HomeMy WebLinkAboutM051182May 11, 1982
OF CAI•IFORN7A )
SS.
OF BUTTE )
82-
The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m, pursuant to adjournment.
nt: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
Pyeatt, interim administrative officer; Del Siemsen, county counsel; and
or M. Becker, county clerk-recorder, by Nancy Wilson., deputy clerk.
ledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
tion by Supervisor Saraceni
822
823
SED SESSION: The Board recessed at 9:03 a.m. to hold a closed session on
litigation.
The Board reconvened at 9:25 a.m. after holding a closed session
on litigation. See following minute order.
E DIRECTION TO COUNTY COUNSEL TO PROCEED TO APPELLATE COURT IN CONSERVATOR-
P OF ALEXANDRIA E.
Chairman 'Wheeler announced County Counsel was directed to proceed
appeallate court in conservatorship of Alexandria E.
PROVE MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
animously carried, the minutes of April 27, 28, May 4 and 5 were approved as
fled with the following corrections:
April 27. 1982, page 445, minute order 82-745, to reflect the
vote: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
NOES: Supervisor Fulton
May 4, 1982, page 477, minute order 82-799, Elmer Stebbins, tentative
e1 map, AP 71-01-96, four parcels, on Deer Meadow Road, approximately 800
southwest of Turnagain Lane, Harts Mill area to include the following
itions:
11. Show a fifty foot (50') leachfield setback from the drainage
on parcels one (1), two {2), three (3) and four (4).
12. Indicate on the map that areas with slopes in excess of thirty
(30$) are unsuitable for sewage disposal.
24
13. Prove that the usable sewage disposal area required by the
ivision Ordinance exists on each parcel. Combine with an adjacent parcel
parcel not proven to contain the required usable sewage disposal area at
time the map is recorded.
14. Prove that the required quantities of domestic water are
ilable or place the statement on the map that "there is no evidence that
estic water is available for parcels one (1), two (2), three (3) and
r (4) ~~.
SCIND PUBLIC HEARING DATE - GIVING NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO ABANDON
BLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, LOT 282, UNIT 3, KELLY RIDGE ESTATES, OROVILLE, MATT
ARSON -- PUBLIC HEARING DATE RESET
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
d unanimously carried, in order to meet the legal requirements, the previous
aring date of May 18, 1982 at 16:00 a:m. on Resolution 82-61, Giving Notice
Hearing on Petition to Abandon Public Utility Easement, Lot 282, Unit 3,
lly Ridge Estates, Oroyille for Matt Pearson was rescinded and a hew hearing
to for June 8, 1982 at,10:00- was set.
Page 488.
May 11, 1982
82- 825
826
May 11, 1982
ADDITIONI,L ITEA15 FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE DAY
Chairman Wheeler stated she had letters to submit. ,
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would discuss the Emergency Medical
Care Council and report on a Northern California County Supervisors Association
meeting in Redding.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-75, 82-76, 82-77, 82-78; ORDINANCES 2281 AND 2282: APPROVE
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
fihe following consent agenda items were pulled from consideration
at this time:
i. Salary ordinance amendment deleting the existing Veterans'
Service O££icer and Representative positions and creates a new Veterans'
Service Officer position at range 14.0.
2. Chico Library Change Order No. 9 and No. 10 for the Chico
Library construction project which reflects no cost increases.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton and
unanimously carried, the following consent agenda items were approved:
1. Approved the following budget transfers:
B-194 - Memorial Halls. Transfers $2,500 from salaries
and wages to household expense to cover current and projected deficiencies.
B-204 - Housing and Community Development Grant. Transfers
$1,206.38 of, unexpended balances in professional and specialized services to
acquisition in order to close out the 1980-81 HCD grant.
B-205 - Community Action Program. Transfers $757 between
line items to cover the cost of compensation insurance expenses for February
1982.
2. Approved renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 39-12-03, River
Road, Chico area, zoning: "A-10" for Stanley Boggs.
3. Approved renewal of variance to Sections 19-ZO and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 28-31-01, Upham
Road, Bangor area, zoning: "A-5" for David E. White, Jr. .
4. Approved renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 28-27-099,
LaPorte Road, Bangor area, zoning:."A-5" for Ed and Donna McMartin.
5. Public hearing date was set for May 18, 1982 at 11:30 a.m.
to consider a request for General Assistance fair hearing.
6. Adopted Resolution 82-75 setting a public hearing date for
June 15, 1982 at 10:30 a.m. to consider CSA No. 85, Carriage Manor (street-
lighting) formation as petitioned by owners and registered voters and approved
by LAFCo; and the Chairman authorized to sign.
7. The second reading of salary ordinance amendment to reduce by
two salary ranges (approximately 10 percent) the compensation for elected and
appointed department heads was waived; Ordinance 2281 was adopted and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
3'age 489.
May 11, 1982
8 2-
a'
827
828
8291
May 11, 1982
8. The second reading of salary ordinance amendment-that creates
gouth activity Classifications_to be used in the CETA Youth Program was waived;
Ordinance 2282 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
9. Approved CETA Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP} plan
for 1982 and the Director authorized to sign. ,
10: Accepted for information the annual inspection report of
Juvenile ,Hall facilities from the Health Department.
11. Adopted Resolution 82-76 delegating the responsibility
for determining the merits of all claims for excusable delay pursuant to
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 483 for Penalty Abatement Requests to
the Assessor; and the Chairman authorized to sign.
12. Accepted the Notice of Completion for Table Mountain Boulevard
Bridge, Prajeat No. 28491-76-1 and authorized the filing of Notice of Completion,
13. Referred the Computer Center Annual Work Plan for 1982-83
from Systems and Computer Technology Corporation (SCI) pursuant to terms
of the agreement with the county to the Data Processing Executive Committee
for review and submittal of recommendations.
14. Adopted Resolution 82-77 for formation of a county service
area for maintenance of the sewage disposal system as requested by owners of
Canyon Park Estates for CSA NO. 84, LAFCo has approved the formation and
authorized the Board to proceed without public hearing; and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
I5. Adopted Resolution 82-78 appropriating monies to County Service
Area Loan Fund for County Service Area No. 68 (Crestwood Streetlighting
Maintenance}, budget transfer B-192 was approved April 27, 1982 for the loan},
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
16. Accepted information from Public Works on proposed budgets
for 1982-82 for maintenance areas in Butte County for work performed by the
State of California and covers Maintenance Areas 5, 7, 13 and 15.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF PROPOSITION 4 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1982-83
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton and
unanimously carried, acknowledged receipt of Proposition 4 appropriations
limit calculations for the County of Butte and all special districts under the
control of the Board of Supervisors for fiscal year 1982-83, directed that
copies be provided to the County Library and further directed that the Auditor
bring back to the Soard no sooner than 15 days and no later than June 30, 1982
a resolution for adoption of the 1982-83 appropriations limit together with
anv comments received thereon.
AUTHORIZE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SIGN COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT OF ACCOUNTS IN
LIEU OF BOND AND TRANSFER COLLATERAL TO TOWN OF PARADISE
On motion'of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Butte County Director of Public Works authorized to
sign collateral assignment of accounts in lieu of bond, transferring collateral
assignment to Town of Paradise for property now within the Town of Paradise
to guarantee construction of offsite street improvements, Town of Paradise
has approved said document.
DISCUSSION: PROPOSED PARKING LOT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON COUNTY PROPERTY
ADJACENT TO CHICO RIVER ROAD
Discussion was held at this time regarding the Public Works
Page 490.
May 11; 1982
8;
.~__ __ _.__=__--_= Mme' 1~., 19_82 =°=_= -----------
recommendation that the State of California be authorized to continue construct-
ing a parking lot for recreation use qn county property between the Chico River
Road and the Sacramento River south of Sacramento Avenue subject to Butte County
approval of an agreement which would state that California will maintain and be
responsible and liable for the parking lot or that the state would remove it.
County and state agree to the following mitigation of community concerns:
county will install "NO Fishing From Bridge" signs adjacent to area; state will
post "No Parking" signs. opposite parking lot adjacent to private property; state
will install screen planting between lot and road; county will place two "No
Parking" signs in area; county will ask California'Highway Patrol to be con-
cerned about any possible excessive alcohol usage for safety of all using the
county roadway; and county will ask state to review existing waste concrete
berm along river.
Mel Mendonsa, Chico, set out the background on the problem. Earlier
this year there was a question of who owned the property. They owned property
there, but there has been a lot of erosion. The state started to build a
parking lot there. He questioned the workers if they were sure the state owned
the property. Because of the rains .there was a lengthy delay. Recently he
caught the workers hauling gravel. He found the state did not own the property.
He contacted Supervisor Dolan about his concerns. Public Works Director Clay
Castleberry looked into it and found the state did not own the property. Mr.
Castleberry asked the state to stop until the issue could be settled and a
property line was established. He sent letters and they were ignored by the
state. The state is trying to re-establish the encroachment permit as it
expired in 1981. River Road is not safe enough to install a parking lot.
People that have been tubbing are not always in an physical shape to drive.
There is a lot of alcohol consumed. He did not think they should put the
parking lot in. Up the road is an existing state park for fishermen which
is not used to its full capacity because the river is so low. He felt people
walked from Hamilton City and questioned why they should spend taxpayers
money to put in another parking lot. Turning it over to the state as proposed
by the county was assih,ine, the county did a much better job of maintenance.
He felt the issue went back to ground water. His family purchased the property
from John Bidwell. People use the area as a dump area.
Supervisor Dolan commented on the drama. There was no way she
would move to grant the encroachment permit. She would like the item removed
and she would make one more stab at getting something done.
Ken F+Tilbur, Sector Supervisor, California Park and Recreation,
Sacramento Valley, stated he met on April 20th with the ranger from Bidwell
River Park and the land owner. The land owner felt they were building the
parking lot on his property. He brought documents from the Assessor's Office
which were the latest and it showed the state purchased the property in 1966
from Manwell Mendonsa. There was another meeting. The river has changed the
property over the years. Mr. Castleberry showed a document that the county
had purchased the land. It had not been recorded at the Assessor's Office.
The latest document did not show the property being purchased by the county.
In 1978 the county deeded to the State of California the land between the
River Road and Sacramento River to be used as Bidwell River Park. It was a
simple deed and there were some exceptions written into it. An encroachment
permit was purchased. Due to the rains the permit expired in December 1981.
He was asked to make a request to have the permit extended. He was informed
by Supervisor Dolan and Mr. Castleberry that until they worked out the problem
with the land owner it would not be approved. They discussed 14 items of
concern with Mr. Mendonsa in a meeting. The items were sent to the Regional
Director in Santa Rosa and the county. After the third meeting they agreed
to certain conditions which are listed on the agenda. He is surprised Mr.
Mendonsa has changed his mind. He officially requested the Board to allow
the parking Iot and encroachment permit No. 8765-E. It is a $95,000 project.
Page 491..
May 11, 1982
B 2r
a '',
_ Mall, 1982_____ ____________________
They have-held off for over two weeks. The money will be paid to the contractor
whether or not it is finished. If they continue to hold off, the money will
be lost.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was involved with some of the meet-
ings. She could not recommend approval until the problem with the adjacent
property owners concerns are resolved. There are good reasons fox the county
to be distrustful of the state because of the Scotty's Boat Landing issue.
She felt there should be an apology from the state. There should be no
further work until it is legally cleared up. The very afternoon they were
all meeting in Chico someone from the state attempted to obtain the encroach-
ment permit in Oroville.
Chairman Wheeler pulled the item from the agenda and it will
not be considered until Supervisor Dolan has met with the state.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-79 - ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEED-
INGS FOR PARADISE BLUFFS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
On motion'. of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-79 accepting proposals for special
assessment proceedings for Paradise Bluffs Assessment District was adopted...
830
APPROVE FAMILY PLANNING CONTRACT AMENDMENT #81_-77010A-1
On motion. of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton and
unanimously carried, the family planning contract amendment #81-77010A-1 for
the State of California to increase the contract for fiscal year 1981-82 by
$5,000 to a total of $75,000 was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
831
APPROVE DENTAL DISEASE CONTRACT AND SUBCONTRACT - PUBLIC HEALTH
832
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the dental disease prevention .program amendment
#81-77565A1 was approved; submittal to the State of California was authorized;
the subcontract with the Northern Sacramento Valley Rural Health Project
(NSVRHP) was approved; and the Chairman authorized to sign both contracts.
AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO SUBMIT REQUEST FOR POPULATION CERTIFI-
CATION
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the Administrative Officer to submit a request to
State Department of Finance to certify Butte County population at 151,043
before June 15, 1982 was authorized.
833
RECESS: 9:54 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:06 a.m.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2283 - PUBLIC HEARING: SCOTT AND BRIDGET RUTHERFORD PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND REZONE FROM "TM-40"
(TIMBER MOUNTAIN - 40 ACRE PARCELS) TO "TM-10 AND 20" (TIMBER MOUNTAIN -- 10
AND 20 ACRE PARCELS), PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DOE MILL RIDGE
ROAD, APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 32 VIA SCHOTT ROAD, IDENTIFIED
AS AP 62-02-70, NORTHEAST OF CHICO
The public hearing on Scott and Bridget Rutherford proposed
negative declaration regarding environmental impact and rezone from "TM-40"
(timber mountain - 40 acre parcels) to "TM-10 and 20" (timber mountain - 10
and 20 acre parcels), property located on the west side of Doe Miii Ridge
Road, approximately five miles south of Highway 32 via Schott Road, ident-
ified as AP 62-02-70, northeast of Chico was held as advertised.
Bettye Kircher, planning director, stated they had received
copies of staff analysis, Planning Commission minutes and maps. They found
it to be in conformance with the General Plan.
834
Page 492.
May 11, 1982
8
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
835
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, noting that an environmental document has been prepared
and considered, a negative declaration in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA be adopted; finding that the proposed rezone from "TM-40" to "TM-10" and
"TM-20" is consistent with the Butte County General Plan policies; Ordinance
2283 rezoning AP 63-02-70 far W. Scott Rutherford from "TM-40" (timber mountain-
40 acre parcels), to "TM-10" and "TM-20" (timber mountain - 10 and 20 acre
parcels), property located on the west side of Doe Mill Ridge Road, approx-
imately five miles south of Highway 32 via Schott Road, identified as AP 62-02-70
northeast of Chico was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
REJECT CLAIM -BARRY MYERS
Chairman Wheeler indicated Board members had received a letter
from County Counsel relative to the claim of Barry Myers for $4 as it relates
to Board policy per Section 117.18 of California Code of Civil Procedures.
He has advised them to deny the claim.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton,
that the claim of Barry Myers for $4 as it related to the Board of Supervisors
policy per Section 117.18 of the California Code of Civil Procedures be rejected.
Supervisor'Dolan stated this issue was discussed earlier. This is
a mandated program from the state for a small claims advisor and increase in
fees. The fees are being collected and the work not being done. She does not
feel they can pick and choose which mandates they want to approve while they
are waiting for the lawsuit to be settled. She felt the money should be
refunded.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated the money is being collected
by the courts. They are complying with the statutes setting a fee of filing
small claims in court. The mandate required that the county set up a small
claim advisor which they have not.
Chairman Wheeler stated this was one of the issues in the CSAC
litigation whether or not the state are in fact in violation of their own
constitution. Perhaps that is where Mr. Myers should file for relief or
from the courts. If they litigate this issue, they are condoning it. The
fees generated are to pay for the service. This is not the case.
County Counsel to provide Supervisor Fulton with a copy of the
legislation.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
836
OPT ORDINANCE 2284 - PUBLIC HEARING: STANTON MARCH REZONE (ITEM DETERMINED
BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEN7) FROM "A-R" (AGRICULTURAL -
SIDENTIAL) TO "AR-MH"{AGRICULTURAL RESTDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME), PROPERTY
CATER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OROVILLE BANGOR HIGHWAY, APPROXIMATELY 1,800
ET EAST OF LOWER WYANDOTTE ROAD, IDENTTFTED AS AP 36-113-054, TWO MILES
UTHEAST OF OROVILLE
The public hearing on Stanton Marsh rezone (item determined to be
tegorically exempt from environmental review) from "A--R" (agricultural -
Page 493.
May 11,1982
8 2-
b
-----May 11, 1982 ___________ ________
residential) to "AR-MH" (agricultural residential - mobile home), property
located on the south side of Oroville Bangor Highway, approximately 1,800
feet east of Lower Wyandotte Road, identified as AP 36-113-054, two miles
southeast of Oroville was held as advertised.
Bettye Kircher, planning director, stated the Board did place an
interim "ARH" zone on this property so he could apply for an Aunt Minnie and
meet Health Department. requirements. It was issued and the property is
occupied. This is a follow up. They have Commission comments, minutes and
staff comments.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, noting that the project is categorically exempt from
the provision of CEQA; finding that the proposed rezone from "A-R" (agricultural
residential) to "AR-MH" (agricultural residential - mobile home), is consistent
with the Butte County General Plan; Ordinance 2284 rezoning AP 36-11-3-54 from
"A-R" to "AR-MH"r property located on the south side of Oroville Bangor
Highway, approximately 1,800 feet east of Lower Wyandotte Road, two miles
southeast of Oroville for Stanton Marsh was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING: LARRY MC KINNEY AND MRS. JANCIE GIBSON, APPEAL OF CONDITION
NO. 10, AP 46-161-28, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION {COMMUNITY PARK
COMMONS), PROPOSED 16 UNITS ON 1.8 ACRES, "SEVEN DUPLEXES, 14 MULTI UNITS AND
TWO SINGLE FMAILY UNITS," LOCATED ON 16TH STREET AND CLEVELAND STREET IN
CHAPMANTOWN
The public hearing on Larry McKinney and Mrs. Janice Gibson
appeal of Condition No. 10 (permanent solution for drainage) on AP 46-161-28,
tentative condominium subdivision (Community Park Commons), proposed 16 units
on 1.8 acres, "seven duplexes, 14 multi units and two single family units",
located on 16th Street and Cleveland Street in Chapmantown was held as
continued.
837
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Cal Bachman, Chico, stated he had met with Supervisor Dolan
and Public Works Director Clay Castleberry and came to a mutual agreement.
Mr. Castleberry typed up a set of conditions they agreed with. There are no
problems. Mr. Bachman presented a copy to the clerk.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan stated this was an appeal to provide permanent
solution to drainage. This will be relative to the master drainage study of
Rolls, Anderson and Rolls.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the appeal of Condition No. 10 to provide permanent
solution for drainage on AP 46-161-28, tentative condominium subdivision
(Community Park Commons), proposed 16 units on 1.8 acres, "seven duplexes,
14 multi units and two single family units," located on 16th Street and
Cleveland Street in Chapmantown be upheld; with the following actions to
be the appeal of drainage conditions:
1. All of the conditions for improvements till stand as per Advisory Agency
minutes of March 3, 1982.
Page 494.
May 11, 1982
8 2-
~',
838
839
May 11, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _
2. Developer is authorized to install temporary drainage solutions~at 16th
and Cleveland•.Avenue frontages in fofm of horizontal drain pits with._
final design to be approved by county as to size and location.
3. Developer will install portions of permanent system in amount equal to
his share of overall drainage system costs as per Master Drainage Plan
for area {Rolls, Anderson and Rolls) with final design and placement to
be approved by Public 47orks.
REPORT TO THE BOARD FROM COUNTY COUNSEL ON REQUEST OF O. C. CLINKINGBEARD TO
WAIVE HEALTH FEE FOR THE OROVILLE MISSION
A report from County Counsel on a request of O. C. Clinkingbeard
to waive the health fee for the Oroville Mission was held at this time.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated Mr. Griffith checked on this
last week. The mission conducts nondenominational services on Sundays. After
reviewing the information and looking at the constitution which indicates
against giving any religious creed, the Board would be unable to waive the
fees. They have notified Mr. Clinkingbeard.
Supervisor Saraceni indicated there were a couple of groups that
would be able to help .them.
RECESS: 10:27 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:31 a.m.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ELIMINATING THREE ELGIBILITY
WORKER POSITIONS FROM WELFARE DEPARTMENT - DISCUSSION; RELEASE OF POSITIONS
FROM HIRING FREEZE FOR TWO JUVENILE HALL COUNSELORS AND WELFARE ELIGIBILITY
WORKERS
Discussion regarding the release of positions from the hiring
freeze for two Juvenile Hall counselors and Welfare eligibility workers was
held at this time.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated Juvenile
Hall has indicated they could use extra':shelp for a short term period. Once
they were off the payroll they could collect unemployment insurance benefits.
Chairman Wheeler questioned Mr. Robinson, assistant welfare
director, if they could utilize extra help. They would be going back into
the budget at the end of this month. They would be looking at the entire
budget by June 2nd.
Mr. Pyeatt stated in the Welfare Department they are under the
MOU. If there is a position not filled within 25 days, it makes the contract
illegal.
Supervisor Dolan stated for a number of years positions which
were vacant were not filled. The county and department guaranteed they would
be filled. Some of the positions have been eliminated so they do not guarantee
them.
Supervisor Saraceni stated they are trying to cut back as much
as possible. They have gone into the freeze as much as possible.
Mr. Pyeatt indicated it was a situation like the jail where there
were certain statutes to follow. They are staffed according to the statutes.
When vacancies come up they utilize extra help. It is a continuing ongoing
need. In Juvenile Hall one counselor moved up to a Senior Counselor and
another vacancy was due to an employee leaving.
Page 495.
May 11,•1982
B'.
________====may=11, 1982 __________________
Chairman Wheeler indicated they should continue to use extra help.
Mr. Pyeatt stated he sent a memo on April 21, 1982 regarding the
MOU status. A previous memo from Mr. Robinson indicates the case load and
the units people are presently doing.
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, stated when they negotiated
with Welfare, they wanted to use the case load. They were not prepared to
negotiate. The case load for the elgibility workers are heavy. They entered
into the agreement and the Board ratified it. This makes the elgibility
workers different from other requests in other departments.
Supervisor Fulton stated he hoped they did not sign such an
agreement with each department. Then the county would be unable to have a
hiring freeze.
Supervisor Dolan stated the reason she brought up the issue of
the MOU was to let them know the case load and they must maintain accuracy
to assure the county does not give aid to inelgibles. That could cause a
loss of funding which would have to be paid back with local General Fund
money.
Bob Robinson, assistant welfare director, stated the State
Department of Social Services set out what was considered a reasonable
work level. They set approximately 350 as responsible level for a elgibility
worker at the present time. They are presently handling 585 under the AFDC
program. The workers in Butte County should handle 131.5 cases per worker
and they are attempting the level of 175 per worker. The state and federal
government provides 95 percent of the bill. They could apply a fiscal sanction.
Presently there are 13 other counties which the sanction has been applied.
The state set into law quality control review within a six month period.
An X number of cases will be reviewed by the Welfare Department and they
establish the dollar rate. At present the rate is 3.75. If it exceeds this
they will move into a sanction. There is a 2 percent rate. Of the $9 million
at about 2 percent, it would be $180,000 sanction. Welfare is an institution
and it will not go away. There has been a 34 percent increase of overall
work case load since December 1978. There is a maze of regulations that is
required to mandate.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
to realease the three Welfare elgibility worker positions from .the hiring
freeze.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton
NOES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman wheeler
Motion failed.
Chairman Wheeler stated they are being pressed with legal jeopardy
every day and until they solve this they cannot take a positive position at
this time.
Mr. Rackerby stated the intent of the agreement. There are
protection clauses for.. the county. I£ they thoroughly feel that the case
load increases are going to occur and they feel comfortable knowing the
problems they may have, they say you do not budget time. If they wish to
eliminate the three positions,. you will not be in violation. You cannot do
it temporarily. This year they will be talking about contract provisions
and it will be difficult to negotiate should they eliminate the positions.
Page- 496.
May 11,'1982
8 2-
a.
**
May 11, 1982
Supervisor Dolan suggested Supervisor Moseley visit the Welfare
Office and see the case load. -They are overworked.
Mr. Pyeatt stated that is one of the departments with flexibility.
The elgibility workers can handle Medical or AFDC cases.
Mr. Robinson stated the MOU from last year did not affect the
flexibility in the agency. It was one of the ways they could survive. They
have been able to move people. Individuals will volunteer when there is a
need in another area. There is a continuous move and shifting. They have
lost 12 social worker positions since 1978 and there has been an increase in
case Load.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated if the Board is going to
remove the positions, they could waive the first reading of an ordinance.
If they do not, they are open for the union to go to court.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor
Moseley, the first reading of a salary ordinance amendment deleting three
elgibility worker positions from funding in the Welfare Department was
waived.
Supervisor Fulton stated they have not done an indepth analysis
to see if they are doing any damage to these departments.
Supervisor Saraceni stated it is not filling these jobs. Mr.
Robinson is working very hard and it is appropriate. One goes with the
other.
Mr. Siemsen stated if the union determines this is just a method
of avoiding the contract right now, it specifically states you cannot deny
funding temporarily, then it could be construed as being a way of avoiding
the funding of the positions.
Chairman Wheeler stated it is not the intent to temporarily
eliminate the positions. They must keep in mind the budget considerations.
It will mean people will have to be laid off and it has to start some where.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
840
841
APPEARANCES: KENNETH FIELDS
Kenneth Fields, Oroville, stated he had sent each Board member a
copy of his letter of May 6, 1982. He has been notified by Mental Health
Director Albert Raitt that he will lose his job 6y May 4, 1982 if he does
not report for work. He was in an automobile accident on January 4, 1982.
The Dr. has indicated he will be off work at least two more months. He worked
at Detox in Oroville. He felt he was getting the short end of the stick.
Chairman Wheeler stated Supervisor Saraceni just submitted his
letter from Mr. Fields. He has the Board at a disadvantage, If he would
allow them to take the matter under submission, they will report back.
They will have an answer for Mr. Fields next week.
APPEARANCES: ROY RONEY - REFERRED TO PLANNING, 2ONTNG INVESTIGATOR
Roy Roney, Chico, questioned if the response to his request from
last week was ready. ~~~ 497.
May 11, 1982
8
842
843
May 11L1982==..-=_=W=_________=
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated he was not present-last week
during Mr. Roneys discussion. ..The Board has stipulated with James Brothers
on the railroad car operation. It was negotiated and the lawsuit is closed.
It indicates they require the activity in relationship to the railroad car
as it is an agriculture use to the zoning. They will not be able to clean
the cement cars.
Mr. Roney questioned what percentage of the operation consists of
agriculture use. The operation worked until 12 p.m. on Friday. They moved in
mobile homes last week. This has opened the door. Who is he to call when
they are awakened at this hour. This is an industry.
Mr. Siemsen stated the Planning Department has an investigator
for such purposes. They will find out if they are not complying. The ordinance
does not speak to the number of individuals allowed to live on the property
if they are working in the agriculture process. They must sign an affidavit.
Mr. Roney stated the operation is on a county rural road. Traffic
has increased ten times. Someone is going to get killed. Agriculture use
is for the protection of farmers to produce food and to farm.
The matter was referred to Planning Department, Zoning Invest-
igator for a report back to the Board immediately.
APPEARANCES: JOHN RONEY
John Roney, Chico, stated the James Brother operation is not just
the cleaning of agriculture cars, it is the repainting and refurbishing and
painting. He did not call that farming. If they only worked with agriculture
cars they could live with that. What the Board allowed, and voted unanimously
to allow, is the actual repainting and refurbishing. That is industrial.
The Board should take the position it is not an agriculture business or
agriculture use. They could have as many mobile homes as workers with those
affidavits. They should check into the roadway. It is very narrow. The
operation is next to his property line. There is a holding pond for waste
material. it has already killed trees and he wondered about the ground water.
H2 felt it should be reviewed by the Board.
Chairman Wheeler indicated the Zoning Investigator will look into
the problem and report back to the Board.
APPEARANCES: 'ALEX SARKADEY
Alex Sarkadey questioned why he could not pay any amount on his
taxes. He attempted to pay $50 on his tax bill and was told he could not
because the Board ruled on it.
The Administrative Officer to handle the issue.
844
845
COUNTY TO DECLARE PROPERTY SOUTH OF DAYTON ROAD SURPLUS
Chairman Wheeler questioned the report on agricultural waste
burning on county property south of Dayton Road.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated the Public
Works Department did not recommend selling the property to the Fortiers.
Chairman Wheeler indicated they had been burning on the property
for 19 years and for Administrative Office to begin proceedings to declare
the property as surplus.
BUTTE COUNTY CITIZEN'S WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CONTINUED TO MAY 25, 1982
Chairman Wheeler requested that the item regarding Butte County
Citizen's Water Advisory Committee be continued to May 25,,1982.
page 498.
May 11, 1982
82- 846
a
847
848
849
850
851
852
May 11, 1982
BOARD COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS ... CONTINUE TO MAY 18, 1982
Continued to May 18, 1982 Board committee assignments.
DISCUSSION: COUNTY POSITION OF CSAC RALLY ON BUDGET TO BE HELD AT STATE
CAPITAL ON MAY 19, 1982
Discussion was held regarding the county position of CSAC rally
on budget to be held at the State Capital on May 19, 1982..
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated they had a
lot of information and there was more coming in every day. There is new
legislation regarding transferring to county from 12 percent to 34 percent
of funding. They held a meeting with Welfare and Public Health staff.
Chairman Wheeler stated they should give direction to Administrative
staff to meet with the Auditor to prepare Butte County's position for the
May 19th rally.
REPORT FROM SUPERVISOR DOLAN ON PUBLIC DEFENDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
There was a report from Supervisor Dolan on Public Defender
Advisory Committee meeting at this time.
Supervisor Dolan set out the purpose for the Advisory Committee.
They were to review the adequacy of the service and review the funding.
There were questions of whether tc go out to bid. They would need to give
notice by June 29, 1982 if they chose to contract out. They have set up a
meeting with the judges. She will report back further on the meeting.
APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD - CONTINUE TO MAY 25, 1982
Continued to May 25, 1982 the appointment to the Community Action
Board.
APPOINTMENT TO THE BUTTE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE -- CONTINUE
TO MAY 25, 1982
Continued to May 25, 1982 appointment to the Butte County
Emergency Medical Services Committee.
REPORT BY SUPERVISOR DOLAN CONCERNING RESEARCH ON AS 90 APPLICATION FOR FUNDS -
CONTINUE TO MAY 18, 19$2
Continued to May 18, 1982 a report by Supervisor Dolan concerning
research on AB 90 application for funds.
COMMUNICATIONS
Tom Swarthout, Sam Clemente. GDA Engineering,.on behalf of their client Mr.
Swarthout, appeals a Planning Department finding that property
located on AP 71-40-16 does not conform to the Butte County
General Plan. Public hearing date set for June 8, 1982 at 10:15 a.m.
Ringel & Associates. The engineers, on behalf of Dick Chappell, appeal con-
ditions to a tentative parcel map (Conditions 12, 13 and 14) on
property located on AP 51-01-141, Hummer Road, approximately
1,000 feet west of Doe Mill Road, Forest Ranch area. Public
hearing date set for June 8, 1982 at 10:30 a.m.
Petitioners - Reclamation Districts No. 777, 833, 2054, 2056 and Drainage
Aistrict No. One. The petitioners request a moratorium on all
lot splits and subdivisions within the boundaries of the various
districts listed until such time as the Board of Supervisors
adopts a drainage fee charge under the Map Act to be assessed
against future lot splits and subdivisions for the purpose of
providing '.funds to enlarge drainage facilities. Discussion;
taken under submission. Referred to Supervisor Moseley for report
back. Page 499.
May 11,'1982
8 2-
$'
853
854
May 11, 1982 _
Mr. William Murrah, Gridley. Mr. Murrah requests to be heard on an issue
concerning proposed zoning for the Gridley area. To be considered
later in the meeting.
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Edwards, Oz'oville. The Edwards write submitting infor-
mation on their experiences with building permits (AP 36-13-63)
and request a building permit renewal at reduced fees. Discussion;
referred to Public Works and Supervisor Saraceni.
Northern California Health Systems Agency. The Agency submits a draft copy
of organization bylaws and requests Board of Supervisors comments
on Article IV to be resubmitted to the agency within 45 days.
Information; taken under submission.
Biggs Unified School District. James W. Watkins, superintendent, writes in
support of full funding for the Butte County Fire Department.
Information; taken under submission for consideration at budget
time.
Stuart MacKenzie, attorney at law. The attorney, on behalf of Bart Valerio
and Roger Dedekam, submits an application for a permit to stage
a musical concert. Referred to Tax Collector.
Tudor Engineering Company, San Francisco. The engineers submit an amendment
of license for Ke11y Ridge II Development of the South Fork
Project No. 2088 by the Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District
and request review and comments within b0 days. Referred to
Planning, Environmental Review Department.
League of S4omen Voters of Butte County. The League writes in .support of the
Board of Supervisors Advisory Water Committee. Information; no
action taken.
California State Fair. Kirk Breed, general manager, provides the Board
of Supervisors information regarding the elimination of the
Counties Program at the State Fair for 1982. Discussion; see
motion following communications.
Chico Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce requests the Board of
Supervisors consider that one percent of the bed tax funds
collected from the greater Chico area be provided for funding
of the Chico Visitor and Convention Bureau. Information; taken
under submission for consideration at budget time.
AUTHORIZE LETTER BE SENT TO STATE FAIR BOARD
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, a letter to be sent to California Fair Board pro-
testing the elimination of the counties program and exhibits; be in support
of its reincarnation next year was authorized.
DISCUSSION: VETERAN SERVICE OFFICERS' BUDGET
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had requested the item regarding
a salary ordinance amendment deleting the existing Veterans' Service Officer
and Representative positions be held earlier in the meeting. There was a
group of veterans present last week protesting the change. There was some
figures presented that should be verified.
Supervisor Fulton stated they have done this budget and there are
some veterans not happy. Some have agreed with Mr. Brown. He felt the
veterans should get together and agree. They have spent considerable time
reviewing this small, budget.
Page 50D.
May 11; 1982
8 2-
'' 8 55
Maw 11 ,_ 1982
~ = _ _ _ _ = T ° _ _ - - _
:CESS: 12:01 p.m.
:CONVENE: 1:33 p.m. -
PPROVE MOTION OF INTENT - PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -
RIDLEY-SIGGS AREA REZONE (ITEM ON WHICH THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS
REVTOUSLY BEEN CERTIFIED) - IN ORDER TO BRING THE ZONING INTO CONSISTENCY
ITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN FOR THAT AREA AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. THE
REA UNDER CONSIDERATION CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 42 S¢UARE MILES OF PUBLICLY
ND PRIVATELY OWNED UNINCORPORATED LAND BOUNDED GENERALLY BX HIGHWAY 162 ON
HE NORTH, THE FEATHER .RIVER ON THE EAST, THE BUTTE COUNTY LINE ON THE SOUTH,
ND A LINE EXTENDING SOUTH FROM THE RICHVALE-SOUTH HIGHWAY ON THE WEST, AND
NCLUDING THE UNINCORPORATED AREA SURROUNDING GRTDLEY AND BIGGS - CONTINUE
O MAY 18, 1982 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE
The public hearing on Butte County Planning Commission, Gridley-
iggs area rezone (item on which the Environmental Impact Report has previously
een certified) in order to bring the zoning into consistency with the adopted
eneral Plan for that area as required by state law. The area under consider-
tion contains approximately 42 square miles of publicly and privately awned
nincorporated land bounded generally by Highway 162 on the north, the Feather
fiver on the east, the Butte County line on the south, and a line extending
outh from the Richvale-South Highway on the west, and including the unincorp-
rated area surrounding Gridley and Biggs was held as advertised.
Bettye Kircher, planning director, stated her staff would comment
nd answer questions. There were items under communications regarding the
ezone.
Suzanne Mathewson, planner, gave a brief history of the project
the Gridley-Biggs area. A General Plan amendment was developed in 1979.
was considered by community members. The amendment was heard in April 1981.
zoning proposal which was considered by Planning Commission and recommended
August and September of 1981. Because of comments made it was sent back
Planning Commission for further study and consideration. The Commission
rd testimony and the recommendation was as shown on Exhibits A and C posted
the board. Exhibit F shows Gridley Sphere of Influence.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Dan Boeger, City of Gridley, stated he was chairman of the
mmittee which worked on the proposal.Mr. Boeger reflected back to the
ck of development in Butte County 20 years ago. He questioned where houses
u1d be placed in the next 20 years. There would be traffic problems and
rvices. He spoke of world hunger and using agriculture lands. The Board. is
king the rules, but they can be broken for special circumstances. Agriculture
Number One in the nation and Butte County. A committee was formed in
idley to consider .costs and building fee schedules. Bob Gaiser and Rae
eeler have spent many many hours working on the Gridley rezone. There were
rious problems. There were 39 points recommended to the City Council, this
s what the majority wanted. They wanted to preserve farm land and still
ke housing affordable. He is aware of the drainage problems in the area.
believes in real agriculture zoning, not that which will benefit everyone
t the farmer.. The Planning Commission plan would cause an increase of
percent in 20 years time. They need to encourage housing next to town
cause of higher density and at the same time preserve the agriculture land.
e vote today will be the most important in the area in the next 20 years and
ybe next 100 years.
2. David Maclntire, City of Gridley, stated the County of Butte
in the process of dividing land as well as county wide zoning. His concern
the Sphere of Influence. The county has a $6 million plus deficit. They
t to help balance government with taxes that will be created. They should
Page 501.
May 11,'1982
82-
- May-11,=182 =______===__~ ~ n====
strive to preserve agriculture land and open space. If the proposal is approved,
the county must provide services.
3. Otto Behunin, planning commissioner, Gridley, stated what is
being proposed is to a large degree what exists in many of these areas. Many
of what is proposed as "SR-1" is presently zoned that. It conforms to the
county position, but not the City of Gridley position. It can be dealt with.
The county proposal has been .well thought out. He felt transportation and
drainage could be addressed as each project is approved. This has not been
taken lightly. It has been discussed for a number of years. A person can
buy a house to live in in town or go outsdie of town and buy five to ten
acres. There are some that can afford to go out and buy one acre lots.
The proposal reflects what is in Gridley.
4. David Maclntire, Gridley, stated Exhibit F only shows the
Sphere of Influence, not the utlimate.
5. Floyd Sanner, Gridley, stated they purchased their property
years ago and expected when they retired to have something to use for the
rest of their lives. They have changed the rules. His property is up against
the city limits on Little Avenue. His 20 acres was changed to 5 acre zoning.
His peach orchard was marginal. The city wants the property to be built up.
He felt because of economics people could not build on lots if they could
find them.
6. Ed Becker stated he felt the city was trying to mandate
county residents. The city would like to prevent any growth into the area
when they want development for the future. They do not have any representation
on the Planning Commission. He has been attending every hearing for the past
two months. He felt the proposal was sound and the Board should listen
carefully to todays testimony.
7. Bernice Dutra, Gridley, lives on Little Avenue and was happy
being a farmer until an 85 housing unit went in near their peach orchard. She
*** questioned if they could be in the "R-1" district so they could do something
with the property now that they are retiring, They have lived there 33 years.
The property across the road is a prune orchard and is zoned to go into a
development. They want to hold her to "A-5". They have tried for four years
', to sell the property. Because of homes close, they have problems spraying
the orchard. If it were zoned one acres, it would not have to be sold. She
would like to have the right, after having worked all her life, to do what she
wanted with the property.
Ms. Mathewson responded to Chairman tiaheeler that there was about
15 acres which were "A-5" and would be zoned for "SR-1". The city is recommend-
ing smaller than "A-5". The "AR" zone would be inconsistent with the General
8. Fart Nelson, consultant for City of Gridley, presented data
Board members at this time. The City of Gridley took a big interest in
e rezone plans. He felt the city proposal would preserve agriculture land.
population continues to increase, there will be more pressure on ag lands.
is would be a large impact on the city. Every acre of agriculture land lost
uses them to lose $140. The county proposal would create 422 parcels. There
e 600 parcels on the books for subdivision in the city. The Board has a
rtain responsibility to CE4A. Mr. Nelson read from Section 150.116 and
0.88. Mr. Nelson spoke to page 34 as it relates to traffic and drainage.
ey should look hard at what the city is proposing. They are trying to take
responsible position. The City of Gridley paid $30,000 for a drainage study.
e city feels there could be annexation to the river. The costs of sewer lines
es not make it feasible.
Page 502.
-May 11, '1982
8 2-
~''
May 11, 1982 _ _
Supervisor Saraceni stated in the City of Gridley proposal under
area 1 and 2 they suggest "A-20" zoning. Only two contain 10 acres or more
yet they are suggesting it be 20 acres when 80 percent are smaller than 5.
Ninety percent are two acres or less in size. They are suggesting "A-5".
Mr. Nelson stated Area I and 2 are in the area. The city's con-
cerns are Area 5, 6 and 8, 3 and 14.
Supervisor Moseley stated in Area 3 there is 160 acres zoned
"SR-1". Tt is suggested "A-5" in the city. Already there axe 65 which are
less than one acre.
Supervisor Dolan stated the city position is in Appendix A. She
felt there was a potential problem. How much was necessary to accommodate
the cost that is going to occur. It is an issue.
9. Bernice Dutra, Gridley, questioned why the City of Gridley
was so concerned about the drainage when four years ago they wanted one acre
maps on all property.
RECESS: 2:43 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:01 p.m.
10. Dan Boeger stated they had a conference during break and
city staff wants to go on record that specific acreage or county roads.
The city plans are less. The city would like to have a plan and it is the
feeling of the city as a whole for preservation of farm lands..
11. Mike Greer, Gridley City Council, stated the five acres have
been zoned there for a long time. Lots are available in the Sphere of Influ-
ence for people to buy. They are not being used. They want to extend out
and cannot do it through one acre parcels. About $75,000 goes out towards
future electricity projects to provide for the surrounding area. The city
did advertise for the Planning Commission position three to four weeks.
They did not instruct the individual not to vote on certain issues. If people
want to annex, they will bring the people in. He felt they needed a cooperative
effect between the city and county.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he felt the property owners had
something to say in this matter. That is the type of hearings they held.
12. Dan Boeger stated he did feel it was a matter of choice. He
did not think zoning 'the whole county "SR-1" is the right was to go. He felt
there was a problem with drainage.
13. Mike Schrader, Beverly Drive, Oroville, stated Mr. Behunin
did a good job.. He felt they city council should apologize for remarks made
earlier regarding the Planning Commission. Rae Wheeler spent many hours
trying to work this out. They are very responsible. The Planning Commission
tried to create a zone consistent with the existing parcels.
14. Fred Girth, Laurel Street, Gridley, set out the lines on
the city proposal map. It was an issue. Mr. Girth presented a petition with
80 percent of the people who were not in favor of the zoning. They want
rural designation. Mr. Girth set out various parcels and the zoning at the
map. He supported the city proposal.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Moseley stated this came before the Board in September.
They have heard many things and arguements from the people. They are divided.
Page 503.
May 11, 1982
82-
$'
_ _ - _ M~ 11, 1982 _
Che Planning Commission agonized over this rezoning area. They talked and
:onsidered all of the things people had brought up at meetings. Staff has
asked that they make a motion of intent to allow time to type the ordinance.
It was moved by Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
that the Environment Impact Report for the Gridley-Biggs area was previously
certified by the Board of Supervisors on April 21, 1981, describing the
various significant impacts and mitigation measures as part of approval of
the General Plan Amendment for the subject area. The reference ETR has also
Been considered for the rezone of the Gridley-Biggs area in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the
Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines; and, has been reviewed and
ronsidered the final environmental impact report, make the following findings:
1. Development which is anticipated to occur within the project area in
compliance with the zoning district and General Plan criteria may have
a siani.ficant effect on the environment in the areas of:. surface
• drainage accommodation, potential.. loss of riparian iaoodland,'traffie•c
_ noisy exposure, agricultural/residential interface conflicts, potential
loss of archaeological sites. Many, but not all, of ,the above-listed
impacts can be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, or in connection
with community improvement projects which may be undertaken in the
future with public or private funding. The likelihood of such mitigation
is too speculative for evaluation at this time.
2. With the exception of the "NO project" alternative, the alternative listed
on Page 41 of the EIR have been incorporated into the current proposal
where such incorporation has been found consistent with community desires
for rezoning specific areas and General Plan goals and policies.
Specific findings with regard to the alternatives are as follows:
a. Alternative 1 - No Project. The "No project" alternative can be
divided into two categories, the first being no building or develop-
ment within the project area whatsoever, and the second being simply
to retain the existing zoning districts. The first of these is being
rejected because it is not politically feasible or realistric or
consistent with the desires of the community. Zoning tools to
implement this alternative are not likely to be adopted. Leaving
the zoning districts as they are is being rejected because the proposed
zoning districts more accurately reflect community goals and the
policies of the General Plan.
b_ Alternative 2 - Modify Proposed Land Use Categories. This alternative
was applicable for the General Plan Amendment. Modifications were
implemented in portions of the project area.
c. Alternative 3 - Relocate Land T3se and Zoning Boundaries. Several
locations within the project area have been modified from the original
zoning proposal. Approximately 140 acres adjacent to the City of
Biggs are proposed for "R-1" and "R-3" rather than the originally
proposed "SR-1".
Approximately 210 acres near the City o£ Gridley have been changed
from "SR-1" to "A-5", and approximately 37Q acres have been changed
from "A-5" to "SR--1", resulting in a 16Q acre increase in the amount
of "SR-1". Also near Gridley, 175 acres have been changed from "A-5"
to "A-10", and 660 acres in the Manzanita District have been modified
from "A-40" to "A--30". These changes were made to reflect recent
development and the desires of residents in the subject areas; and,
Page 504.
May 11, 1982
', _ May-11, 1982 _______________
g2'- Although there may be significant adverse environmental effects
~}'', resulting from development which would be allowed pursuant to approval of this
project, there are overriding considerations which justify project approval..
These overriding considerations include:
1. The Butte County General Plan has been amended for the subject area and
State law requires that zoning districts be established which conform to
the General Plan designations. This project is a part of an ongoing
process to phase out "A-2" zoning.
2. The zoning districts being established represent an improvement over
present zoning districts for the area in that they were formulated with
the help of citizen input to more effectively implement the goals and.
objectives of the Butte County General Plan.
3. The zoning districts being established are potentially less environ-
mentally damaging at full buildout than the zoning districts which
previously were in effect for the area, while still providing room for
community expansion.
4. The zoning districts under consideration provide areas for rural homesites
on large parcels which will offer area residents the opportunity to off-
set food and energy resource demand by becoming partially self-sufficient
through producing on the premises a portion of their food and energy
needs; and,
having made the above findings for the Gridley-Biggs Area Rezone, that a
motion of intent be made establishing zoning districts for the subject area
as proposed, and that a delay of final action for one week be made to allow
staff time to prepare the final ordinance.
Supervisor,FUlton stated he felt everyone had done a good job.
There is a conflict of philosophy here. It was a problem of one acre possib-
ilities or of the environment. He visited the location. and was concerned
about the roadways. There is a terrible drainage problem in the area. There
is a problem there. He felt the people from Gridley should decide what the
area is going to Zook like. He could see a fiscal impact. They are small
acreages which will be proposed. He .questioned the roads and fire. The
mutual assistance agreements are not always workable. He did not feel the
small acreages would pay for themselves.
Supervisor Dolan stated Mr. Gene Tanamoto talked with several
people and the young farmers do not feel there was enough time. There is the
underlying factor of saving agriculture land. There should be a reduction
of services on the Gridley area, not an increase. Drainage was a major concern.
Supervisor Saraceni stated this issue has been discussed and worked
for the past one and one-half years. It was-not a sudden decision. There
definate concerns., It is difficult to make a decision which will please
Supervisor Moseley stated drainage was one of the major concerns.
is no different from the Thermalito area. It can be solved by working
Chairman Wheeler stated the mitigated circumstances may or may not
occur in the future. They are bringing the zoning into conformance with the
general Plan. They are eliminating a great deal of "A-2" zoning. People will
lave to assume the costs for drainage problems. Redistricting will be con-
aidered in the future.
"Page. 505.
May 11, 1982
8 2-
a
May 11, 1982
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton
Motion carried.
856
RECESS: 3:51 p.m.
RECONVENE: 4:02 p.m.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DELETING THE EXISTING
VETERANS'SERVICE OFFICER AND REPRESENTATIVE POSITIONS AND CREATES A NEW
VETERANS' SERVICE OFFICER POSITION AT RANGE 14.0
Supervisor,FUlton stated he did not want to change anything
further on the VSO budget.
Discussion was held regarding information presented last week.
857
858
****
859
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton and
unanimously carried, the first reading of a salary ordinance amendment deleting
the existing Veterans'. Service Officer and Representative positions and
creating a new Veterans' Service Officer position at Mange 14.0 was waived.
RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION ON MINUTE ORDER 82-826, ITEM 11-ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
82-76 - PENALTY ABATEMENT REQUESTS
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated County
Counsel has indicated action taken earlier in the meeting regarding penalty
abatement requests where Resolution 82-76 was adopted was not legal. They
felt they duties could be delegated the the Assessor. There 18 other counties
who have delegated that responsibility. He referred to Revenue and Taxation
'Code 4804 as it applies to 483.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, previous action on minute order 82-826, Item I1,
adoption of Resolution 82-76 delegation of responsibility of penalty abate-
ment requests was rescinded.
APPROVE CHICO LIBRARY CHANGE ORDER NO. 9 AND NO. 10
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton and
carried, Contract Change Order No. 9 and No. 10 for construction of the Chico
Library project which reflects no cost increases were approved and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
-AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley and ,Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisor
Saraceni
'ADDITIONAL ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor. Saraceni discussed his meeting at Northern California
'Emergency Medical Care Council. Mr. Becker has indicated there would be no
problem with the joint powers agreement should Butte County pull out.
Supervisor Saraceni would like a listing of all equipment in Butte County.
Chairman Wheeler stated there has been discussion that Tehema,
Glenn and Butte County form a Emergency Medical Care Council.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board at this time the
meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, May 18, 1982
at 9:00 a.m.
~ag.e 506..
May 11, 1982
i - ~-
_i
May 11, 1982 _
82-- ATTEST: ELEANOR M. BECKER, COUNTY CLERK-
~ ' RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk of
the Butte County Board of Supervisors
By:~ C a'r~rtan, Board o Supervisors
~'ag;e 507.
May 11 , 1982