HomeMy WebLinkAboutM051579May 15, 1979
79=
~I
804
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
BOUNTY OF BUTTE )
The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke.
Clif Mickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and
Clark Aa Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.
Invocation. by Supervisor Moseley
On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the minutes of May 1, 1979 were approved as
mailed with the following corrections: minute order 79-761 to show that
Supervisor Moseley made the second on the motion and minute order 79-793
to add the following communication: Paradise Municipal Advisory Councils
The council forwards a report that was prepared on the subject of recycling
solid wastes in the Paradise area. Information; no action taken.
On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
unanimously carried, the minutes of May 1, 1979, minute order 79-734
e amended to reflect that Resolution 79-76 abandoning a 3-foot public
lity easement between Lots 14 & 15 of Shasta Estates Subdivision,
44-59-46, Chico was adopted without any conditions.
SESSION: The Board recessed at 9:10 aom. to hold an executive
session regarding, litigation, meet and confer and
will be sitting as the Air Pollution Control District
to discuss charges against Joe Bandy.
The Board reconvened at 10:02 a.m. following an executive
session regarding litigation, no announcements at this time;
meet and confer, no announcements at this time; and as the
Air Pollution Control District, a draft position will be
formulated this week for adoption next Tuesday,
805 PUBLIC HEARING: BETTY LOU GEORGE.- PETTTTON FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 19-10
AND/OR 19-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE FOR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON
The public hearing on Betty Lou George petition for variance to
Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a
mobile home on AP 41-26-48, Cherokee Road, Oroville, zoning: A-2 was held
as continued.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, set out the background
f the petition at this time. It is in order.
Hearing open to the publico Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
end unanimously carried, the petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
L9-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 41-26-48,
:herokee Road, Oroville, zoning A-2 for Betty Lou George was approved for
~ period of one years
Page 328.
May 15,,1979
79;- 806
May 15, 1979
- - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = ~ ~ R G
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: JAYRED AND TOWNE - APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S
DENIAL OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SOUTHGATE ACRES SUBDIVISION,
AP 40-04-35 & 37, 20 LOTS, SOUTH SIDE OF ENTLER AVENUE, 750 FEET EAST TO
PROPERfiY LINE CHICO - CONTINUED TO MAY 29 1979 AT 10:00 A.M.
The public hearing of Jayred and '~owne appeal of Advisory Agency's
denial of draft environmental impact report and Southgate Acres Subdivision,
AP 40-04-35 & 37, 20 lots, south side of Entler Avenue, 750 feet east to
property line, Chico was held as adntinued.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the
background of the draft environmental impact report at this time.
The groject involved 37 acres witha~40 residential lot subdivision. Tt
is located on the south side of Entler. The EIR that was prepared
discusses in addition to the project in general terms the potential for
development in the 350 acres. This information is in more general terms.
Plans for that development are not firm. A11 they are concerned with is
the residential portion which is 40 lots. The impacts relative to the
development includes the potential change in the character of the area
from rural agricultural to residentialo There could be potential conflicts
between those continuing with farming activities and residential uses of
the proposed development with regard to dust and noise. On the site, there
will be loss of agricultural production potential. The area is shown as
being appropriate for industrial transitioning to residential to the
west. The proposed subdivision was denied because of the text of the
General Plan. The development would convert from agricultural to urban
residential uses. The other impacts are the increase in traffic to
280 cars per day. There is an increase in population, and in the demand
for public serviceso The primary concern is the ultimate long-terms use
for the areas
Mr. Nelson stated that he had not responded to the comment that
the subdivision was in conflict with the General Plano He will make
responses to that claim for approval by the Board. There appears to be
a conflict between the map and the text. When the hearing is concluded,
he hoped that the Board would direct him as to how to respond to this
comment. The-EIR would not be sufficient for the entire area, only for
this project. It was written to cover the 40 lots on 37 acres. Anything
beyond that will require another EIRo
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
proposed subdivision map. The Board has a copy of the staff report in
which they were unable to make the findings. This development conflicts
with the policy from the General Plan in her mind. She has provided
an exhibit delinenating the General Plan with a diagram that shows the
density and designations of the area. The specific zone is "A-2" zoning.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Hank Marsh, attorney for proponents. Mr. Marsh stated that
this project is 20 lots in terms of the appeal. The most important thing
is the Planning Director's report. It clearly sets forth that the project
is in conformity with the land use map of the General Plan. There has been
an attempt to go back to the text to build a conclusion that the project
is not in conformity with the General Plan. The map is the end result
of the reasoning of all the documenCs. If the Board would look at the
land use';map, they would see that the project is in conformity with the
General Plan, He felt that for this reason there was no reason to deny
the project.
Page 329.
May 15,-1979
May 15, 1979^________~~_
_ ~ c a a
79=
a
2. Earl Dunn. Mr. Dunn submitted a•colored map of the area
showing the existing land use in the area. Mr. Dunn stated that they are
asking for 20 lots on 17 acres. He was aware of the farmers' concerns.
This project conforms to the General Plan and land use map. It indicates
low residential. Their proposal shows 20 lots on 17 acres falls within
the 1 to 4 dwelling units per acre density. The proposed subdivision
is consistent with the adjacent uses. The opponents that spoke at the
previous hearing fell into three categories: 1) the Farm Bureau. He
has discussed this project with representatives of the Farm Bureau. They
are speaking against intrusion into agricultural land. He invited the
author of the letter to look at the property and then decide if it was
appropriateo 2) Local ~`armers. The farmers have expressed concerns
about spraying and the dust. They are asking to be able to break the law.
The complaints about spraying and dust are few. 3) Residents in the
area. The residents that were here have three to five acre parcels and
some as small as 3/8 acre. They complained about more people in the area.
He.asked that the Board approve the project.
3. Myron Openshaw. Mr. Openshaw stated that he was here
as Vice-Chairman of the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The comittee
has written a letter to the Board in opposition to the project. They
feel that this would cause further encroachment on agricultural land
and this should be curtailed at this time until more infilling has
taken place, Mr. Dunn spoke regarding the problems the farmers are
having because of the residential uses that are allowed to be created
around agricultural land such as dust, spraying, noise and things that
go with farming. He asked that the Board deny the project.
4. Beverly Chambers. Mrs. Chambers stated that the road is
in poor condition at the present time. She did not care to see homes
go in this area. She did not think that it was fair to say the county
knows what is best for your land. They will continue to farm their land.
There are lumber, logging trucks and tankers using the road at the
present time. She asked that if the project were approved, could the
county make this a dead end road.
5. DeVere Pace. Mr. Pace stated that he was a member of the
Farm Bureau and voted for the sending of the letter to the Board. He
wanted to clarify his position. After listening to the testimony laat
week and receiving additional information, he found out that the project
has been in process for over two years, It meets ali the requirements
of the ordinance. The Planning Director's report of February 7, 1977
stated that this proposed division was pursuant to the State Map Act.
There are no specific plans for the area. The General Plan designation
is industrial transitioning to low density residential with one to four
dwellings per acre. It does not conflict with any development. On
March 7, 1978 the Planning Director's report set out the General Plan map
as industrial going to residential with "A-2" zoning. The Board policy
should be considered.' He would not be opposed to interim zoning unless
there are other projects such as this that have been in process for such
a long time.
6. Louis Camenzind, Jr. Mr. Camenzind stated that the project
is in harmony with the existing General Plan and land use element.
It has been through the .•p roper procedures required by law. It is
adjacent to an industrial park. In view of the energy shortage, this
project should be practical, Mr. Camenzind stated that the petition or
letter presented to the Board that was signed by 18 people are one
family and only two reside within the boundaries. The largest number.
of signers are small property owners that live on Jones Avenue.
Page 330,
May 15, 1979
May 15, 1979
^The^other signexs do not live within the area. He wished the Board would
require people signing petitions Co~-'- put their addresses on the petition
so that the Board would know where they live. The area soils are
questionable in regard to prime agricultural land. He has farmed the
rockpile next to Greentree. There is no way to get drainage. This
area is about the same type of soil. He asked that the Board approve
the project.
7. Mr. Richins. Mr. Richins stated that the EIR has to be
approved as sufficient. He wrote a letter showing the comments of the
Department of Transportation that it was not even an adequate document
to comment on. It talked about problems but no solutions.- The road on
Entler is very inadequate as best. There is a problem with the railroad
tracks. He stated that the amount of accidents have increased within
the last two years. To date there have been six accidents this year.
There were six accidents last year. In talking with the CHP Commander
it. was felt that the intersection should have something done with it.
The EIR never indicated there was a problem. He was concerned as to
who would pay for the left turn pocket that would be required if another
20 or 40 homes go in the area. He was concerned about the traffic
indicated in the EIR that would be generated to the east and west of
Entler. There are no plans by the Department of Transportation to
build an overpasso He recommended that the area be interim zoned until
the county decides what zoning should be in the area.
8. Gerald Geiger. Mr. Geiger stated that Mr. Dunn had not
contacted the signer of the Ietter> The Farm Bureau has not changed
its position. The entire area needs to be properly zoned. It needs
to be worked out in an orderly manner. The letter that was sent to
the Board was asking that the area be studied to Durham so it will be
in conformity with the new General Plan. It ties very closely to
rural residential on the new map. He felt that it would be a real
tragedy for people who buy homes in that area to want agricultural
uses to conform with their feelings. Agriculture is the thing that
makes money for them to have their home out there.
9. Phil Mace, representing Midway Orchards. Mr. Mace stated
that Midway Orchards were not opposed to this project. There was material
prepared for their use and he felt that it would be helpful for the Board
to have the information and the soil analysis. He asked that this be
a part of the EIR.
10. Dean Dixon. Mr. Dixon stated that this is an issue of
growth management. The area south of Chico has some natural geographical
boundaries, two roads and a creek, The county can look at future
subdividing of 887 acres. He wondered who would pay for the serwrices.
The areas of prime agricultural land should be zoned for agriculture
or Land Conservation Acto Agricultural land should be preserved.
He wondered where this would stop. Mr. Dixon stated that the EIR
talks about French drains. If the subdivision is allowed a drainage
district is going to have to be formed. He wondered who would have to
pay for it. French drains will not work over a couple of years. He felt
that the preservatfon of land was the only natural resource in Butte
County. .
11o Juanita Backhold. Mrs. Backhold stated that she was
concerned with the traffico She was not completely against the project
or for it. If this subdivision is allowed she wanted the same privilege
for her gropertyo
Page 331.
May 19, 1979
May 15, 1979
c c o o c o o W .r s o W ~ W- ____ n o o_ o a e a~ c o
12e Nora Shirley. Mrs. Shirley stated that this area had
good gravel. A person can make a living off this land. You would
have to irrigate and fertilize the area.
RECESS: 11;00 a.m.
RECONVENE: 11:10 a.m.
13. Art Gilman. Mr. Gilman stated that he was representing
the Farm Bureau. Mr. Gilman stated that he relayed the Fast Bureau's
position at the last hearing and the Board has received letters from
the Farm Bureau. He went ou~ind relooked at the property. There is no
way anyone could make the finding that to allow any more development
on that road would not bother the safety and welfare of the people.
The road is not adequate to carry the traffic it now has.
14o Glen Coats. Mrs. Coates stated that she had written
a .letter to Environmental Review. There will be problems due to drainage.
Butte Creek had a number of channels at one time. There are a number
of drainage ways that go to her property. This water has no way to
re-enter the channel. The result of having the subdivision would be
more runoff downstream. Any significant amount of pollution from
leach fields or from chemical contaimination will result in drainage
to downstream agriculture. It is even possible that Butte Creek will
be contaminated. This would require a sewer system and a realistic
plan.
15. Ed McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin felt that this property
was a valuable piece of property. He felt that the owners of this
property have other property that would be more in conformity with the
development. It is becoming harder and harder to farm around development.
There is land to the east of Hwy 99 that is suitable for housingo
I6. Orrin B. Stratton. Mr. Stratton stated that during the
gast IO to I5 years he has seen the planning concept go from advisary
to a document of law. Now anyone coming before the Board with a
subdivision has to conform to the General Plan. When a person has
conformed to all requirements of the General Plan, the Board has an
obligation to them.
17. Tom McCready. Mr. McCready stated that•it is important
to consider the map and the text. The statements that were made from
the text indicate the importance of•protectirig agricultural land.
I8. Bob Hartman. Mr. Hartman asked for an extension until
after intermim zoning..has been completed for the area.
19. Hester Patrick. Mrs. Patrick stated that she owned
Iand on Hagan Lane where the land changed to a subdivision and she had
to leave the area because the people were opposed to the naise, dust
and spraying on agricultural land. This project is not 20 acres, it is
40 acres plus all the developments to follow. She opposed the project.
20. Mary Gamble. Mrs. Gamble stated that she could not find
out how much traffic would increase in the area from the EIR. She took
the figures in the EIR and projected them out and there will be a great
deal of traffic going across the intersection. This is a very serious
safety problem in the area. If this project is approved there will have
to be a revamping of the transportation in the area.
21. Ron Mer1o. Mr.-Menlo stated that he was a small-farmer.
He is trying to build his fa:~-uting up. It is difficult when this type
of project is approved. Page 332. May 15, 1979
79'-
b'
May 15, 1979
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ T R G
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan hoped that the hearing could be delayed
longer. She felt that the Board should decide on the new land use
element before the matter was considered. ,It is obviously an area of
concern,
Supervisor Winston did not feel that the matter should be delayed.
Supervisor Moseley stated that the county owes the people that
applied for this subdivision something. They were under the impression
that they were zoned for this division.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, stated that he would
like to have two weeks to formalize the EIR and answer the comments.
He would have to resgond to any environmental review problems they become
aware of.
Supervisor Winston stated that he was going to make his thinking
clear on this matter. He has looked at this area. These people have
been struggling fox two yearsa In the meantime, the land divsipn was
approved across the road. It would appear that the proponents of the
subdivision are being penalized because they decided to divide according
to the law and existing land use map available at the time. He recommended
that the Board affect a compromise by accepting the EIR as it will be
addressed by Mr. Nelson and approve the subdivision and that all of the
land that is south of the proposed subdivision area be interim zoned
and subject to further study.
Supervisor Dolan stated that. she felt that there has been a
tremendous number of people in this county waiting for the county to do
away with the unclassified zoning. The Board has a greater responsibility
to complete that process. Because it is in that process and there is
an updating of the land use element, she felt that it is more appropriate
to answer that. There has been fighting over the General Plan and the
Board has a greater obligation to fulfill the adequacy of the General Plan.
She was concerned with the integrity of the planning process of the last
five years to get rid of the unclassified zone and come up with an approved
General Plan. This should happen first, The Board should follow through
with the guidelines that were given to the Planning Commission when they
were asked to look at this area> The ,Board is not allowing that process
to go on.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that since government today is
struggling because of restriction of funds, she felt that it was incumbent
upon people to pursue zone changes. This project has been on the books
for two years.
Mro Camenzind felt that there was a gross error in the information
received from Mr. Nelson.
Supervisor Dolan to submit~omments she has regarding environmental
concerns to Mro Nelson in writingo
The hearing was continued to May 29, 1979 at 10:00 aom.
RECESS: 11:57 a.m.
RECONVENE: 12:05 a.m.
Page 333.
May 15, 1979
807
_ May 15, 1979 _
PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT C. PAYNE - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMI2CSST0N REGARDING
NEGATIVE DECLARATTON AND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW 24 DUPLEX COMPLEXES ON
PROPERTY ZONED "A-R" (AGRICULTURAL - RESTDENTIAL), AP 44-054-14, PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LASSEN AVENUE, APPROX. 660 FEET WEST OF THE
ESPLANADE CHICO
The public hearing on the Robert C. Payne, appeal of the Planning
Commission regarding negative declaration and use permit to allow 24 duplex
complexes on property zoned "A-R" (agricultural-residential), AP 44-054-14,
property located on the south side of Lassen Avenue, approximately 660 feet
west of the Esplanade, Chico was held as advertised,
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the
background of the negative declaration. This is a five acre parcel on
the south. side of Lassen Avenue west of Esplande. The proposal is to
divide and put duplexes on each of the parcels. They originally requested
six duplexes on each parcel which would mean twelve units or forty eight
units total. The density is limited to five units per parcel. The
Planning Commission limited and clarified that the five units would be
allowed under the use permit. The applicant desires to have more
dwellings on the property and has come up with an alternate plan.
As far .as environmental review, whether it is five or six units-makes
no difference as long as sewage disposal is complied with. The major
concerns are drainage and traffic increase. He felt that the :mitigation
measures can handle these problems. He recommended a conditional
negative declaration.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of
the use permit. This is an application for a duplex complex as stated.
on the Planning Director's finding report statement of six duplexes
on each of the four parcels. This was properly noticed and was approved
on April 11, 19790 There was concern on the part of the applicant and
the Planning Commission clarified their minutes to reflect a development
of five units per parcel for a total of twenty.The map delineates one
four-plex and four duplexes.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Robert C. Payne. Mro Payne stated that he applied for
six duplexes per parcel on five acres being split into four parcels
which has been approved. He received a letter from Environmental Health
stating they would only allow 5.9 buildings per parcel. They have put
two duplexes together and then it was a four-plex. This was presented
to the Planning Commission. This was five buildings but twelve units.
He received a letter from Planning stating that there were five building
duplexes approved. The General Plan calls for five to eight units per
acre. These units are one story. There is a complex on Shasta Avenue
that has 9.6 units per acre and' immediately adjacent to the subject
property to the~st there is 13.6 per acre, Across the street the
density is 13.2 units per acre. He .asked that the Board approve his
request.
2. John Payne. Mr. Payne set out the construction project
in the Chico area at this time. This project is within the density
requirements.
3. Paul Quiring. Mr. Quiring
Commmission meeting. There was no mention
As far as he was concerned the Commission
as he had requested,
Page 334.
stated that he was at the Planning
of the decrease in the density.
passed Mr. Payne's use permit
Mai 15; 1979
7
May 15, 1979
c c o e c o 0 o c e e o e ~~ G=-~_____- •••• •.• = a c c o c c
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, finding that although the proposed project could
have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signficant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described below have
been added to the project and a negative declaration was accepted:
1. A site drainage plan is to be submitted to the Butte County Public
Works Department and the regiured facilities installed.
2. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be installed as per Public Works
standards.
3. Traffic safety considerations (widening of the 1/2 street section in
front of the project site, provision of adequate sight distance far
motor vehicles entering and leaving the property, etc.) are to be
incorporated into the project as per Public Works conditions.
4. Septic systems must meet the Butte County Subdivision Ordinance and
Environmental Health Aepartment requirements. (A separate review
and approval of the septic systems will be necessary through the
processing of a sewage disposal permit.)
5. Energy conservation measures are to be incorporated into the design
and construction of the project. Alternatives include the use of
water-saving devices (restricted flow showerheads and toilets), the
use of double pane window, insulation in compliance with or in excess
of .code requirements, and site orientation and eaves design in
relation to the sun.
6. The periphery of the property, except for the Lassen Avenue frontage,
should be enclosed by a fence, to increase privacy between adjacent
properties, for noise reduction and for aesthetics. A six foot high
wood fence placed aroud the periphery, except along Lassen Avenue
and in the building setback area from Lassen Avenue, is one alternative.
7. Any orchard trees suitable for residential use and landscaping should
be preserved.
8e Vehicle movement during construction should be primarily in roadway
areas to prevent soil compaction on other portions of the site.
Construction activities should be limited to daylight hours.
On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, after hearing the testimony and finding heat the proposed
use of the property will not impair the integrity and character of
the zone in which the land lies and that the use would not be unreasonably
incompatible with, or injurious to, surrounding properties or detrimental
to the health or general welfare of the persons residing or working in
the neighborhood or to the general health, welfare and safety of the
c ounty, the use permit for five buildings (four duplexes and one four-plex)
for the property was approved with the following conditions:
1. A site drainage plan is to be submitted to the Butte County Public
Works .Department and the required facilities installedo
2. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be installed as per Public Works
standards.
Page 335.
May 15, 1979
_ _ _ May 15, 1_979 _ _
r3, Traffic safety considerations (widening of the 1/2 street section in
frant of the project site, provision of adequate sight distance for
motor vehilces entering and leaving the property, etc.) are to be
incorporated into the project as per Public Works conditions.
4. Septic systems must meet the Butte County Subdivision Ordinance and
Environmental Health Department requirements. (A separate review
and approval of the septic systems will be necessary through the
processing of a sewage disposal permit.)
5. Energy conservation measures are to be incorporated into the design
and construction of the project., Alternatives include the use of
water-saving devices (restricted flow showerheads and toilets), the
use of double pane window, insulation in compliance with or in excess
of code requirements, and site orientation and eaves design in
relation to the sun.
fi. The periphery of the property, except for the Lassen Avenue frontage,
should be enclosed by a fence, to increase privacy between adjacent
properties, far noise reduction and for aesthetics. A six-foot high
wood fence placed around the periphery, except along Lassen Avenue
and in the building setback area from Lassen Avenue, is one alternative.
7. Any orchard trees suitable for residential use and landscaping should
be preserved.
8. Vehicle movement during construction should be primarily in roadway
areas to prevent soil compaction on other portions of the site.
Construction activities should be limited to daylight hours.
9. Provide 2 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit, designed in
accordance with attached standards.
10. Fire hydrant required. Location as per attached map. Hydrant to be
Clow Catalina d~8 Model installed as per Department of Public Works
standards, 5~~27 and 5~~28 fine flow to be 1500 gpm sustained for a
period of at least 2 hours.
11. Deed 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Lassen Avenue.
12. Construct vertical curb, gutter and sidewalk and widen Lassen
Avenue to RS-2A Standard.
13. Provide permanent solution for drainage and submit construction
and drainage-plans to the Department of Public Works for approval,
Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local
statutes, ordinances and resolutions.
AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke.
1QQESc .Supervisor Dolan
i~ECESS: 12:32 p.m.
RECONVINE: 1x37 p.m.
808 DiSCUSS~#)I~I:.'ELgMINATING REGULATION OF CABLE TELEVISION RATES IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF BUTTE COUNTY
Discussion of eliminating regulation of cable television
rates in the unincorporated area of Sutte County held at this time.
Page 336.
May 15, 1979
May 15, 1979
Dan Black stock, county counsel, stated that he had sent the
Board a letter which contained his views. He could see no reason why
the Board couldnft franchise without controlling the rates. It is a
franchise and license under the code. He understood the only other issue
would be what the Board is going to do and the City of Chico is going
to do with regard to Showtime. The Board is dealing with the question
of a substantial amount of funds for the county. There is a dispute as
to whether Showtime should be part of the franchise percentage. Deregulation
of the rates would not affect the percentage the county is receiving from.
the cable television companies.
Discussion open to the public. Appearing:
1. Ross Wagner, NORCAL. Mr. Wagner stated that they axe in
a situation now that they must increase the rates in the underground areas.
He has written a letter to the Board on this issue.
2. John Martin, State Cable TV. Mr. Martin stated that if they
are obliged to pay the ;howtime fees to Chico,:the!bouuty would receive
the same percentage in spite of the deregulations. The deregulations would
not affect their rates.
3. Lee Colby. Mr. Colby asked if the cable television companies
are going to have deregulations on the rate to the user, does that open
the area for competition?
Mr. Blackstock stated that it is only a practical consideration.
A public hearing date of May 29, 1979 at 10:30 a.m. was .set
for consideration of deregulation of cable television rates.
809
APPEARANCE: BOB CRISAN, WELFARE DTRECTOR,_R$-k'UNDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
Bob Crisan, welfare director, was present to discuss the on-going
problem with the state regarding lack of funding for social services for
the coming year. Mr. Crisan presented the Board members with a copy of
the memo that he had written. The only thing that has been resolved is
the in-home supporative services. This involves 35 positions for a
period of 15 working days, 1-1/2 working pay periods. This is the total
staff with the exception of division supervisors-and two licensed workers
for which there is a direct contract with the state.
Chairman Lemke stated that if. the state does not come through
with the money needed and if the county does not fund the positions and
services, the state will be out of conformity with the federal mandates
and will lose their entire allocation of $250 million.
Mr. Crisan stated that it would be $250 million plus $40 million
allocation as of September of Last year. In the meeting with Senator
Johnson, an individual from the state could not substantiate the formula
used to come up with the figures for the county. The position of the
state is that Butte County would have to wait for any surplus from any
county that would have to be returned after the fiscal year which might be
returned to the county. Mr. Rackerby has provided him', with a basic
list of layoff for employees. This would affect all maintained services
except for licensing and their contract with family services. The caseload
has increased approximately 30% on the average for child protective services
and in-home services. The cost of living was given to the employees of
about 16%. This shows a decrease of about 50% of funds available to
maintain the level of service.
Mr. Crisan stated that he would have an analysis to the Board
on May 22, 1979. Page. 337.. May •15,.1979
810
May 15, 1979
• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
APPEARANCE: LOUIS CAMENZIND~_-.7R.
Mr. Camenzrnd stated that he was present because of the Planning
Commission meeting. held last week. He had written a letter requesting to
be heard by the Commission. The presentation presented by staff and a
committee of two was closed to public input. He had no opportunity to
speak. He was concerned about the conflict of interest of Commissioner
Bennett :regarding the statements he made on the Midway rezone. He felt
that another problem in the planning section of Butte County in his
opinion is because of the gross errors in the Planning Director and staff,
Supervisor Wheeler to meet with Counsel and Mro Camenzind
regarding the possible conflict of interest charge.
811
PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
The public hearing on the Butte County Planning Commission
graft environmental impact report and General Plan Land Use Element was
heard as continued.
Chairman Lemke advised that the Board had received a new letter
from Lime Saddle Community District.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Robert Rankin. Mr. Rankin spoke regarding the proposed
land use-map on Kennedy Avenue. It was his understanding that from Kennedy
Avenue on out Hwy 32 the map shows commercial. He realized that the area
from Kennedy on was involved in small commercial and housing.. It is
difficult to know what to do with the property between the railxoad and
the highway. It might be possible to minimize high density in that area.
The county is quite committed in that general area to maintaining agricultural
use as long as possible. He suggested that there be no more commercial
beyond Muir Avenue. Mro Rankin has a neighbor who is finding it difficult
to farm on Hwy 32. There. is so much of the area cut up already. He
did not know how the plan could be to let development but not too much
density.
2. Tillman Daley, Lime. Saddle Community Services District.
Mr. Daley stated that the District had to borrow money to put in a water
line. If the area is not properly zoned they will have a rough time paying
for the loan. They set up a zone of benefit for one mile north and south
and east and west of the boundary lines. This property is practically
all small pieces of property and zoning.
3. Greg Montgomery, representing the Whipple property on
Hwy 32, Mr. Montgomery stated that the present zoning is "M-1" zoning.
He supported the Planning Commission's amended map proposal. Right now
there is a lot of development on Hwy 32 that is not shown on the existing
map.
4. Hank Marsh, representing the Businessmen's Alliance.
Mr. Marsh stated that his organization is supportative of the proposal
in general sense. He was pleased to see the policies developed are
relatively specific. He urged that the Board not allow that it be
erroded by general statements.
5. Larry Featherstion, Rim Rock Academy, Richardson Springs.
Mr. Featherstion stated that the General Plan for their area would be
condusive to what they have in the area. This is similar to a boys
school with about 3,000 acres under the direct control of the Academy.
EIe concurred with the Planning. Commission's recommendations for the area.
Page 338. May~15,.1979
May 15, 1979
6. Ann Rudd, Mrs. Rudd stated that she has operated a business
on the corner of Hwy 32 and Muir Avenue fox 22 years. She would like
to have commercial. on this corner.
7. Mr. Rankin concurred with Mrs. Rudd regarding the corner
of Hwy 32 and Muir Avenue.
8. Tim Bolinger. Mr. Bolinger stated that he would like to
have commercial zoning between Kennedy and Muir. At the present time the:
area is "A-2" and allows most commercial uses. There is quite a bit of
commercial development in the area.
9. Bob Romage, representing Bernice Stanhope. Mr. Romage
stated that the element is for 20 years. Planning is a changing process.
Mrs. Stanhope recommends that the plan be updated every five years.
The area is rural oriented. Mrs. Stanhope recommended that the Board
appoint a committee to study the plan and send their recommendations to
the Board. She recommended sitting up of a committee of no more than
10 or 12 members representing special groups, agricultural citizens,
city planning commissions and chambers of commerce. Mro Romage stated
they felt that the building costs could be reduced by 10%. This reduction
would increase the number of home buyers.
10. Jerome Bolander. Mr. Bolander stated that he was in favor
of the commercial designation for the Section of Kennedy Avenue north.
He concurred about the .high density. He felt that the railroad and
highway were a factor. The area in conflict would be on the west side
where the properties are bumping up aginst large sections of agricultural
land.
11o Art Gilman, representing the Board of Directors of the
Farm Bureau. Mr. Gilman felt that the area designated as rural residential
needs to be re-examined in its entirety. There are some obvious contradictions
between the text and the map regarding rural residential. They would Iike
to see the entire portion of rural residential go back to the Planning
Commission. He wanted those areas in agriculture to be given some
consideration. Grazing and open space are agricu~.ture.
12. Robert Husky. Mr. Husky stated that the text refers. to
a minimum lot size of one acre for rural residential. The text states
that the minimum is one to forty acres. That differs in the minimum
from orchards and field crop which has~a minimum of 5 acres. The reason
for the minimum size for the rural residential is that the Planning staff
recognizes that portions of the county has been used as rural homesites.
An example of this is the Lake Concow area. Il~3id not mean that there
is a danger of the entire 160,000 acres being reduced to one acre minimum.
Only those areas in "A-2" zoning would be rezoned. There are many
considerations for choosing~pecific zoning for areas of Butte County.
He felt that rural residential offered an alternative to urbanization.
13o John Stutz. Mr. Stutz stated that the text on page 57 and
58 describes rural residential as a resource category. The intent of
the 40 acre lot size was to keep the area zoned 40 acres in 40 acres.
People have been critical of the map. Tf they would look at the underlying
uses they would see it is close. This is saving a lot of property.
Timber mountain has never had a lot size requirement. He felt that the
other elements of the General Plan should be changed to conform to this
new element. There is language that is in conflict. One of the elements
is the conservation element. The amendment is to correct the problem
for the people along Hwy 32. He felt that the "A-2" zoning should be
elmininated. Page 339.0
May'15, 1979
79
May l5, 1979
14.- Dominick Macolli. Mr. Macolli stated that he would like
to see a line drawn on Hwy 32 for the commercial.
15. Mark Miller; Appropriate Technology Association. Mr. Miller
stated that there is obviously a potential .f or heavy development in the
next few years. The county should zone the property east of the airport
more conducive to business and industry. This would relieve the pressure
to use agricultural land. There are alternative systems in spetic use.
There are a lot of issues regarding energy issues such as transit displace-
ment of people relate to land zoning issues. He would like to see an
organization established to provide input,
16. Kelly Jordan. Mr. Jordan felt that thejBoard is faced with
an impossible task of resolving the mattero He felt that the way the
Board handled the matters in the past with variances worked well.
He felt that some of the area designated as open or grazing land should
be dropped into the rural residential categorye
The hearing was continued to May 22, 1979 at 2:00 p.mo
812
813
s14
815
8161
RECESS: 2:57 p.mo
RECONVENE' 3:13 p.m.
SUPERVISOR~5ELEY AND WINSTON ABSENT AT THIS TIMEo
APPEARANCE: SUPERVISOR TERRY COOK PLACER COUNTY RE: RCRC
Supervisor Cook stated that she would like to speak to the
Board regarding RCRC. Butte County is missed. She hoped that after
the initial flow of Proposition 13 that the Board could review and see'
their way B']l~ear to rejoin RCRC. The larger counties in the organization
are relied upon to provide experience to keep the organization going.
This is comprised of 21 counties that are rural in nature. She presented
t he Board with a study she has done since Proposition 13 was passed.
The limit of the dues is $7,500. The budget for~RCRC is $56,000 or
$57,000. fJne example of~ the_ amaller~coixit•es needing to stay together
is the fact that Los Angeles County received half of the bail-out funds
in the state. She asked that the Board consider rejoining RCRC.
AMEND MINUTES OF MAY 8, 1979
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the minutes of May 8, 1979, minute order 79-789 were amended
to reflect that the Board increased the members on the Oroville Cemetery
District from three members to five members and that appointment of
members were held in abeyance until vacancies could be posted.
APPROVE CETA TITLE IV GRANT
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the CETA Title IV summer youth program grant in the amount of
$324,140 fox a work force of 175 participants was approved and the Director
authorized to sign.
AUTHORIZE ADVANCED STEP HIRING - MENTAL HEALTH SOCIAL WORKER AT STEP C
RANGE 22.0
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the advance step hiring of a Mental Health Social Work at
step C, Range 22,0 was authorized.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A public hearing date of June 5, 1979 at 10:00 a.m. was set
fox receiving input on proposed uses of revenue sharing fund expenditures
for next fiscal year..
Page 340e
May~15, 1979
79'- 817
d'
818
~ 819
May 15, 1979
, ~- o o c o o~ c -. ~ ~= o o a o o o v c c= c o c c c .-
APPROVE BAR-O-BOYS RANCH CONTRACT WITH DEL NORTE COUNTY
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the Bar-o-Boys Ranch Contract with bel Norte County that
covers five beds at $565 per-month per bed of which $95 per bed is
received through AB 90 reimbursement was approved and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
AWARD AUDIT CONTRACT - ADMENISTRATION BUITI3ING CONSTRUCTION 'PROJECT
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Aolan
and carried, the audit contract for the Administration Building
construction project was awarded to Ernst & Ernst of Sacrament in an
amount not to exceed $4,200.was
APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS
Budget transfer B-144 & B-145 to be held overe
SUPERVISOR MOSELEY PRESENT AT THIS TIME.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
8-140 Farm & Home Advisoro Transfers $150 from office expense
to special departmental expense in order to provide for the purchase of
survey stakes needed in field research work.
B-141 - Local Agency Formation Commissiono Transfers $400 from
transportation and travel to office expense in order to cover higher
than anticipated duplicating costs in preparing and mailing agendas.
B-142 - Treasurer-Tax Collectoro Transfers $100 from office
expense to maintenance of equipment in order to cover unanticipated
expenditures and to provide a minimal appropriation for the balance of
the fiscal yearn
B-143 - Sheriff-Coroner - Enforcement. Transfers $200 from
special departmental expense to small tools and instruments in order to
cover existing deficiencies and provide a minimum for the balance of the
fiscal year.
B-146 - Building Insvection. Establishes a $5,000 appropriation
in professional and specialized services in order to cover the cost of
contracting for building plan checking. Funding to came from unanticipated
revenue - construction permits.
B-147 - Sheriff. Transfers $3,000 from overtime and $3,559.68
from special department expense in the enforcement budget and $1,000 from
overtime and $4,500 from clothing and personal supplies in the incarceration
budget with $12,059.68 going towards transportation and travel in the
enforcement budget in order to provide an additional appropriation for
gas and oil.
B-148 - Mental Health General Services. Transfers $3,500 from
food to medical and dental supplies in order to cover unanticipated
increases in costs of medicine.
820 ~ APPROVE SUBMISSION OF SUMMER FEEDING PROG_GRANT PROPOSAL - EOC
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the submission of the summer feeding program grant
proposal to the U, S. Department of Agriculture for Gridley and Oroville
from the period June 15 through September 15, 1979 in the amount of $15,441
with the 5% local share coming from EOC's basic grant from the
Community Services: Administration was approved.
Page 3410 May 15, 1979
79'°
b
May 15, 1979
APPROVE WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM BUDGET MODIFICATION - EOC
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the Weatherization Program budget modification for the
Round VI CSA Weatherization Program which is effective through September 30,
1979 which includes deleting the purchase of a 10" table saw and proposes
the addition of $617 for the purchase of five metal storage buildings
-plus other line item funding changes was approved and the purchase of
the metal storage buildings were authorized.
8211
DENY REQUEST FOR PENALTY RELIEF_
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the request for penalty relief for Aorothy .k2.
Guthrie, AP 64-24-19 was denied.
822 I
PHBLIC WORKS ITEMS - CONTINUED_EO_MEIY 22, 1979
The following public works items were continued to May 22,
1979:
1. Report to the Board concerning the bid apening fox the
Skyway at Lofty Lane project (Project No. 5.1261-78-1).'
2. Report to the Board concerning the bid opening for the
Humboldt Road Bridge across Calby Creek (Project No. 91422-76-1).
3. .Discussion of proposed "cabin regulations" relating to
limited density owner-built rural dwellings.
8231
WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING Ci~APTER 24 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY
CODE RELATIVE TO DEFINING THE TERM ='WOOD PROCESSING" AS A LAND USE IN
VARIOUS ZONES IN THE COUNTY
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
a nd carried, the first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 24 of
the Butte County Code relative to defining the term "wood processing" as
a Land use in various zones in the county was waived.
8241
REPORT TO BOARD CONCERNING STREET LIGHTS IN TOM ROGERS SUBDIVISION -
CONTTNUTED TO MAY 22, 1979
Dan Blackstock county counsel, stated that the report would be
very short. Mr. Black stock read the code section that requires street
lighting in all subdivisions.
8251
The report was continued to May 22, 1979.
APPOINTMENTS CONTINUED TO A2AY 22, 1979
The following appointments were continued to May 22, 1979:
8261
5).
1. Appointment to the Agricultural Advisory.Commission (District
2. Appointment to the Citizens Advisory Committee on Drug Abuse/
Alcohol Advisory Board.
APPOINTMENT TO THE PARADISE MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, Seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, Emmett Rix was appointed as a member to the
Paradise Municipal Advisory Council.
8271
COMMUNIGATIDN9~son, <:
Berness McPherson, Gridley. Ms. McPherson writes concerning the need
' for local transportation in Gridley area. Information; no
.action taken. Page 342.
iMay 15, 1979
8281
79~
b
May 15, 1979
_==~~rT-------------------____________
Cathy and Lee Hudin, Oroville. Mr. and Mrs. Hudin write concerning the
need for public transportation in Butte County. Information;
no action taken.
Lee and Cathy Hudin, Oroville, Mr. and Mrs. Hudin writes concerning
the use of dioxins on rice fields and possible effects of
agricultural burning, Referred to the Agricultural Commissioner
and Commission.
Ridge Taxpayer's Association. The Association writes concerning the use
of the transient occupancy tax. Information. Supervisors
Wheeler and Chairman Lemke appointed as a committee on tourism
and convention to investigate the use of the bed tax money.
Cedell C. Miser, et a1, Paradise. A petition has been received signed by
18 persons in opposition to the environmental impact report and
use permit for Eugene Wells for AP 54-09-36 which is scheduled
for public hearing on May 22. Continued to May 22, 1979.
H. L. Richins, Chico. Mr, Richins writes concerning the environmental
impact report for the Southgate Acres Subdivision south of
Chico and traffic problems aE Entler and Midway. Discussed
earlier in the meeting.
Supervisor George Wacker, Siskiyou County. Supervisor Wacker writes
requesting that the~Board support Senate Bill 826 concerning
timber harvesting values. Referred to the Assessor fox a
written report on May 22, 1979.
Willis & Willis, attorneys at law. The attorney writes concerning the
Municipal Court Library trust fund and offers gifts of books on
the condition that they remain at the Chico Municipal Court
to be administered by the presideing judge of the court.
Letter of thanks to be sent. Administrative Office to research
cost of maintenance and report to the Board.
Minasian, Minasian, Minasian, Spruance & Bober, attorneys at law.
The attorneys, on behalf of OrovilleWyandotte Irrigation District,
forward a proposed ordinance for the Board's consideration which
would relieve the problem of policing OWID reservoirs in Butte
County. Referred to Counsel for report.
State Depa tment of Mental Health. The department forwards information
concerning a new initiative approved by the Governor-for
improving California's mental health program. Information;
no action taken.
Waldo Stafford, Paradise, Mr. Stafford appeals the Planning Commission's
denial of use permit to allow second residence on property
honed "A-2 htd" located on the west side of Kibler Road,
approximately 2200 feet north of the intersection of Nunneley
Road and Kibler Road, identified as AP 53-23-15, Paradise.
.Set for hearing June 5, 1979 at 10sb a.m.
Butte County Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau writes in opposition to the
Southgate Acres Subdivision. Considered earlier in the
hearing.
8291
CHAIRMAN ADTHORIZID TO SIGN LETTER TO ASSEMBLYMAIi STATBAM
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the Chairman to sign a letter Co Assemblyman Statham
regarding AB 469 and opposing said bill..
Page 343. May 15, 1979
i _
i
I'
1'
-_------ -- Mai 15, 1979 --------- - --
- - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - a
79r 830 AbDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARA MEMBERS
~'',' Chairman Lemke stated that there will be a Reclamation Board
hearing on May 18, 1979.
.Supervisor Dolan cou~ented on the memo from County Counsel
regarding car pooling.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board at this time,
the meeting was adjourned at ~+:00 p.mo to reconvene on Tuesday, May 22,
1979 at 9:00 a.m.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
' RECORDER nand ex-officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
By
Page 3~+~+ May 15, 1979
i
i
I