HomeMy WebLinkAboutM050581.i~.~
-May 5~ 1981
81-
b'
719
72e
STATE OP CAi.IFORNIA )
SS.
BOUNTY OF BUTTE )
The Board of"Supervisors met at 9-:00-a,m,.~ursuant to adjournment,
Present; Supervisors .Dolan,"Lemke, Sat~aceni~..WTieelex"and Chairman Moseley.
Clif Mickelson~ 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 o£ America
Invocation by Supervisor Lemke
APPROVAL OF IiINIITES
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the minutes of April 28, 1981 were approved as
mailed.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED BY BOARD MEMBEBS,AT END OF THE DAY
Supervisor Dolan stated she would like to discuss the work shop
on the Land Development Committee report that is scheduled May 7, 1981.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she would have an item to bring up
when the Public Works Director is available.
721 APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
', and unanimously carried, the following action was taken:
', 1. Approved the modifications to the Title IIB portion of
the OJT (on-the-job}training subgrant to reflect the dropout rate which has
been less than anticipated between the county and EDD and the Director
', authorized to sign.
', 2. Approved the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) proposal
', for 1981 and authorized the Director to sign the summer plan and implement
the program.
3. Approved the request for proposal for transportation services
or the Summer Youth Employment Program.
4. Denied the following request for cancellation of penalty,
evenue and Taxation Code Section 483 and directed staff to notify the parties:
a. Homard L. and Charlyne Cavanagh
b. Gary W. and Margaret M. Horton
c. Mrs. Betty J. Brown
d, Ms. Jody Settles (on behalf of Evelyn Whitworth)
S, Took the following action on the requests for penalty abatement,
', hange of ownership report:
', a. t~ppx4ved request for penalty abatement for Karoly & Brigette
hurzo, AP OS5-43x0--OII~R
', b. Approved request for penalty abatement fox David C. Schott,.
t al, AP 041-47r0~079--0-
', Page " 241.
. xSay 5, 1981
81'-
5',
.___-_____===~~5?=1281 ___________________
c.. ~pprpyed.request fox penalty abatement fox .john & Bernice
Proctor; AP 05519.--0'--028-0
d, Denied request for penalty abatement ~oX kloh~.nder S. &
Balbir K, Balns, AP 021~23~0-030<0.
Supervisor Dolan stated that she would .be attending the CSAC
Revenue and Taxation Committee meeting on Thursday and would be happy
to bring up the subject of having a change made to Revenue and Taxation
Code Section 483.
Administrative Office to put together the letters from people
requesting penalty abatement after the 60 day filing period.
APPROVE CONTRACT FOR DATA PROCESSING CONSULTANT SERVICES
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that in the
memo sent to the Board they had mentioned $9,500 for travel, per diem and
miscellaneous. The figure should be $5;000. instead of $9,500.
723
Supervisor Wheeler stated that the agreement on page 3, line 18
should be deleted to page 4, line 12.
Mr. Nickelson stated this was the penalty clause for
delay in completing the contract. The contractor felt this was a two-way
street. If the contract is finished before the time line then the contractor
should receive the same benefit as the penalty would be. The county's
position is that if the contract is finished before time, the contractor
reaps the benefit of being able to do other work. The contractor is well
aware of the critical time line to the county and is willing to work as
fast as possible. The contractor was more conserved with the delay at
the Board level. There are times a matter could be delayed for up to two
weeks at tfie Board level. This contract would be funded from the reserve.
Supervisor Wheeler had difficulty with appropriating the funds
prior to adoption of the budget. He felt that during the time between now
and the budget session the study could be prepared. SCT will be working
with the consultant on the study. This will give the Board information
for the budget session. She supported the contract.
Mr. Nickelson advised the Board he had discussed this matter
with Mr. Hazelwood of SCT concerning the amount of time the SCT people will
have to spend giving information. The county will have to donate time
from the contract. It looks like there will be from 40 to 50 hours at the
most. He suggested that the time that is not budgeted in the contract come
in as overtime. The Board would then have to authorize payment for that
time to produce the background information needed by the consultant.
Chairman Moseley stated she could not support the contract
as she does not feel studies do that much good.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, the contract for Data Processing consultant services with
Gillinger and Associates, Inc, was approved; the Chairman authorized to
sign; and transfer from the reserve for contingencies in the amount of
$57,000 Co cover funding was authorized. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke,
Saraceni, Wheeler .:::NOES; Chairman Moseley
APPROVE BUDGET TRAN&k'ERS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unani.mous.ly carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
724
Page 292,
May 5, 1281
kiay 5, 1981
81
~',
B-212 - ~u.Bl.io ~To~~ks, ~ Transfers -$30.0-from-xegular salaries and
wages within the engineering and administration budget; with-$150 going
to maintenance ,of structures and $150 to office expense within the yards
and storeg budget; The purpose bf this transfer is to cover the cost
of the gas line iepair to the.new gas pump wFiich eras more than
anticipated and within office expense to cover tB:e purchase of a
calculator which was not originally anticipated,
B-213 r Oroville Justice Court. Transfers $7,000 from the reserve
to professional and specialized services in order to provide an additional
Budgetary appropriation to cover unanticipated costs brought about by
increased workload and the processing of two costly felony cases.
B-2i4 - Public Health - County Medical Services. 'transfers $16,000
from the reserve to professional and specialized services in order to
cover the cost of increased ambulance claims for the transport of 5150's
and reimbursement for dry runs.
B-215 - Environmental Review. Transfers $1,b00 from regular salaries
and $375 from employee benefits; with $1,975 going to professional and
specialized services in order to allow for the continuation of work flow
utilizing outside consultants as a result of an unanticipated leave of
absence by an employee in the department.
B-2i9 - Mental Health - General Services. Tncreases professional
and specialized services in the amount of $19,700 with funding coming
from unanticipated Mental Health Short-Doyle revenue which had been
allocated but not previously appropriated. This is pursuant to Board of
Supervisors action on April 21, 1981; minute order 8i-668.
B-220 - Public Works General Services.' Transfers $4,313 from fixed
assets - structures, improvements and grounds, with $51 going to maintenance
of structures and $4,262 to direct services transferred in order to cover
the maintenance and force account labor and equipment rental for the Neal
Road ~flisposal site fencing project.
B-221 - Assessment Appeals Board. Transfers $200 from the reserve
to professional and specialized services in order to cover existing
budgetary deficiencies and to provide an appropriation .for the balance
of the fiscal year brought about by unanticipated meetings because of
additional filings.
B-222 - Juvenile Ha11. Transfers $43,073 from the reserve; with
$30,570 going to extra help, $12,148 to food; and $355 to office expense.
The purpose of this transfer is to cover current budgetary deficiencies
and to provide an appropriation for the balance of the fiscal year brought
about by unanticipated increase in the average daily population of over
30% from last year.
B-223 - Mental Health. Transfers $7,000.from regular salaries
within the Mental Health general services budget; with $5,000 going to food
and $2,000 to household expense within the Detoxification Budget. The purpose
of this transfer is to provide an additional Budgetary appropriation to
provide the needed services within the Detoxification Budget for the
balance of the fiscal year.
Supervisor Dolan stated the Board had a report coming forward
about the summary o£ transfers for the court systems.
Hall.
Chairman Moseley questioned the budget transfer for Juvenile
Page 293,
May 5, 1981
~;ay 5, 1981
81'-
b',
725
726
727
728
729
Cliff Micke~s~on, administrative offcex~.stated.that a lot
of the money far-tlze Juvenile Hall goes.:hack to the manner in which. it
was designed and constructed. It is. not really the-.most e~~icient building
to manage. Thexe is an upstairs and downstairs wFiich requires an increase
in the staffing level necessary.
Supervisor .Lemke felt there should be a central system for
plans at the state level for schools, lifiraries, fails etc. When tfie
area gets to a specific population then a certain set of plans are used.
He felt this should be done for all public buildings.
AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITX LIVING CENTERS FOR SPECIAL BOARD AND $OME CARE
PATIENTS FOR 1<fEN.TAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT TAKEN OFF AGENDA AND CONTIbUED TO
MAY 12, 1981
Consideration of the agreement with. Community Living Centers,
a Redwood City based non-profit corporation, doing business locally as
"Creekside" in Paradise in the amount of $16,665 that will provide for
special board and home care for clients from the Mental Health was taken
off the agenda and continued to May 12, 1981,
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A public hearing date of May 14, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. was set for
consideration of Stanley Be11 petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 36=24-24,
4051 Ednas Way, Oroville area, zoning: "A-5".
APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWAL
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
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 33-08-7,
6, and 5, 270 Incline Avenue, Oroville area, zoning: "A-2" for Catherixe Rush
was approved.
JUVENILE HALL INSPECTION REPORT FROM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
The annual inspection report for Juvenile Ha11 prepared by the
Health Department was accepted far informational purposes.
APPROVE/DENY TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR ITEMS
On motion of Sueprvisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the following action was taken:
1. Authorized claim for refund for Xerox Corporation for
various account numbers totaling $259.70..
2. Denied claim for refund for Ken Ruff for AP 36-14-0-055-0.
730
73l
APPROVE HILLTOP ACRES UNIT X12 FTNAL SUBDIVISION MAP
On motion of Supervisor Lemke; seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried,-the deposit by the developer in the amount of $912.03
for taxes or special assessements which are a lien, but not yet payable for
Hilltop Acres Unit ~k2, 13 lots, AP 72-26-76, 78, 79., 80, 87 and AP 72-23-10,
13, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 100. and 1Q1, property located with
access off of the east side of Stringtown Road, Lake Wyandotte area was
approved; the final subdivision map was approved and the Chairman was
authorized to sign the subdivision agreement,
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-8$.AUTHORIZING CITY OF CHICO TO ~TTILIZE BUTTE COUNTY~S _
FISCAL YEAR 1980-81 LITTER CONTROL GRANT RUNDS
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the request by the City of Chico to utilize Butte County's 1980-81 fiscal
year litter control grant funds He has discussed this matter with Supervisor
Siage 244.
May 5, 19$1
May 5, 1981
81~
v
732
733
734
735
Saraceni, who .felt that there was a possiliili,ty of .letting some of the
community based organizations work on this pxojeot. He Hoped the Board
would approve tfie resolution for this year's money; The Board could then
hold the money fox the next fiscal year,
Supervisor Saraceni: felt that many .people would b.e unemployed
and many young .people who could earn money from-picking up the litter.
The funding was for overall Butte County.
Mr. Castleberry suggested that the Board approve the request
for this year's money and encourage people that might be interested in
doing this to contact Pu61ic Works and Supervisor Saraceni within the
next month or so for next year's money. He would be prepared to work with
others on locations, similar to Neal Road.
Supervisor Dolan asked that Crouch Ditch be considered. She
may discuss this matter with the city.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Resolution 81-88 authorizing the City of Chico
to utilize Butte County's 1980-81 fiscal year litter control grant funds
was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
APPROVE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER ~k2 - SACRAMENTO AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
N0. 1
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, contract change order ~~2 in the increasing amount
of $6,838.95 providing for additional work as well as some deletions which
are reflected in the change order with funding coming from the district's
project contingency fund for the Sacramento Avenue Assessment District No. 1
was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY PUBLIC WORKS
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that the Durham
Highway paving project would be finished today, which would be before the
parade to be held in Durham.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she had received a Shasta Union School
District bulletin thanking Mr. Castleberry and herself. Mr. Castleberry
dia some safety work for the school.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-89 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR JIM BORDOLI
ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR FLORAL SUBDIVISION UNIT 3,
LOT 18
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Resolution 81-89 setting a public hearing date
of June 9, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of 7i~ Bordoli abandonment
of public utilities easement, Floral Subdivision Unit 3, Lot 18 was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65852.3 (SB 1960) CONCERNING MOBILE HOMES
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the first reading of the ordinance implementing
Government Code Section 65852.3 (SB 1960)_ concerning mobile homes was
waived.
736 FORMATION OF JAIL PROJECT COMMITTEE
Clif Nickelson, adminserative officer, set out the reason for
the Jail Project Committee. This would be for the committee to travel to
Boulder, Colorado to get the requirements from the federal government.
Page 245.
May 5', 1981
81-~
,~ ''
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ May 5a 1Q81 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Supervisor Dolan-felt it nigh-t_.be appropriate for County
CounselTS.o€fica to .be part of-ttie'committee, Many o~.the discussions
will .fie on compliance law.
Bruce Albert, sheriff's office,.. that someone from the
Administrative Office-would be appropriate for the committee. Counsel
would be nice to have for legal problems,
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and unanimously carried, the following were appointed to the Jail Project
Committee:
Supervisor Lemke
Gene McFarren
Administrative Office
Sheriffts Office
Counsel's Office (if possible)
737
TS CONTINUED TO MAY 12, 1981
The following appointments were continued to Mdy 12, 1981:
1, Appointment to the Housing Element TadcForce, District 5
2. Appointment to the Butte County Housing Authority, District 2
738
739
740
APPOINTMENT TO THE BUTTE COUNTY JUSTICE SYSTEM ADVISORY GROUP
On motion of Supervisor Zemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Dr. Richard Campion was appointed to the Butte
County Justice System Advisory Group.
APPOINTMENT TO YOUTH PLANNING COUNCIL -- CONTINUED TO MAY 12, 1981
Appointment to the Youth Planning Council (apprenticeship
agencies) was continued to May 12, 1981,
APPOINTMENT TO THE CHILD HEALTH AND DISABILITY PREVENTION COMMITTEE
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the following were appointed to the Child Health
and Disability Prevention Committee:
Dorothy Deane
Robin Nichols
741
REQUEST BX CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTOILS, INC. OF SACRAMENTO
TO SUPPORT SB 814 REPEALING THE REQUIREMENTS TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGES
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CONTINUED TO MAY 12, 1981
The regaest 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 was continued to May 12, 1981
for Supervisor Dolan to contact CSAC.
742 (SUPPORT SENATE BILL 503 CDOOLITTLE)-_CONCERNING PAROLE REGISTRATION
Supervisor Wheeler repaxted that SB 503 (poolittle) was in the
finance committee. The bill stands a good chance of going to the floor.
The City of Sacramento is asking for support, The fiill would require
that parolees register with the Chief of Police.
1t was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke _
that the Board send letters of support to the state representatives,
Senator Doolittle, Nine Northern Cou~ti.es Supervisars~ Association and
to each. Board of Supervisors within the Nine Northern Counties. Supervisors'
Association.
Page 29-6.
May 5 , 19-81
8T=
~',
May 5, 198].
Supervi oz Dolan .felt there would-fie an.added cost to the. counties
with- no money allocated to cover that cost,' She was aware of the report
from the Administrative O~~i;ce as to how t&ey can know the ends and outs
of the paroles. Unless• there is a appropriat3;on £or this she did not know
how the county could add on the cost,
Supervisor-Wheeler stated that the county officials did not
have the knowledge of the parolees. This allows law enforcement to be
aware of the movement of the parolees within the county's jurisdiction.
She agreed with the financial conditions.
Motion amended to indicate there must be state assumed cost with
payment to the Local entities.
Vote on amended motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley
NOES: None
743
Motion carried.
MOTION OF INTENT TO UPHOLD JOSEPH L. BROWNFIELD APPEAL OF ADVISORX AGENCY"S
CONDITION 9 TO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 47-33-14 & 15 (TWO PARCELS FOR TAX
CODE PURPOSES), FOUR LOTS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KEEPER ROAD,
-APPROX. ONE MILE EAST OF STATE ROUTE 99-,-NORTH_OF_-CHI_CO
The closed hearing on 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 Keefer Road, approximately one mile east of State Route 99, north
of Chico was held as continued.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated McCain and
Associates had left a letter proposal relative to the condition. They are
proposing a temporary solution since they could not afford to go to the south
or to Rock Creek. They have asked permission to put in rt~emporaty solution
to drainage and give their share for supplying drainage for 23 acres. This
is estimated at $25,000 or $26,000. The applicant will sign an agreement
that when the property is developed they would use that share of the money
for their share. Part of this is the entire drainage maintenance district
the Board has been discussing.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that the condition the
Board would be placing on the map would be a specific condition that
calls for a certain size pipe and certain size pumping. If the proposal
submitted by McCain and Associates was accepted, they would be getting
back into taking deposits per acre. This is not satisfactory. There
must be an agreeement whereby the improvement themselves are bonded and
an agreement that if the property does not develop in five or ten years
tine money can be given back. Unless a condition is explicit where is the
developer or the county.
Mr. Castleberry stated they did not have a specific design but
a similar one was-built for Quail Run. Tfiis is about tfie same size acreage.
If the county is going to say the development cannot move until there is
complete design, he did not feel this would be to tFie total best interest.
They do not know which neighbor would develop first. He would not want
to design this system. The amount offered is a generous amount of money
and would more than pay for the installation. The deposit would be one
way for tfie recordation of the map without a specific design.
Page 29.7,
May 5, 1481
Mai sr_issi
81= Supervisor Dolan felt tfiis vzould.he brine froz.these four parcels
'~' on 23 acres.. The Board does not have any.dea.of.what is going .to happen
in this area. .The Board is not going out to encourage someone to develop.
', She would like no:~urther development until tha county knows what they are
doing in this area.
Mx. Blacks•tock submitted that the condition pxovide permanent
solution to drainage was no condition. Tfie whole concept of the Map Act
is to put specific conditions on a map. Tuts is wfiy the Board establisbed
some extensive standards. If there were a condition that takes a pipe
from one place to another or from one street to another area this would
be a condition. This would be a specific construction program.
Supervisor Dolan was concerned with future property owners. If
there is an assessment district formed they would have to pay their share.
There are problems in that area.
Mr. Castleberry advised there-was piece-meal development in that
area and if the Board did not want to do this type of development then there
should be no building allowed until a system were installed.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, a motion of intent was made to uphold the appeal of Joseph L.
Brownfield of Advisory Agency's condition 419 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 Keefer Road, approximately one mile east of
State Route 99, north of Chico subject to the conditions as written by
Public Works Director and Counsel to be brought back later in the day for
formal adoption. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley. NOES: Supervisor Dolan
RECESS: 10:00 a.m.
1RECONVENE: 10:15 a.m.
SUPERVISOR WHEELER ABSENT AT THIS TIME
744 PUBLIC HEARING: EDWARD CORRETRA PETITION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 19-10
AND/OR 19-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTX CODE FOR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON
AP 72-14-23, 5175 ORO BANGOR HIGHWAX, OROVILLE. ZONING: "A-5"
The public hearing on Edward Correira petition for variance to
Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a
mobile home on AP 72-14-23, 5175 Oro Bangor Highway, Oroville„ zoning:
"A-5" was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing Closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the petition for variance to Sections 19-10. and/or 19-12 of
the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 72--14-23,
5175 Oro Bangor Highway, Oroville, zoning: "A: 5" far Edward Correira
was approved for a period of one year.
745 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2214: PUBLIC HEARING; LEONARD SITTON (MARX LOOMIS) -
EXTENSION Of' INTERIM E'AR-MIi 5" (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL MOBILE .HOME --
FIVE ACRE PARCELS). ZONE _
The public hearing on Leonard Sitton (Mary Loomis) extension of
interim "AR~MH-S" Cagricultural residential mob~;le home -- five acre parcels)
zone was held as advertised.
Page 298.
May 5; 19.81
May 5, 1481
$1- Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
~', interim. Mr. Sittpn has. advised their off~.ce that the~+ have not started
the installation of-tile znohile home. She.xecommended that the interim
', be extended for'a_period of eight montfis, .The property is located in the
', Oroville, Wyandotte, Foothill Boulevard area: It is somewhat isolated.
Hearing open to the pudic. Appearing; No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the interim "AR-MH-~S" (agricultural residential mobile home -
five acre parcels} for Lepnard Sitton (Mary Loomis~_ was extended for a
period of eight months; Ordinance 2214 was adopted and the Chairman authorized
to sign. AYES: Supervisors Bolan, Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley.
ABSENT: Supervisor Wheeler
746 WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-9 OF THE BUTTE
COUNTY CODE HIGHWAX AND STREET SECTION REGARDING FENCES IN SETBACK AREAS
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out tfie background of the
proposed ordinance amending Section~l0-9 of the Butt e. County Code Highway
and Street Section regarding fences in setback areas. There is a specific
area limitation of what can be installed in the setback areas. There are
subdivisions that would like to allow back and side yard fencing. The
current section prohibits fencing. She has discussed this matter with Public
Works and they find no fault as long as they can review each of these
for traffic safety. She set out the areas that do have fences in the setback
areas.
SUPERVISOR WHEELER PRESENT AT THIS TIME
Ms. Blair stated that the current ordinance allows leachfields
in these areas. She could see no reason why, as long as the safety
requirements were fulfilled, fencing could not be applicable for that
area. The county would still have the right to notify the property owners
they would have to remove the fences. The county recently was involved
in litigation where there was a six-foot chainlink fence in the setback
area. The court determined this was an open wire fence. She would like
to be able to ask for other fences in other areas.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, asked if there was certain criteria
being established specifically to how far a person should be able to see.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated the-sight distance
would vary on the road depending on the type of curve in the road. It would
be different on a straight road. If the road is a FAS secondary road there
would be a different set of standards.
Supervisor Lemke stated there would be a very simple way to
measure the distance that could not be obstructed. They could measure
a distance of 45 feet from the intersection and anything that fell in
that triangle had to be kept clear. This would clear any intersection
for sight distance.
Ms. Blair pointed out that the current ordinance allows for
a 42 inch height in the setback fiat this has to b.e approved by Public
Works. This amendment would allow up to a six-foot high fence and would
be no different than what is in the ordinance at the present time.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the first reading of the ordinance amending
Page 299:
May 5; I48I
al_
.~~~__--__===~Y.5a 19.81 ==______=_=~_______
Section 1Q-3 of the Butte County Code High~ray and Stxeet Section regarding
fences in setback axeas was waived,
COMMT]NT:CA,TIQNS
Stewart? Cragt.2iumpherys & Burchett, The.~ttoxneys, on behalf of Baldwin
Contracting Company, Inc., fororaxd:xnfoxmati.,on with regard to
the appe:aL of the denial of -their tentative subdivision map,
Butte Creek East, which is scheduled for_.heaxing at 10;45 a.m.
To be considered later in the meeting,
X747 .
Bachman & Associates, Chico. The engineers, on E,elialf of John Lechner,
write appealing the proposed negative declaration and the Planning
Commission's denial of a variance to allow a 4.1 acre parcel in a
"TM-5" zone, AP 62-13-003, property located on the east side of
Highway 32, approximately 1/4 mile south of Forest Ranch, Forest
Ranch area. Set fox hearing May 26, 1981 at 10:00 a.m.
CLOSED HEARING: JOSEPH L. BROWNFIELD APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S CONDITION 9
ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 47-33-14 & 15 (TWO PARCELS FOR TAX CODE PURPOSES},
FOUR LOTS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KEEPER ROAD, APPROX. ONE
MILE EAST OF STATE ROUTE 99, NORTH OF CHICO
The closed hearing on Joseph L. Brownfield 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 ane mile east of State Route 99, north
of Chico was held as continued.
748
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor .Saraceni,
and unanimously carried, the appeal of Joseph L. Brownfield 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 nn the north side of
Keefer Road, approximately one mile east of State Route 99, north of
Chico was upheld with amendment to condition 9 to read: a pump lift station
will be constructed, powered by a 5 H.P. motor, to be located in such a
position as to drain adjacent as well as subject property. Pipe will be
placed along Keefer Road of 15" diameter. There will be two drop inlets
at the connection of Keefer Road and the street provided in said parcel
map. Developer will bond or cash deposit his portion of construction
which is determined to be $25,000. Tf adjacent property is not developed
within 10 years, developer`s bond or cash deposit shall be returned, and
this condition shall expire under its own terms. Pending said construction,
and prior to recordation of parcel map, developer shall install standard
size seepage pits and inlet near or adjacent to connection of Keefer Road
and road of the subdivision.
Supervisor Wheeler asked for permission from the Board to meet
with Public Works Director and some of the engineers in the Chico area
to analyze that area and come back with a proposal for implementation of
a total drainage plan for that area.
Supervisor Dolan volunteered to join the meeting.
Supervisor Wheeler felt the Board would have to make a commitment
if they were going to proceed with any future growth in that area and
address the drainage problems. The area is developing quite rapidly.
Page 300..
May 5, 1381
Mai 5, 1981
81- 749. PUBLIC HEARING; ~{xCHARD.L, RA,MSEY A~'PEAL Ok' CONDITION 4 pN TENTATIVE PARCEL
$, k1AP, AP 46-26-73,, pN-THE.SOVfIi SIDE-OF EAST 8TH_STREET, 30A.FEET.WEST OF
EL MQNTE.AVENUE' CHLCO
', The puiilic hearing on Richard L; Ramsey appeal a~ condition 4 on
tentative parcel map, AP 4626-73, on the south side of East 8th Street,
300 feet west of El Monte Avenue, Chico way he~:d'as advertised.
', Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the appeal.The area is developed all around the subject property.
', The applicant applied to the City of Chico and were turned down.
', The applicant feels they can handle tfie drainage on their own property.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the appeal of Richard L. Ramsey of condition 4 on
tentative parcel map, AP 46-26-73, on the south side of East 8th Street,
300 feet west of E1 Monte Avenue, Chico was upheld subject to handling
', of drainage problems on site.
750 COMMUNTCATIONS CONTINUED
Hamby Surveying, fine , Paradise. The Surveyors, on behalf of Joseph Fals,
appeals condition 10 (provide circulation from Round Valley Road
to a public maintained road) on tentative parcel map, AP 55-25-106
', (portion), three parcels, property located on the west side of
', Round Valley Road, approximately i/4 mile plus west of Clark Road,
Paradise area. Set for hearing May 26, 1981 at 10:15 a.m.
Richard L. Hickman, civil engineer. The engineer, on behalf of Doyle
Folmer, forwards information concerning a late appeal appealing
conditions 2 and 13 on tentative parcel map, AP 71-01-93, faux
lots, property located on the west side of Oroville Quincy
Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area. See motion
following communications.
Richard L. Hickman, civil engineer. The engineer, on behalf of Doyle
Folmer, forwards information relating to a late appeal appealing
condition 2 on tentative parcel map, AP 71-01-94, eight lnts,
property located on the west side of Oroville Quincy Highway,
off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area. See motion following
communications.
chard L. Hickman, civil engineer. The engineer, on behalf of Robert
Johnson, forwards information with regard to a late appeal
appealing condition 2 on tentative parcel map, AP 71-01-95,
seven lots, property located on the west side of Oroville Quincy
Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area. See motion
following communications.
Brothers, Tnc., Chico. The firm writes in opposition to the
rezoning of their parcel, AP 47.-26-183 from "A-2" to "SR-1"
which is part of the airport rezone. Referred to Counsel to
research whether there was. an esta&lished commercial use in
existence at the time of the rezone and report back to the Soard.
M. Peitz, Oakland, Ms. Peitz writes indicating her opposition to
the General Plan amendment for the Gridley Biggs area. Referred
to Chairman Moseley.
Page 301,
May 5; 19-81
8h
~'
~*
751
752
kia~ 5_1481___________________
Elizabeth Davis et.al~ Pxoville, A petition containing 29 signatures has
been rece~;yed requesting the placement o~.a clashing yellow light
at tha:intersection of Lincoln Street and ~'oxt Wayne in Oroville.
Referred~to Supervisor Saraceni and Fuhlic [~oxks Director.
Paradise Memorial Hall Committee.. The comm%ttee.wrai.tes concerning veterans
organizations nomination of members to the Memorial Hall Committee.
Referred to Administrative Office to send memo to the Butte County
Veterans Council relative to appointments and terms for the committee.
Butte County Historical Society, The society writes requesting the Board
give consideration to helping pave a section of road from the
California State Monument to the Oregon City School on Tab 1e
Mountain. Referred to Public Works Director for answering.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET: MAKE FINDING PURSUANT TO BUTTE COUNTY CORE
SECTION 20-66
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the findings as required in Butte County Code
Section 20-66 were made finding paragraphs a, b and c are applicable
for the following appeals:
1. Doyle Folmer appeal of conditions 2 and 13 on tentative parcel
map, AP 71-01-93, four lots, property located on the west side of Oroville
Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area.
2. Doyle Folmer appeal of condition 2 on tentative parcel map,
AP 71-01-94, eight lots, property located on the west side of Oroville
Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area.
3. Robert Johnson appeal of condition 2 on tentative parcel map,
AP 71-01-95, seven lots, property located on the west side of Oroville
Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area.
A public hearing date of May 26, 1981 at 10:30 a,m, was set
for .the above appeals.
PUBLIC HEARING: BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY - APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S
DENIAL OF BUTTE CREEK EAST TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION MAP, AP 40-01-25,
40-02-130, 40-02-132, 40-41-2, 40-41-3, 46-38-50 & 46-38-57, ONE LOT,
HONEYRUN ROAD ADJOINS ON NORTH SIDE JUST EAST OF SKYWAY, CHI CO
The public hearing on Baldwin contracting Company appeal of
Advisory Agency's denial of Butte Creek East tentative condominium subdivision
map (item on which an EIR was previously certified), AP 40-01-25, 40-02-130,
40-02-132, 40-41--2, 40-41-3, 46-38-50 and 46-38-57, one lot,; Honeyrun Road
adjoins on north side just east of Skyway, Chico was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the appeal. The Advisory Agency denied the map based on the fact they
felt the zone required one unit per parcel. This is a condominium
proposal with one parcel.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, stated that this
proposal at this point is identical and the impacts are still the same
and therefore they used the previously certified EIR.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Chris Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin stated this might be a difficult
decision in light of the referendum. Mr. Baldwin referred to the letter
of April 29, 1981 from Allen Burchett and the minutes of the April 13, 1481
Advisory Agency meeting. The co~a~ntion at the Advisory Agency was that
Page 30.2.
May 5, 1981
xIp.~ 5, 1381
81- although the woxd3,ng of~ the zon~.ng ordinance.pe~q~tted-was only pointed
~'' at single family dwellings, that is not whit it said, This is a. situation
of look~.ng at tEie. intent and the' ~zording, .ffe has .been involved in other
situations wIieze.staff has said that the wording takes precedent over the
intent. The staff has now reversed their decision, There is the possibility
of a double standaxd. If the map is approved; thi would mean they could
', go ahead with the improvement plans. Tt is a lengh.ty process. This would
', have na effect on the referendum. The referendum will happen regardless
', of the decision on the map. Tf the map is denied, that stops the process
', and they are not able to go with the improvement plans. This could cost
', the project seven to eight months. They view the project as already
approved because the approval was not given within one year as required by
state law. The map whether it is approved or denied will have no effect
on the referendum. He felt the map could he approved because of the wording
in the zoning ordinance. The ordinance says single family dwelling but
does not say per parcel.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that he had discussed
this matter with. Mr. Burchett, attorney for the applicant. He was under
the impression that the map under appeal is for a condominium and not
the same as for the "PA-C" zoning proposal. The applicant is requesting
approval of a'condominium. In the event the Board approves the map, whatever
Etappens with the election is immaterial. If the Board approves this map,
it would be silly to have the "PA-C" on the ballot, If the applicant is
asking for conditional approval for this map with the condition that in
the event the vote is negated on the "PA=C" issue. He asked if this proposed
map was the map designed to accompany the "PA-C" issue.
Mr. Baldwin stated this map is inorder to have the project proceed.
It is the map with the "PA-C" proposal.
Mr. Blackstock stated this was quite different from what was
explained to him earlier. As he understood the issue this was simply
a map of the property with the remainder of the property to be condominiums
and that it was not going under the "PA-C" zoning. He understood this
map was separate and apart from the "PA-C" previously approved by the Board.
Supervisor Dolan asked how this could be the "PA-C" zone. A "PA-C"
requires a development plan and a map. Under the "PA-C" zone the map is
to follow the zoning. She felt most of the "PA-C" had been"accomplished
by the subdivision map,
Mr. Blackstock stated that the Board had a plan for the "PA-C"
zoning. As far as he knew this map was separate and independent from the
"gA-C" zoning, If he was incorrect then that could be covered by
subsequent action by the Board, This could be covered by conditional
approval of the subdivision subject to the approval by the electorate
in November of the "PA-C" zone. If the public turns down the "PA-C"
then the map is turned down. The referendum suspended the operation of the
ordinance that the Board passed. The Elections Code calls for a vote by
the electorate on the ordinance.
Supervisor Lemke stated that the map for the condominium would
have to stand on its own merits i.n single family dwellings and the Board
has to find that the zoning ordinance for "FR-5'' does not require a
separate dwelling for each lot. Tf this is approved, the applicant can
go forward and the "PA-C~' election has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Blackstock advised that Mr. Baldwin had just told the
this map was part of the "PA-C" project,
Page 303,
May 5; 1481
81-
~'
~.~ 5 v 1981
Supexyisax Dolan stated that practically-the znap is physically
the same as the "pArC'r~map, -That is. what-the.people.put on-the ..petit ion.
Phe referendum arcs. qualified, whethez thys pXOject i&.called a.75 unit
single family dwellings xsthex_than a "Pk~ C" gxajegt,
k~r. Bls,cks£ock stated it was quite different,
Supervisar Lemke stated the applicant has a legitimate tentative
map here for a near decision on whether or not the "FRrS" zoning does not
require each dwelling unit on a separate lot.
Mr. Blackstock stated that was the major aspect of the project.
There are other proBlems relative to the ordinance being uttl.ized for this
type of project. This has to do with site area and setback provisions
set forth in the ordinance itself as to whether or not that type of
ordinance could be used for condominiums. Does the Board want to allow the
establishment of condominiums in the residential areas which would bring
about forgetting the internal requirements concemin,g health and safety.
The map before the Board does not show any internal roads or where the
buildings will be placed. They are going on the basis of~just selling
air space within the individual homes. Does the Board wish to approve
a condominium project which is in fact a subdivision.
Supervisor Lemke asked if this development would preclude future
development because the ownership in the air space also participates in
the 300 plus acres.
Mr. Blackstock advised that that particular aspect of condominium
law is not that well established. Most of the condominiums have been in
buildings. Butte County was one of the first to allow the air concept.
From the standpoint of property rights, he would think they would have to
have the consent of every owner of the condominium before the allowing of
additional sales. They would have to come back for building permits. [+That
the Board has before them does not set out ,the number of houses.
Mr. Baldwin stated he did not understand about the map.
He would like to have the matter continued.
Mr. Blackstock recommended thai~the hearing be continued.
2. Paul Persons. Mr. Persons stated he would like to proceed
with the hearing. He felt they knew the real issue. There are a number
of people wishing to speak to the issue. He felt that Mr. Baldwin should
have talked with his attorney in order to be aware of the issues. The
issue is does a single family dwelling fit in and is it consistent with
condominiums and does it fit into the "FR-5" zone.
Supervisor Dolan felt that it depended on what the Board was
hearing, whether this was the map that followed the "PA-C" zoning or whether:
it was a condominium subdivision proposal. If this is a subdivision
proposal and the Board finds conformance with the "FR--S" zone then the
referendum is a moot question. He felt the people might want to get
the answer to which map is being considered and whether or not the
referendum is affected before they gave their testimony.
Mr. Blackstock advised the Board they should continue the
hearing. He felt it might behoove tfie people to wait until they knew the
position of the develaper before they gave their testimony.
Mr. Persons stated that if the advise of Counsel was to not
proceed until the developer advises what map is being considered, he
would like to wait to respond ta''the developer.
Page 304, May 5, 1981
8T=
~',
753
754
755
756
May 5, 1981
The.heaxing was continued to May l2r ,];981.at 11,OO.a.m.
ADDITIONAL IfATTER PRE5ENTED BX BOARD"MEMBE73S
Supervisor Lemke'adyised that Glen~Halsy was unable to stay
at the Board .meeting and would like everyone to know that this is National
Hire the Veterans Week.
APPEARANCE:"DEVERE PACE
Mr. dace advised the Board that he was the field representative
for Congressman Chappie.
APPEARANCE: WTLLTAM BURCH
Mr. Burch submitted a letter from the. Forest Ranch Community
Association at this time. The subject of the letter is the diesel equipment
in the center of town starting at 6:30 a.m, going through the day taking
out the beautiful trees. The problem ties-at:the state level with the
Forest Practices Act. Tt is aimed at commercial harvesting. The
association recognizes the building of homesites and the taking out of
diseased trees and it might be necessary to remove a few trees. There is
a developer in Forest Ranch who is developing under the theory of solar
homes.
Mx. Burch asked that the Board consider a ordinance for the
preservation of trees within the legal description of the Forest Ranch
Community Association. This area is part of the rainfall climate control
area that serves Butte County, They are not saying there should be no
development in Forest Ranch. They would like to be able to control the
cutting of the trees in this area. The Planning Department has the
legal description of the area.
Supervisor Wheeler suggested that Counsel, Planning and
Public Works analyze the proposed ordinance and work with the association
to bring the matter back to the Board.
Mr. Burch stated that the developer is clearing 54 acres of
land in the middle of town. There are four acre parcel remaining that
has about 25 percent of the trees down. The general feeling of the
community is that what is done is done. This particular developer has
bought many other parcels of property and is concerned with solar housing.
The community would like this matter taken care of as quickly as possible.
A proposed ordinance is to be brought back to the Board on
May 21, 1981.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING: THE LOWEN COMPANY DRAFT EIR AND REZONE FROM "A-2"
(GENERAL) AND "1L 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 & 14 & AP 40-02-124,
SOUTHEAST OF CliICO
The closed public hearing on The Lowen Company draft environmental
impact report and rezone from "A-~2" (general) and "R-l" (single family
residential)- to "PA-C" (planned area-cluster). to allow the development
of 44 residential dwelling units 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.-0,2124, southeast of Chico was held as continued. .
On motion of Chairman Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saxaceni
and unan3.mously carried, finding tfiat comments and recommendations from
tfie public have been attached to the draft environmental impact report,
that written responses to significant environmental paints raised by the
comments fiave been prepared and''„at-~'acfied to the draft environmental impact
Page 305.
1+4ay 5 , 19.81
81-
~'.
May 5, 14s1
report and that a list of the persons, organizations and public agencies
who commented has been attached to the draft environmental impact report,
the final environmental impact report was certified as having been
completed in compliance with. the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State Environmental Review Guidelines and tfie Butte County Environmental
Review Guidel;tnes.
On motion of Chairman Moseley, seconded;Iy Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, having reviewed and considered the final
environmental impact .report, the following findings were made;
1, Development which. occurs pursuant to project approval is not
anticipated to result in significant effects on the environment because
of the following factors which were taken into account in arriving at a
decision:
Impact 1 - About 15 acres of open land will be converted
to residential use.
Reason not significant - The area is designated in the General
Plan for urban use. Sufficient open space will remain in the surrounding
area after development (golf course, etc.
Tmpact 2 - The development will disrupt some existing
wildlife habitat, mainly the riparian habitat of the Durham Mutual Ditch.
Reason not significant - A mitigation measure to be attached
as a condition of project approval will preserve a 100-foot buffer strip
and leachfield setback along both sides of the Durham Mutual Ditch.
(see condition No. 22).
runoff.
Impact 3 - There will be a net increase in storm water
Reason not significant - This project is located adjacent to
Butte Creek. A mitigation measure to provide a solution for drainage
while protecting downstream properties from flooding will be a condition
of groject approval.
services.
Impact 4- There will be an increased demand for public
Reason not significant - This is an area wide problem which
will not be affected to a great degree by this project. The initial
study checklist did not find potential significance in this area, so no
further study was included in the EIR. Eire protection will actually
improve as a result of this project, since an additional water source
',will be provided.
', Impact 5 - The project will increase the local energy demand
for operation of utilities, motor vehicles, etc.
Reason not significant - Energy use will be typical of urban
residential developments, and subject to the energy conservation requirements
of the Uniform Building~;Code. This item was found to be insignificant in
the initial study checklist.
Impact 6 r There will be an increase. in local traffic flow -
with an increase in traffic congestion at the intersection of Estates
Drive and Highway 44.
Page 3Q6.,
May 5, 14.81
_--_____-==_~50 1g81 =______=====T~~===_
81= Reason not significant T Th;~s pxobl.em i,s erected to get
~'' progressively worse kith or without this project.. The project under
consideration will contribute an insignificant percentage (2-1~2 percent)
to the existing traffic on Highc~ay 99.. Estates Dxive, wh3;ch.will experience
a 30 percent increase, is. still well below-its maximum traffic carrying
', capacity. I:f, in the'futuxe,:'tzaffieprolilems become unizearable, mitigation
possib3aities such as sgnalization are possible, although costly. Presently,
delays for nortFibound traffic turning left onto Highway 99 are somewhat
annoying and these delays will be increased-by the additional traffic, but
not to be a signficant extent.
Tmpact 7 - Residents of the subdivision will lie subjected
noise from Highway 99.
Reason not significant - A mitigation measure to provide
shielding along the highway will be a condition of project approval.
shield must reduce levels to 65 decibels at the property line, and
er noise reduction will occur in the walls of the residential structures.
Impact 8 - Traffic accidents will potentially increase.
Reason not significant - The accident rate at this intersection
as historically been low. If the rate increases in direct proportion to
he traffic increase, it will still be low. Mitigation measures (reduced
peed limits, signals, etc.) are possible_if the problem grows to the
oint where mitigation is warranted. The actual incidence of accidents
s to speculative to project with accuracy.
2. The rezone is found to be in conformance with all elements
the Butte County General Plan.
aving found the above, the rezone from "A-2" (general) and "R-1" (single
amily residential) to "PA-C" (planned area-cluster): to allow the development
f 44 residential dwelling units on property located on the southwest side
f State Highway 99, on both sides of Estates Drive, identified as
P 40-35-04, 13 and 14 and AP 40-02-124, southeast of Chico was approved
ubject to the following conditions; Ordinance 2215 was adopted and the
hairman authorized to sign:
1. Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works
for approval and install the required faci]ities.
2. Provide 20 ft. radius property line returns at all street intersections.
3. Provide a 50 ft. building setback line from the centerline of Estates
Drive.
4. provide right-of-way for standard No. S-5 at all street intersections.
5. Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street
intersections per county requirements, (,Submit 5 alternate street
names for each street to tfie County Address coordinator for approval
of street names).
6. Construct full street section on frontage road to RS-~ road standard
with vertical curb, gutter, and 2" AC, 8" AB, SC 250 prime, fog seal
and 90% compaction, Construct full street section on interior streets,
pavement width to be 24 ft. (similar to section shown on plans of
Feb. 11, 19-811, witFi curb, and gutter. 1Kinimum structural section
to be 2" AC and 8" AB with fog seal and 95% relative compaction. Submit
design to County Dept, of Public Works fox approval. "R" value
determinations and other dat-a~'may be required to support section design.
Page 307.
24ay 5, 1981
:.
r.
_________===~YSr 1481 ___________________..
gl_ 7. Provide monumentetion as .required by_the.De~artment o~ Public Works
{~', in accordance w~.th.accepted standards,
8, Street grades and other .features shall comply wiah-the Butte County
Ordinances, .design resolution-and otfiez accepted engineex~mg standards.
9. Provide permanent solution for drainage.
L0. Fire hydxants to be located as indicated liy the Butte County Fire
Department on tfie Development Plan. Hydrants to Be Clow Rich 950
Models or Long Beach Iron Works 614 Models Standard 5 4127. Fire
flow to be 2,000 GPM sustained for a period of at least 2 hours.
11. Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte County
requirements, accepted design criteria, and recommendations of PG&E.
12. Pay off assessments.
13. Meet. the requirements of the utility companies (i.e., PG&E, Pacific
Telephone, water, sewer).
14. Pay any delinquent taxes.
15. File a tentative and final subdivision map and pay appropriate fees.
lb. Street section must be shown on plans.
17. Provide a sewage disposal system design that meets the requirements
of the Butte County Health Department and the California State Regional
Water Quality Gontrol Board.
18. Provide a community domestic water supply system in compliance with
the California State Safe Drinking Water Act and the Butte County
Subdivision Ordinance. Tf the Butte Cxeek Estates Water System is
utilized, an additional producing well will be required.
19. Provide a homeowners association ox other legal entity reviewed by
the Butte County Health Department and the California State Regional
Water Quality Control Board for the installation, repair, maintenance
or replacement of the sewage disposal systems.
20. Obtain an encroachment permit from Cal Trans for any work performed
within the State right-of-way, including the 50 foot strip for the
future frontage road.
21. Design the frontage road to preserve riparian vegetation to the
maximum extent possible. Removal. of native trees on the site is to
be kept to a minimum.
22. Establish a l00 foot non-structuxe xiparian buffer strip and leachfield
setback along both sides of Durham Mutual Ditch.
23. Development of the access road across the Durham Mutual Ditch is to
be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game.
24. A noise and visual barrier of at least 6 feet in height with landscaping
of fast-growing trees ox shrubs is to be erected along the Highway 99
frontage. The barrier is to be designed such.. that noise will be reduces
to 65 decibels. Cdb). or less at the property lines of the parcels
frontzng Highway 94=.
Page 308.
May 5; 1481
clay 5, 19-81
BI= 25. Provide a.perinanent solution for drainage, including the protection
b', of downstream pKopertes -from any flooding.whi;ch.may occur. as a
result 4f tTiis, rezone and Subdiy~,s7,on.
26. Incorporate "pollution traps" into the storm drain-design .near the
point of discfiaxge to minimize impacts during low ,flows,
27. Provide earth.b.erm and plantings around proposed well s3~te to
attenuate noise and visual Impact.
28. Provide sound and glare attenuation along frontage. of recreation area.
29. Minimize grading of existing topsoils, especially Haar the north end
of the project, to enhance the sewage disposal capabilities.
30. Sound attenuation measures (extra insulation, etc. are to be
', incorporated iota the design and construction of residences near
Highway 99 in accordance with the Uniform Building Code.
31. Any on-site and off-site drainage channel improvements to Butte
', Creek are to be made in conformance with the Durham Area Drainage
Plan.
32. Implement, wherever feasible, the energy conservation measures as
', set forth in the Uniform Building Code and Section 66473.1 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
757 PUBLIC HEARING: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -- CITIZENS PARTICIPATION -
PROPOSALS`ON USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR 1981-82
', The public hearing on Housing and Community Development citizens
participation proposals on use of community development block grant funds
for 1981-82 was held as advertised.
', Pat Osborn, Connerly and Associates, set out the background of
the hearing. This is the first of three hearings prior to scheduling of
the program. Their office will also be holding community .hearings on
May 6 and May 20, 1981. This is to provide an opportunity for citizens'
views and proposals. She set out how the funds in the 1981-82 proposed
', pre-application have been proposed: $283,500,'rehabilitation; public
', works projects, $57,500; relocation, $45,000; acquisition, $75,000;
demolition, $15,000; and administration $24,000. The hearings will
show how the funds were used, the housing assistance goals for one year,
and- will contain the performance rating for 1980-81 grant.
', Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
', Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
No action taken at this time.
758 ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-90-: SUBMITTING THE 1981-82 APPLICATION TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
Pat Osborn, Connerly and Associates, set out the background
of the proposed resolution. Connerly and Associates have prepared
and application for Board consideration for $90-,ODO from the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for deferred payment loans. _
The state has $1.25 million available throughout the state. This money
is available only to areas that operate xehabalitation programs. It is
for elderly homeownexs, low income homeowners and renters. The funds
would be packaged with otfier loans witfiout a increased cost, because the
Page 309..
May 5, 1981
81'-
3'
759
7b0
clay 5, 1981
the payments are.de#ex~ed, For older: people.tTie:-term ~.~ £or the loans are
either when-the pro~exty is sold or with..deaths ~'a~ €amilies the term of
the loan is fox £ive.yeax's;.xenters axe the. same as For Families. The
primary reason for applying is that the county es:tahlished goals for
rehabilitation-and this is-the only other funding For the block grant that
provides rehabilitation. The county sul*mitted an application last year
and was awarded $34500 and turned the money down. The previous concern
was that the administrative cost was not sufficient. The Funding award
includes money fox loans and administration. With.. an award there is $81,000
for loans and $9,000-for administration.. When the county turned the
money down, they were concerned about ttie liafiility in case of default
on the part of the property owner. 'L'he state Iias assured their office
that the county portion of the loan would only be the funds paid by the
property owner to the county. In tfie past, Section 8 loans were used to
subsitute to help on the renters.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saracens
and unanimously carried, Resolution 81-90 submitting the 1981-82 application
to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for participation
in the deferred payment rehabilitation loan fund program vas adopted and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
COMMUNICATIONS CONTINUED
Northern California Independent Living Program, Chico. The organization
writes requesting the Board give consideration to provide social
service funds in the amount of $23,880.31 to assist in serving
disabled people throughout the county. Referred to the Social
Services Clearing House Committee for a report back to the Board.
Supervisor Sunne McPeak, Contra Costa County. Supervisor McPeak writes
requesting the Board consider adopting a resolution opposing
Assembly Bills 1481 through 1484 concerning alternatives to the
Peripheral Canal. Information; no action taken.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The commission forwards notices
concerning applications for preliminary permits for power
projects in various locations in the County of Butte. Information;
discussed; no action taken.
jADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Wheeler asked that an urgency ordinance be prepared
for the Board meeting on May 7, 1981 relative to the tree removal ordinance
for the Forest Ranch area. The people involved should Ise notified.
761 WORK SESSION FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS, LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND BOARD FOR
CONSIDERATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COMNffTTEE REPORT - CONTINUED TO
'~I MAY 12, 1981
', Supervisor Dolan stated that the work session scheduled for
May 7, 1981 was to be a work session on the Land Development Committee
report. The Board asked the committee to respond in writing to the
concerns- that were raised. ,She has not received these responses and
it is almost too late for her to be able to review them prior to the
', meeting on May 7, 1981. She did not feel it would be helpful to have a
verbal discussion on this matter,
The work session far department heads, Land Development Committee
and Board scheduled f®x` May 7, 1981 was canceled and rescheduled for
May 12, 19.81 at 2;Q0.p.m. following the consideration of the (K-Code)
housing code.
Page 310.,
May 5; 1981
81-
a
May 5, 1181
EXECUTIVE SESSION; The Hoard xecessed at-11;53 a.m. to hold an executive
session regarding litigation,
RECONVENE: The: Board reconvened at 12;10:p,m. ~o11ow~,ng an executive
session regarding litigation, .No announcements to be made
at this- time,
AD30URNMENT
There Ge3.ng nothing further before tfie Board at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:11 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, May 12, 1981
at 4:00 a.m.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk
of the Hoard of Supervisors i~
~~
Chairman, Board of S ervisors
By '
Page 311,
Say 5; 1481