from the private sector in the area.
the study.
Supervisor Dolan stated she would be ~:nterested in seeing
Mr. Convexly set out what would have to happen for a redevelopment
agency. It would pximarily he for industrial and commercial and not just
housing. They are .required to use twenty percent of the redevelopment
agency for housing. The design of the specific area would b.e after
creation of the entity. Page 275.
April 28, 19.81
a-
a
~1pr~.l 28, 19.81
S.uperyisor-Dp1an stated this r~tould not he for the entire county.
If it was .deterigfp.ed.that the county needed.the tax increment money for
fiasic services cculd..tTie county stiii use the money for the fiasic services.
Mr. Connerly stated that the first .decision tfie Board would
Eiave to make is if they would use tax increment financing. This would
have to Be specific in the redevelopment plan. Tax increment funds
for that purpose is limited to that geographic area.
It was vtoved fiy Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
that Connerly Associates and Counsel be instructed to prepare an ordinance
pursuant to Bealth and Safety Code Section 33101 .declaring the~need for an
redevelopment agency to function in Butte County, and express the Board's
intention to declare itself to be the agency pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33200.
Supervisor Lemke wondered if they could use tfie economic
development seminar as part of that, or if it would be a separate question.
Mr. Connerly suggested that the county offer to sponsor that
event. The event has been scheduled. Tt felt it was quite appropriate
that the Board have a county sponsored event.
Supervisor Lemke stated the county was planning on sponsoring
the seminar. They have received a letter from CSUC advising that the
college is willing to come in and help the county with the program. Mr.
Beckett has offered the assistance for the college. He will be contacting
the county for a preconference on a course of action for the program.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley
NOES: None
Motion carried.
AUTHORIZE DATA PROCESSING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATTONS
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR LONG RANGE PLAN AND HARDWARE CONFIGURATIONS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded 6y Supervisor Saracens
and unanimously carried, the Data Processing Executive Committee was
authorized to enter into negotiations with Gillinger and Associates for
consultant services for Data Processing long range plan and hardware
configurations.
705
RECESS: 9:54 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:12 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD K. HOOD - PETITION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 19-10
AND/OR 19-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE FOR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON
AP 56-15-23 ROUTE 2 BOX 483 G COHASSET STAGE CHI CO AREA ZONING: "TM-5"
The public hearing on Gerald K. Hood petition for variance to
Sections 19-10 and/or 1q-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a
mobile home on AP 56-15-23, Route 2, Box 483 G, Coliasset Stage, Chico area,
',zoning: "TM-5" was held as advertised.
706
Lynn Vanfiart, environmental health. director, set out the
background of the petition. It is in order,
Bearing open to the pufilic. Appearing: No one,
Page 276.
,April 28, 1981
s1'-
a
707
___--__-____ ~ri128, 1881________________.-_
- .Hearing closed to the gublic end confined to the Board.
4n motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded Fly Supervisor Dolan
and unanimau~Iy carried,-tfie petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of tFie Butte County Code £or~placement of a mobile dome on AP 56-15-23,
Route 2, Sox '483 G, Cohasset Stage,-Chico area; zoning: °fTM 5" for
Gerald K. Hood was approved for a period of one year.
ADOPT RESOLUTION-.81-8Fi: PUBLIC HEARINGS 'V. & M. REALTY ~ ABANDONMENT OF
PUBLIC'UTTLITIES EASELgENT' PARADISE PINES UNIT 8 LOT 254
The-public hearing on V. &'M. Realty atia.ndonment of public
utilities easement, Paradise Pines, Unit 8, Lot 254 was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the Tackground of the
abandonment. It is in order.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to tfie Board.
708
709
', 710
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the abandonment of public utilities easement,
Paradise Pines, Unit 8, Lot 254 for V. & M. Realty was-approved; Resolution
81-86 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING• PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR AI}E UATE FIRE PROTECTION
The public hearing on the proposed standards for adequate fire
protection was taken off the agenda at this time,
REPORT TO THE BOARD: TM1'LEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.3
(SB 1960) CONCERNING MOBILE HOMES
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
report she had submitted to the Board relative to the implementation of
Government Code Section 65852.3 (SB 1960) concerning mobile homes.
She had copies of the ordinances from Sacramento and San Diego Counties
that would require a permit be issued for certificate of compatibility.
it appears this ordinance flies in the face of what the Legislature is
saying. Both of the ordinances provide for astethics even though there
is no requirement for conventional homes. She felt that mobile homes
worked in Butte County. The mobile homes would have to be placed
according to the Health and Safety Code. They would be installed with
permits. This will affect all zoning codes. There are two ways to
t approach this matter. The law does not require an ordinance until
July 1, 1981. She would like to bring back a formal ordinance for the
Board's consideration.
An ordinance to be prepared and brought back for Board
consideration on May 5, 1981.
PUBLIC HEARING: JOSEPH L. BROWNFiELD APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S
CONDITION 9 TO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 47-33-14 AND 15 (TWO PARCELS FOR
TAX CODE PURPOSES), FOUR LOTS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KEEPER
ROAR APPROX. ONE MILE EAST OF STATE ROUTE 89 NORTH OF CHI CO
The public hearing on Josepfi L. Brnwafield appeal of Advisory
Agency's. condition 9- on tentative parcel map, AP 47-33-14 and 15 (two
parcels for tax code purposes)., four lots, property located on the north
side of Keefer Road, approximately one mile east of State Route 49, north
o£ Chico was held as advertised,
Clay Castleberry, public works d~^rectox, set out the background
of the appeal, This is a fairly small parcel map. Th.e land slopes away
Page 277,
April 28, 19.81
S~1
b
from Rock Creek. Earl~;er a development put in a pipe with. adverse
drainage to Rock.Cxe~ wtith a flappex gate. .This: Sacked the water into
Rock Creek. Economically.th.ere is.a problem inputting a drainage system
in for four parcels. Tfiis.parcel map is in tfie area of the proposed
maintenance district discussed earlier in tfie meeting. This is part of
the 600_lots planned in this area. By itself,.they could not put in the
system. It is-not practical to bring all the people. together to put in
a system because not all the people want to develop at tfie same time.
This development would dump water on the county road. The cost to pipe
to Keefer Slougfi vrould cost several thousand dollars fox each parcel.
Hearing open to the public. Appearingt
1. Myles Pustejovsky, McCain and Associates. Mx. Pustejovsky
stated tfiere were two tha:ngs for this particular case. Rock Creek has
problems in itself further to the-east. They fiave no improvements on the
proposed cul-de-sac. There are no curbs or gutters- required. Their
proposal is not to dump any more water on Keefer Slough. They will contain
the water on tfie property. The parcels are 1--1/2 acres plus. They are
proposing seepage pits. These are glorified leacFi fields.
Mr. Castleberry suggested that tb.e Board approve the temporary
solution and ask the developer to make arrangements to go with one or
two other parcels to the Slough when the other parcel is developed. This
could be done by deposit.
Dan Hlackstock, county counsel, advised that the Board did not
have a plan whereby they could levy any type of assessment. The Board
could enter into a development agreement whereby the developer would
deposit whatever amount of money for the condition and the county would
hold the funds until they are ready to build 'the pipeline. There would
be no lien on the property.
2. Bruce McClintock. Mr. McClintock objected to any development
on the west side of the highway until something is done with Rock Creek.
There is a big problem there. Four little lots are not much but when
combined could cause a problem. Rock Creek will start overflowing and the
prime agricultural land will wash down the river.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Mr. Castleberry suggested that the Board instruct Public Works
to work with the developer as discussed to set up some-sort of mechanism
and agreement to put in the facilities with another developer in this
area.
The matter was continued to May 5, 1951 for a written recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING: THE LOWEN COMPANY DRAFT EIR AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL)
AND "R 1" (SINGLE FAMTLY RESIDENTIAL) TO "PA-C" (PLANNED AREA-CLUSTER)
TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 44 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 99., ON B"0TH SLDES OF ESTATES DRIVE,
IDENTIFIED AS AP 40-35-04 13 & 14 & AP 40--02-124 SOUTHEAST OF CHICO
The public fiearing on the Lowen Company draft environmental
impact report and rezone from "A~2" Cgeneral~ sand "R-1" {single family
residential). to "PA-C" (planned area-cluster), to allow the development of
44 residential dwelling units on property located on the southwest side
of State Highway 29, on both sides of Estates Drive, identified as -
AP 40-35-0-4, 13 and 14 and AP 40-0.2--124, southeast of Chico was held as
advertised.
711
Page 278.
April 28, 1481
81-
b,
April 28, 1981 _ _ _ _
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
rezone. It was recommended far approval.
Earl Belson, environmental review director, set out the background
of the draft ETR. There are some environmental concerns. Traffic is
a concern because of the intersection on the highway. Other concerns
are noise, lass of trees, and the area residents-have expressed concern
about the ozater system.
Hearing open to tf~e public. Appearing:
~~
1. Mark Adams:, 'McCain and Associates. Mr. Adams stated this
is a single family residential development. There would be a homeowners
association. There are 43 lots on 14.4 acres with.a density of less than
three units per acre. Tt conforms to the. General Plan designation. Butte
Creek Estates Service Corporation will serve this project for water service.
There is agreement between the developer and the corporation that the developer
will drill a new well and will connect to the existing system. All new
facilities will meet county and state requirements for water quality control.
There will be seven new fire hydrants. Tfie preliminary Sewage disposal
has been approved by the county. The frontage road will be realigned for
a safer intersection. There will be a sound wall, street lights provided
and will be 200 feet of riparian right--of-way along Durham ditch.. The
storm drainage facilities will be similar to Sacramento Avenue Assessment
District. Building setbacks will be maintained around the perimeter and
fencing will 6e constructed. They have altered the plan so as many trees
as possible can be maintained. The developer has tried to mitigate every
concern and has held public meetings with the Butte Creek Estates property
owners. The road realignment will move the two intersections further apart
and allow for stacking. There will not be waiting in the middle'of the
intersection for a left hand turn. The average wait is only five to ten
seconds.
2. Elizabeth Metzker. Mrs. Metzker stated that the traffic
study was done August 23, 1979 when Butte College was not in session.
Tt was done between 3:00 and 3:38 p.m. The traffic time is between
7:00 and 9.:00 a.m. There is presently a set of covenants and restrictions
in Butte Creek Estates. These CC&Rs do not allow for subdivision in this
area. This development would lower the value of the homes in Butte Creek
Estates. In September, 1980 she presented a petition to the Board asking
for help with the traffic problems. To allow this development would add
to the problem. She asked that the Board ask Butte Creek Mutual Water
Company if they had a permit to issue more shares.
3. Lau Chrysler. Mr. Chrysler stated~~he was representing the
Board of the Country Club. The club has only one concern and that is the
proximity of some of the dwellings to the property lines and potential
trespassing or use of the golf course for other than golf. They do not
anticipate any problems. Mr. Chrysler stated that speaking as a property
owner and individual who has built about 200 houses in this community,
he favored the project. Tt is a well planned project. He felt the concerns
about landscaping, sound barriers and density had been answered.
4. Lee Colby. Mr. Colby stated he was appearing as a property
owner and also as president of Butte Creek Service Corporation. The
company supplies water and takes care of drainage pump. Tfie company is
supportive of the project and this will give them an alternate water
supply in case of fire. There is only one well in the subdivision at the -
present time. Mr. Colby speaking as an individual supported the project.
The traffic is a problem, but he felt there would always be a problem with
traffic. They do not have the permit to sell the shares of stock at this time.
Page 279.
April 28,' 1981
81-
$',
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = ~pr~.l 28 z 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
They do not apply for the permit until the project is formally approved
and the Lowen Company- asks for-tb.e s~iares.. At the present time, with
the one well, he u~as-sure the commissioner would not issue an additional
44 shares of &tock.
5. Walter Grimes. Mr. Grimes stated fiis property looks across
at the development. He looked forward to'-the development. This was
originally figured for a ~'C-2" area. There iaere to iie small business.
He supported the project.
6-. Elizabeth.~'Ietzker. Mrs. Metzker stated that the water company .
did not have the right to issue G4 more permits for the water. The present
permit for water is held in abeyance because of misfilings. She has not
received her share of the water company for two years because of mishandling
of the water company.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that an a straight rezone
there is not a requirement for any type of water available. This is a
planned development and therefore are required to have water made available.
This would become a condition on the tentative subdivision. Before the
lots could be sold the final map would have to be recorded. In order to
take care of the condition the stock would have to fie issued, The
developer would be unable to seta any of the houses unless this condition
were complied with.
Mrs. Metzker stated there have been people that have moved into
the estates subdivision in the last few years- who do not have shares for
their property. Who would get the water in the event there is a draught.
The well for this new project would be directly at the entrance of the
estates. Unless there is a building built around the well it will be
unsightly. The highway calls for future expansion to the south. The
study by Lowen Company states there are 7.5 xrips per day per vehicle.
That is a great deal of traffic. She was concerned with the CC&Rs being
enforced,
Mrs. Metzker was advised that the CC&Bs: were a civil matter and
the county did not enforce them.
7. Lee Colby. Mr. Colby stated that Mrs. Metzker was a share
holder in the water company. The water company is a legal entity. They
have made application for the additional shares for the lots that have been
split in the Bast. The permits were not issued. Those lots are still
serviced by one service. The company has been remiss since the conception
of the company and he hoped they were getting that solved. In order for
the parcels to be sold it will be necessary for Lowen Company to have shares
for the water company. The only other way they could do it would be to
put in their own well and seceded from the water company.
8. Mr. Meierdiercks. Mr. Meierdiercks supported the project.
At the present time this area is not maintained and is used for dumping
of trash from the homes across the area.
9. George Matchette. Mr. Matchette supported the project. It
will add a great deal to tfieir property.
10. Mark Adams. Mr. Adams realized tfiat CC&Rs were a civil matter.
The CC&Rs call for the area to be commercially zoned. He felt this would
be better that a commercial area. The additional well will be tied to -
the existing water sys-tem. Fencing will be provided around dwellings to
contain the people. The traffic is a problem and the accident rate is
minimal. He felt that the realignment of the intersection wia-1 be just
Page 280:,
April 28, 1981
",• A
\'.
~~
b
. _ ....... ~ ~ = Apx~~,l 28~19.81~ ~ ........... ~ ~ _ _ _
as safe as it is now, This zs wally a m$nor problem. The project will not
increaser the tra~~i,c on Estates Drive going through the suTidivis.ion. The
state is not opposed to-the development,
Supervisor Dolan felt tfiat it was.necess~ry to da;scuss the
intersection. There are 13,000 people that gob that intersection.
At some point someone needs to address this natter.
Supervisor Lemke stated that the Skyway ADT is higher,
Hearing closed to the pufilic and confined to the Board.
712
On. motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, a motion of intent was made to approve the rezone
from "A-2" (general) and "R-1" (single family residential) to "PA-C" (planned
area-cluster) to allow the development of 44 residential dwelling units
on property located on the southwest side of State Highway 99, on both sides
of Estates Drive, identified as AP 40-35-04, 13 and 14 and AP 40-02-124,
southeast of Chico for The Lowen Company subject to the inclusion of
conditions as conditions of the project and for certification of the ETR
and that the closed hearing be continued to May 5, 1981 at 11:00 a.m.
RECESS: 11:20 a.m.
RECONVENE: 11:27 a.m.
REMOVE CONDITION ON BUILDING PERMIT FOR EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH, OROVILLE
3erry Short spoke regarding the building permit for the Evangelical
Free~Church in Oroville. They have nearly completed about a $250,000 building
project. They received a letter on wheelchair access. They appealed the
decision relative to this access to the Handicapped Building Code Board
of Appeals. Their appeal was denied. The requirement is to have
the platform accessible to wheelchairs. It was his understanding that
the recently completed Board room is not accessible to the handicapped.
The platform for the Board room does not allow for wheelchairs. He did
not feel that chruches should be required to have this access. There is
wheelchair access to the building.
It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, seconded fiy Supervisor Saraceni
that the condition to require wheelchair access to the platform for the
Evangelical Free Church in Oroville be removed.
Dan Blacicstock, county counsel, advised tfiat the procedure
ends with the committee. His recommendation was that tiie Board could
take this action. When the county starts talking about how a church
can arrange their altar and pulpit, they are starting to push into
something maybe the state has no business being in. On general safety
everyone would agree this should be adhered to.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley
NOES: None
Motion carried.
713
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-87 GRANTING.ItJRTSD~CTION TO C~TX OF CHICQ ~ SOUTHEAST
CHICO SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the following action was taken relative to
Southeast Chico Sewer Assessment District;
Page 281.
Apri1~28, 1481
81~
~'
April 28, 1481
r f _ 1. Authorized the filing of the City ,of Chico resolution
requesting juxisdictian
2. Adopted Resolution 81-87 granting jurisdicition to the
City of Chico.
COMM[1NTCATIONS
George Rofiison, attarrcey at law. The attorney, on hehalf of Atelier
Corporation, forwards information and requests that the Board set
a new hearing on the Atelier Corporation appeal of draft environ-
mental impact and denied rezone whicFi.was heard before xhe
Board on April 7, 1981. Discussed; referred to Supervisor Saraceni
714
Ronald and Mildred Lindgren, Oroville. Mr, and Mrs. Lindgren writes
requesting that their property, AP 36-31-108, located north of
Pinecrest and southwest of Lower Wyandotte Road, Oroville,
presently zoned "A-R," be interim zoned to allow placement of a
mobile home on the property. See motion following commurd;ations.
Mr. and Mrs. Don Buckman et al, Chico. A letter has been xeceived signed
by five families in opposition to the routing of the interceptor
sewer as part of the Southeast Chico Sewer Assessment District
through their property. Handled earlier in the meeting.
Christopher R. Lucas, attorney at law. The attorney, on behalf of Mr. and
Mrs. Phillip Stanfield, writes concerning a culvert on a county
maintained road (Watson Road) that is effecting drainage between
.:property owners. Referred to Public Works Director.
Butte County Council of Senior Citizens. The council writes requesting that
the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution supporting the full
cost-of living adjustment to the aged, blind and disabled recipients
of Supplemental Security Income and to the needy children who
receive Aid to Families of Dependent Children. Referred to
CSAC for comment.
Xerox Corporation, Santa Ana. The corporation files a claim for refund
in the amount of $259.73 in penalties imposed for the late payment
of 19:80-81 unsecured personal property taxes. Referred to
Tax Collector.
State Department of Health Services. The department writes informing the
county that it has the opportunity to amend its 1980--81 health
services plan and budget submission for 19.80-81, depending upon
Butte County`s circumstances. Referred to Dr. Svihus.
State Department of Water Resources. The department forwards information
concerning their application to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for. an amendment to license: Project No. 2100 to
construct a hydroelectric power plant at the Palermo Canal outlet
from Oroville Dam. Discussed; no action taken.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2213 INTERIM ZONING "ARMEi" FOR PROPERTX OWNED BY RONALD
AND MILDRED LINDGREN, AP 36-31-108, LOCATED NORTii OF PTNECREST AND SOUTHWEST
OP LOWER WYANDOTTE ROAD,_ OROVTLLE
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, second~zd by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, interim zoning "ARr1~r for Ronald and Mildred
Lindgren for property, AP 36•-31-1Q8, located north_of ~'inecrest and southwest
of Lower Wyandotte Road, Oroville was approved:-.2or.`a.period of 120 days;
prdinance 2213 i~as adopted and tFie Chairman authorized to sign.
715
Page 2g2,
Apxi]: 28, 1981
~.pril 28, 1981
81= 716. CANCEL PUBLIC HE~fif7G-DATE POR CONSIDERP.TION 0~ PROROSED STANDARDS k'OR
3'' ADEQUATE FI~tE PROTECTION
.The".public.hea,zing date scheduled for May.12, 1981 at l0;ffff a.m.
for consideration of proposed standards for adequate f~.re protection was
canceled,
EXECUTIVE SESSION: .The"Board .recessed at I1:48 a,m, to hold an executive
session regarding litigation.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 12:24 p.m. following an executive session
regarding litigation. No announcements to be made at this time.
RECESS: 12:25 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:42 p.m.
SUPERVISOR LEMKE ABSENT AT THIS' TIME
717 (CONSIDERATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
Consideration of the Land Development Committee report was held
at this time.
', Lee Colby, chairman of the Land Development Committee, felt there
was quite a bit of misunderstanding as to what they were trying to do or
what they felt tfie Board had cfiarged the committee with doing. When the
committee was appointed it was to make recommendations to streamline the
development process in Butte County. At"tfie present time there are five
department Fieads that actually act on their own with each department head
', responsible to the Board with no particular department fiead in charge or
overseeing those departments. There is no one to expedite the process
or try to alleviate the conditions within the departments unless the
department heads see fit to talk to one another. Through. the organizational
chart the committee has devised, he felt that it was imperative that if
• the Board is interested in streamlining the process then some of the steps
must be taken. One of the steps is for the committee to definitely
become a definite Board with recommendations made to the Board of Supervisors
on any ordinances, codes and so forth that are submitted by staff prior to
the adoption of these for a comment from the committee. The feeling he has
received from reading the newspapers is that the board is tilted with
developers. He is a developer and has built in excess of 500 houses in
Butte County and surrounding counties. If he has a problem'witfi an
insurance policy, fie goes to an insurance man and not to a mechanic,
because he wants a second opinion from someone versed in his problem.
He felt the committee had to be comprised of individuals familiar with
the problems of land development and consequently on the consumer.
', This business does provide a service to the public and they are paid
for that service. He felt this committee was for a second opinion.
Mr. Colby felt that most of the comments coming back could
be resolved. He was a little disappointed in. some of the comments from
Counsel because they seem to be different than the things he questioned
Counsel about. This pertains to the Sanitation Department being removed
and placed under the Department of Public Works. That can be done because
it has been done in other counties. They would still answer to the Director
of Health in emergency situations only. What the committee is asking
among other things is for the department Heads to fie accountable to
someone besides the Board. Mr. Colby set out the information he had
received from tfie different departments, TTiere are some 67 departments
in Butte County. He did not knour how anyone could digest 67 times that
amount of information and yet do their duties. He felt that it was
about time the Board appointed several ad hoc committees to work with
the Board in other areas as well.
Page 283,
Apri1`28, 19-8I
April 28, 19,81
81•
Mr. Colby stated the committee d3;d not desire or intend to
usurp the duties of tfie Planning Commission or the Board. They would
only fie an arm of tfie~Supervisoxs to keep their aware,of their thoughts
and what is happening with subdivisions or land development pxocess in
Butte County. He felt they could make the department self supporting
as at present or more so. At the present time., .he understood that part
of the budget for Environmental Review and ~'lanning Department comes from
the General fund. They are not all fee supported.
Mary Andrews, vice--chairman o£ tfie Land Development Committee,
felt that the newspaper articles were different from the types of things
the committee is trying to propose. She hoped tfiey could answer questions
and make sure people know what the committee is proposing. They are trying
to simplify tfie process. She felt that after seeing the reports from the
different department heads that there was a misunderstanding of what the
committee was proposing.
Bob Guth, mem6ier of the Land Development Committee, stated that
as an individual involved in applications, he felt this. was a very
important position. If a person is trying to find out where an application
is, it is very difficult to find out. With the Land Development Director,
there would be one person to contact for information.
Supervisor Wheeler set out the copy of the organizational chart
showing the different process. This was the information the committee was
addressing. As far as she was concerned,'when the committee was appointed
they were to analyze the whole regulatory process. This was not only for
the benefit of engineers, real estate people and developers but also for
the person who owns a couple of acres and wants to split that property.
When a person gets involved in the process it is unbel3:evable and the
person does not know what to do next. She has received calls from people
who are concerned and has advised them there will fie fiearings on this
matter. She felt the committee had opened the door for discussion on this
matter. She felt that staff should make the presentation made by the
Land Development Committee available along with all information that has
been provided. She understood she and Supervisor Lemke were to meet with
the committee and report back to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan stated it was her understanding that staff was
asked to have the information available at libraries. If charts are
passed around, it should be clear what they do and what they mean. The
chart that Supervisor Wheeler was speaking of does- not relate to that one.
Mr. Colby set out how the committee came up with their recommendations.
After the committee was appointed, they advertised ', through the news media
and sent letters. to builders, engineers, and professional consultants to
attend a hearing by the committee. They held one hearing for the public.
The third hearing was a combined hearing. Before they understood any
suggestions, they asked those people concerned to appear before the
committee. Many people did not come to tfie meetings as they felt it did
not concern tfiem.
Supervisor Dolan did not feel that the chart that was discussed
earlier applied to the chart that was being proposed by the committee.
Mr. Colby stated that the chart discussed earlier was a chart
that showed some 300 to 4(10 separates entities tFiat get involved in the
process. Their chart shows what they are proposing. lie felt they could
eliminate some of the 40.O.different steps.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had rece~,yed a call fxom Ron Graves.
stating he would not be a5le to. a~~end the meeting fiut was-supportive of
the committee recommendations. Page 284.
April 28, 1481
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ ~~rxl 28i 1481 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Colhy~:stated that Bill Collins-ccould not fie at the meeting
today as he i~as:out of town, -
Ms.. Andrews-.stated that as areal estate person, she represents
clients who could .Tie one little person trying to divide a small parcel.
It is difficult to figure out where to go and what the next step is.
The process is like a maze. They are trying to get one centralized
location where one person is in charge. That person could possibly answer
all questions. TFiey could tell tfie person wfiether or not they could do
a certain groject, That person would Have a tracking file on each application
and would Fie accountable. At one time she had a parcel split that sat on
one table for two weeks. They are trying to eliminate this situation.
The process would move faster if there was a tracking system. The developer
is aware of the process. It is the little person who is not.
Discussion open to the public. Appearing:
***
1. Jere Bolster, Drake Homes. Mr, Bolster presented a letter
at this time. He had previously worked for the City of Chico Planning
Office. The city tried to solve some problems by adding•another review
authority and it was the least successful. He felt simplicity of the
process was essential. There should be coordination among review agencies.
The reviewers should have expertise. The process could tie speeded up
by the authority that is given the reviewers.
Mr. Colby stated that their proposal calls for the combining of
some departments. The committee did not feel that the same people placing
conditions on the maps should be the people hearing the matter as either
the Subdivision committee or Advisory Agency. He felt the Advisory
Agency should be comprised of the Land Development Committee as aboard.
They would sit and review•conditions that have Fieen attached and there
could be further appeal to the Soard, They would welcome staff's appeals.
There is competent staff in Sutte County overall. He felt that the Soard
had set policy. He felt that if staff reviewed the present ordinance
codes and state mandated requirements tfiat would Te all that needs to
be required as far as conditions. Tf staff wants to recommend something
be done that should be a7~J~owed as a recommendation. This would not be
creating another hoard. They would be eliminating some.
Supervisor Dolan asked Mr. Colby to name a case when staff
placed conditions on a map that were not required in law or Board policy.
Mr. Colby stated he had a project with. 27 conditions and 22 of them
were struck because they were not required in the subdivision ordnance.
Supervisor Dolan stated that was on appeal of the condition. She
has never seen a condition put on a map that was not required by either
the zoning ordinance, General Plan, design standard or Board policy.
When the Board removes a. condition such as provide permanent solution
for drainage, she felt the Board could be in violation of the law.
If there are conditions being applied that are not necessary, then the
standards and rules should be changed. The Board does not change a
standard or policy or General Plan requirement unless it creates a
problem. Tfie Board did this with tfie fire standards.
Mr. Colfiy felt that theBoard sfiould not wait until there are
problems. Why not bring the matter up and review-the ord'¢iances and
standards so they do not create a problem. The fire standards are an
example. Fire Warden Teie submitted a drat copy of .the fire standards
to the committee. By tFie time they got the-draft copy the standards
fiad been expanded to something they could not possibly live with.
Page 285.
April'28, 1481
April 28, 1481
81-
~',
Those are things tfiat unless someone firings- them to the Board attention he.
did not believe the Board had the background and could tell whether it was
a good or had ordinance, He ,felt there was- a-.need for the professional
people to know before an ordinance is adopted. Tfie-Board needs someone
who is opposing voice to staff recommendations:.
Supervisor Dolan stated that wfieu the. hoard received the fire
standards, they were distributed to department .heads. The Planning
Commission also received tfie draft standards. The Board asked for input
on these standards and did not immediately adopt the standards. She felt
the Board should ask for review and then hold pufilic hearings on these
matters., She did-not think the Board ignored tfie whole process.
Mr. Colby appreciated what Supervisor Dolan had said. There
was only one person who spoke regarding the fire standards. People do not
show up unless the individual person is concerned. There is a need for
someone looking over the shoulders to offer suggesticns to the Board. This
would give the Board a second opinion from people this would affect.
The Board should hold a public hearing after the second opinion. In most
cases the Board upholds the appellant. The reason for t~iis is because
staff attempts to place conditions o~maps the Board does not agree with.
Supervisor Wheeler stated it took two years to get to the point
of having hearings on the fire standards. There has been discussion of
what is adequate £ire protection. Tt seems everyone fias a different definition.
Mr. Colby felt that the word adequate would be taken out if the
committee had input into the matter.
2. Mike Evans, Ron Graves and Associates, Mr. Evans stated
that hia employer was a member of the committee. WIien the opportunity
was given to the professionals to speak to tfie committee fie wanted to make
sure he took advantage of that opportunity. He felt that the recommendations
coming forward were pretty organized and concise path to get them to the
opportunity to perhaps streamline the structure. He felt that Butte County
was looking at a growth trend in a few years. He felt that was a big
issue, whether the ordinance is interpreted from a growth or no-growth
standpoint. He was speaking from a growth standpoint. By starting to add
a lot of variables and factors to the system called land development
process there are going to be more serious problems in tfie future. The
cost of a house usually frmcludes about 20 percent for red tape to build the
house, He felt sorry for the public in trying to get the land division
processed. He was aware of who he should contact, but the public was not.
He felt the county had good staff. He did not want to take anyone's
job. He wanted them to do their job. Maybe they are not totally able
to do their job given the system they are in now. He did not think the
public employees were given the ability and the time to tell a question
asker where to go for answers. He felt the Land Development Committee was
a necessary committee. He tried to tell Mr. Graves they were adding
another layer of government. He felt that was the only problem with the
committee. The structure does need to be changed. There are not enough
people in the right areas to process the applications.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she had spoken many times with Mr.
Graves. She knew of situations where there has heen~litigation because
of the California Archaeological Society, which is a non-profit organization
that can lay claim to a great deal of resources of an individual and set
an arbitary cost on research. 5iie felt this was wrong. If that is the -
case then someone should assume tfie responsiHi]fry of offsetting the
costs those people have incurred whether fiy government or by the society
that created the profilem. She knew of people involved in agriculture
Page 286,
April 28, 1481
April 28, 1481
81- who when they.uncover artifacts, they will fiury them or keep them and will
3 ', not gave them up .because they know the state ur111 close them down.
3. Louis- Camenzind, Jr. Mr. Camenziad was. itt favor of shortening
the process througi1 'procedures. Hey^had a land division that took 18 months
to get done. He felt the process could fie speeded up by eliminating some
of-the procedures. An example is when there Has been an EIR done on
a particular area, that should l;e good enough-for future development of
that area. He felt they should go Back to some of tfie old methods prior
to the laws enacted in Sacramento.
Supervisor Wheeler did not like seeing the Board say it is
the bureaucracy and staff that has created this profilem. She felt it was
the Board duty to set policy and procedure for staff. Tile Board receives
the appeals. There is the drainage conditions. Until:'.the Board formulates
a plan, she had difficulty giving a condition to have appeals on a piece
meal basis. She felt that Mr. McClintock had been right in saying that
development has to be stopped, When you tell a person they cannot do some-
thing with, their property that is bad also. She felt the Board had not
moved fast enough. '
Mr. Colby commended the Board and Supervisor Lemke last week
for getting laws changed in Sacramento. Tfiere are lawsatliat he did not
necessarily agree with. He wanted to see where the state has mandated
certain things in the county. Counsel has said lie will work with them
on getting laws changed. This must be done before March.
Supervisor Saraeeni felt that the committee had brought to the
county something the county will have a hard time paying for. They
live in the county and know the problems that are occurring. He felt that
some of the recommendation could be done to streamline the process and
effectively meet the problems the county has.
4. Mike McEnespy, McCain and Associates. Mr. McEnespy
presented a letter at this time. McCain and Associates did not participate
in the preparation of the report. He did not know if the firm received
an invitation. He reviewed the report last week briefly. His .firm also is
involved in representing developers and developer interests. They have
small parcel maps and large developments. Someone mentioned earlier
the problem of an individual who wants to split their land. If he had
a toothache he would go to a dentist for help, That is similar to-what
they are up against in land development. The county is growing rapidly.
Things are different than 20 years ago. The problems of growth are not
going to go away. There will still be hearings. He has found the departments
they have had to work with very cooperative and Helpful. They do not always
agree. They are able to woxk with the county departments. There were
several problems several years ago when Environmental Review was in the
Planning Department. The Board did a study and after that study decided
it would be best to have a separate department. He felt this was
like taking a step backward on the surface. He felt that one individual
in charge of four separate functions and charged with the responsibility
of knowing where every project is seemed like a superhuman feat. He
agreed with. coordination.or an informational officer, someone to advise
and review the applications and determine whether they are basically
complete. He did not feel~ahat this person necessarily Had to have
department head status. Basically, their experience fias been that any
time they have a question they can go to any department and get the
satisfactory results. The Advisory Agency concept when it was established
was a mayor step. Before that body was established the application had
to go the Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission and to theBoard.
Another thing that was Helpful to them is being able to give reliable
Page 287.
April 28, 1981
Apr~tl 28, 19.81
81-~
3''
information as to wfi~t is expected. Thex can take: a project and get
unofficial com~ents'.and feel fairly conformtable.tha.t those will be the
conditions involved: Tf they .run into a problem,.th.ey can advise their
clients. He felt some problems will come to .the Board at any rate. He
felt the system is Basically working well considering the laws they have
to work under. He *aould like an opportunity to review the report and make
some more specific comments about tFie items.-contained in the report. He
appreciated the fact-the Board had a committee willing to spend the time.
He felt the effort would be Better directed to the things appealed to
the Board and reviewing the standards. He felt that the problems with
fire and drainage were more standards and design type things rather than
policy problems. He felt that if the Board could establish farm policies
and direction to staff many of the appeals would not be necessary.
Ms. A~idrews stated the committee sent letters to all the engineers
surveyors and invited them to come to their meetings. She knew an invitation
had been sent to Mr. McEnespy's office. Tt sounded like Mr. McEnespy
spent a great deal of time with his clients. What happens to someone who
does not know about the process. Who does that person go to. There are
people who do not have the money to go to an engineer. She was sure the
developers and engineers Iiad very good rapport with departments. The
report is a bxief synopsis of what the committee has done and what they
are trying to do. She would not hesitate to sit down with any of the
engineers and explain what they are trying to do. They have touched on
many things in this report.
5. Roy Roney. Mr. Roney stated he was not associated with
any development except agricultural land if that is classified as development.
He was concerned with. another board to review differences between maps.
He felt that by loading that review board totally with development interests,
you are putting the fox in charge of the hen house. He did not feel this
eliminated any steps. He felt that if this board and position of director
is created, there will be a publicaily paid employee answering questions
that should be answered by the professional people in that field.
Supervisor Wheeler felt Mr. Roney's comments about the fox in
the hen house was unwarranted. Because of the fact that Mr. Roney sits
on a committee as a representative of agriculture and comes before the
Board many times, they are not saying they are experts in agriculture.
Mr. Roney was not saying he was an expert in development.
He was not a no growth. advocate.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she had heard and read that this
particular committee was slanted prodevelopment. She felt it was time
that they once and for all say that agriculturalists are not second class
citizens, students are not either and developers, real estate people or
senior citizens are not either. She was getting tired of hearing that
developers are second class citizens. She did not know of anyone better
qualified to be on the committee.
Mr. Roney felt that the committee was loaded with people in real
estate and developers. He felt that from a public standpoint when the
public comes before that board they will receive negative attitude.
Mr. ColBy stated that the committee i£ the. Board sees fit to
appoint it as a Board as a_-!.permanent entity has. nothing to do with zoning
and the General Plan. He did not know why someone would have to go to
an engineer. I-Te felt that any~_~questions could be answered at the counter
in a positive attitude.
Page 288_
April 28, 1981
Apx~l 28r 1481
gl. Supervisox Saraceni felt it was quite cleax-that the committee
~' was trying to xeptesent Public-Works at a point where they could serve each
person in Butte County, .He could see each.person that walked into Public
Works or Planning would have the same level.of.services:-and informat;ton
that anyone in Butte County can obtain.
Supervisor Dolan agreed, She thought that was what the county
department did. Certainly, this is a goal of the Board, If a person
came in with five acres and needed to have the zoning changed that is
not necessarily a derogatory answer. Tt is the answer the person needs.
Mr. Roney pointed out that the report by the committee under
item 6 states. that the General Plan would be a guideline only until the
zoning is consistent with it. He felt the General Plan and zoning would
be directly reflected by the review board.
Ms. Andrews stated she had tried to explain this to Mr, Roney.
The committee if appointed as a board would lie in the position as a
helper to the Board. They are not trying to take over the decision making.
Staff will be making one recommendations and the committee would be coming
forward with a second recommendation. The recommendation under item 6
relative to the General Plan is only a suggestion to the county.
6. Bernice Stanhope. Ms. Stanhope stated she had recently been
appointed to the Housing Element Task Force. That committee will be making
recommendations for affordable housing in'this area. They will have to
solve the traffic circulation and drainage problems. If this report is
some sort of recommendation for speeding ug the process then the county
should do so.
7. .Iim Bradden. Mr. Bradden felt that the Board must have
recognized a problem and appointed a committee. At this point, it sounds
like they may be another committee to study the report of the committee.
He realized it was a very difficult problem. I£ there was some way to
simplify the process he felt this would be good. If the Board appointed
the new position they might end up with another view point of how to
handle things.
8. Frank Brazel. Mr. Brazel thanked Supervisor Wheeler for
clearing the air about developers. He put in a subdivision about 1960
and when fie finished the subdit~io~, he felt that everyone needed one
but not two. He felt that 90 percent of the problems is that when a
person comes to Butte County for a land division they approach the county
and have not done their homework at a11. They come to the county and
;expect the department to do their homework for them in each of the
'departments. If the Board would review the records, he felt they would
.find that the people who bring in their plans as they should be with
the engineering work done there is very little trouble going through
the departments set up today. It looks like if someone else is added
and another committee is added they will have to go back and go through
these departments the same way. He had heard about something setting
on a desk for two weeks. Most people when they bring in their paperwork
expect the county to take care of the papers. If something is taking a little
longer then the person should check into it. He was very happy with the
system as it is today. He felt some of the problems were from people net
wanting to wait. His advise to people if they did not know the procedure
was to get an engineer,
RECESS: 3:30 p.m,
RECONVENE: 3:40.p,m.
Page 284,
April ~28, 1481
81•
3
_ t1~x~:12s,_14s1__________________
Chairman i~oseley felt the Land Development Committee should
respond to ataff comments and comments fx'oui tha'.~ubltc.
Supervisor Dolan suggested that tFie committee makes a written
report on both staff comments and comments. from.the.pubiic~
Mr. Colby stated he had seen many cTianges and realized many of
them were mandated by the state, He felt tfie committee had a responsibility
to review tfiese along with Counsel to get tfie matter taken care of.
Ms. Andrews stated there should b.e a change in the job description
Eor the Development Director as set out in tfie report. This would be a
:.larification. Under coordinates process of all development strike:
the development. After county developments add: pertaining specifically
to set development pxoposals. The director will.not control employess
in the departments. Basically all this person will do is make sure the
development process moves smoothly.
****
The matter was continued to May 7, 1981 at 1:30.p.m. for a
session between committee, department heads and Board.
718 (ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEM~3ER5
Supervisor Saraceni stated that at the CSAC meeting held last
week he attended a meeting with the Director of the-State Department of
Welfare. This is not a good report. The State Aepartment of Welfare is
in indebtedness beyond what could be imagined. The state is in the
position of not knowing where the money will come from for the State
Department of Welfare. The department is in the red by millions of dollars.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that what they
would probably do is take money that has been going to local governments
to support the programs. The situation is going to get worse.
Supervisor Wheeler submitted letters from Tehama and Glenn
Counties supporting tfie county's stand on Northern California Legal
Services.
Supervisor Wheeler submitted a letter from the City of Gridley
forwarding a copy of-their drug paraphernalia ordinance. Copies to be
made for the Board.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she would be bringing a report back
to the Board on her activities at CSAC meeting held last week.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at G:02 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, May 5, 1981
at 9:00 a.m.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
o
Chairman, Hoard Supervis
By
Page 240.,
April'28, 1981