HomeMy WebLinkAboutM052681z~ay 26, 1481
81-
v
848
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
BOUNTY OF BUTTE )
The Board of Supers is ors met at 9,Q0.a-;m. pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheeler.ands:Chairman Moseley. C1 if
Nickelson, administrative.-officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and
Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Fitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
Absent; Supervisor Lemke
Pledge of Allegiance to-the Flag of the IJnited.S"tates of America
Invocation by Supervisor Saraceni
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by_Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the minutes of May 12, 1981 were approved as mailed.
The minutes of May 19, 1981 were continued to June 2, 1981.
844
850
851
852
853
854
CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING SECOND READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CONTINUED TO LATER iN THE MEETING
Consideration of waiving the second reading of the salary
ordinance amendment implementing the 7.5% pay increase for deputy sheriffs
and reclassifying several other positions was continued to later in the
meeting.
APPROVE CETA VOCATIONAL EDUCATION GRANT MODIFICATION
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the CETA vocational education grant modification increasing
the amount by $8,904 to be applied to ongoing programs was approved and
the Director authorized to sign.
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF "NICADALYZER" BATTERY TESTERS FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Sa9pervisor Dolan
and carried, the purchase of four Nicadalyzer battery testers at a total
cost of $1,200 to be used in the discharging of portable radio batteries to
a predetermined level then recharge them so they will retain a full useful
charge for the Sheriff's Department was authorized with funding to come
from funds available .within the fixed asset budget in Sheriff - Patrol.
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF PHOTOCOPY CONTROL SYSTEM FOR USE IN CHICO OFFICES
Tom Struthers, purchasing agent, set out the background of the
photocopy control system to be used in the Chico offices.
On motion of .Sp@r'v~or~'Wheeler,seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the purchase on the lease of two existing photocopy control
systems and the purchase of two additional systems for use in the Chico
offices at a total cost of $9,300 was authorized.
AWARD BID - RICHVALE FIRE STATION ADDITION
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the bid for construction of a prefabricated metal building
at the Richvale Fire Station in the amount of $20,665 including alternate X12,
roofing insulation was awarded to Sunseri Construction of Chico.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SHERIFF TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING FOR MARIJUANA
FIELD ERADICATION FUNDS - CONTINUED UNTIL FULL BOARD-PRESENT
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler that the Sheriff be authorized
to apply for marijuana field eradication grant funds from the Drug
Enforcement Administration for the purpose of locating and eradicating illicit
marijuana fields in the county.
Page 364.
May 2&, 1951
81-
'b
-_____--=-=--May 26,-1981 =_--_______-______
,Supervisor-4lheeler'withdrew her'Rtotion and asked that this matter
be brought back. to the-Board .when-there is a.~ull.Board present.. She
asked that a representative from the Sheriff's 0~,~ice.also.be.present to
discuss this matter..-
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-1D.0..AUTI3?R7ZING PRO1'E~TY .TAX EXCHANGE .AGREEMENT WITH
NORTH.'BURBANK-P.UBLI'C UTILITY DISTRICT
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, Resolution 81-10.0 authorizing property tax exchange agreement
with Noxth Burbank Public Utility District was adopted. and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
855
APPROVE PENALTY ABATEMENT REQUEST - CHANGE OF'OWNE_RSHTP REPORT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor 5araceni
and carried, the penalty abatement request for Hahn Development Corporation,
AP 003-28-0-040--0, was approved.
856
APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
857
B-239.- Central Services - _Duplicating. Transfers $1,000 from
regular salaries to transportation and travel to cover the unanticipated
travel costs for the microfilm crew and transfers $471 from overtime to
extra help in order to cover current budget deficiencies and to provide an
appropriation for the balance of the fiscal year.
B-240 - Chico Munici al Court. Transfers $5,000 from salaries and
wages; with $2,000 going to extra help and $3,000 to office expense in
order to cover current budgetary deficiencies and to provide an appropriation
for the balance of the fiscal year.
B-241 - Central Services - Central Stores. Transfers $5,000
from the reserve; with $1,000 going to maintenance of structures, $600 to
special department expense and $3,400 to fixed assets -- equipment. The
purpose of this transfer is to document the funding needed to implement
the salvage paper program as approved by the Board of Supervisors on
May 19, 1981.
B-242 - County Service Area #53.- Transfers $23,000 from professional
and specialized services with a similar amount. going to debt repayment in
order to repay the loan from the General Fund.
B-243 - Housing and Community Development grant. Establishes a
budgetary appropriation in professional and specialized services in the
amount of $22,239 to cover the HCD consultant contract with Connerly and
Associates for the 1980-81 grant year and establishes ar_ appropriation for
direct services transferred in the amount of $10,988 to cover county
administration costs for the period January 1 through June 30, 1981.
Funding totalling $.33,227 is from federal aid - HCD pro gram .income.
B-244 - Mental Hlealth and CoJ unty Buildings. Transfers $6,500
from overtime within the Mental Health budget to-allocated costs received
and establishes an additional appropriation in the County Building budget
for major maintenance in the amount of $4,000 and increase the reserve
in the amount of $2,50.0 in order to provide an appropriation to cover the
remodel of the Mental Health outpatient clinics in Oroville and Chico by
County Buildings. The state program allows for the increase to the reserve.-
In approving this transfer, the Board will also be approving the remodel
project.
Page 365.
clay 26 , 19.81
~ r-
81-
a
-- I7ay-26, 1481 -------===--=-=-- - -
- B-245 -.Central Services - Duplicating; Trans~exs $9,300 from
salaries and wages.to.fixed assets - ec~uipmeht in.order to provide the
necessary appropriation to purchase.four photocopy control systems and is
related to a si~i7.ar item on the agenda.
B-246 -.Fire Department = yolun.teezs. Transfers $2,665 from
special departmental expense to fixed assets - structures in order to
provide an additional appropriation to cover the award of bid for the
addition to the Richvale Fire Station (Station 71~.
858
859
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-101 APPROVING THE .CONTRACT WITR DEPARTMENT OF FOOD`
AND AGRICULTURE FOR FRUIT FLY ERADICATION
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, set out the request
for approval of the contract for fruit fly eradication. He asked that the
Board set this up as a separate budget so that when the program closes
the agricultural biologist does not become part of the operation.
Supervisor Saraceni asked whether the vehicle could be the
old vehicle from the Public Works Department for use in this program instead
of the expenditure of the $b,600 for the vehicle and radio.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, Resolution 81-101 approving the contract with the Department
of Food and Agriculture for the eradication of the fruit fly was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign; this program to be a separate budget;
and the Administrative Office instructed to investigate a cheaper way to
to purchase the vehicle.
LETTERS TO BE SENT TO DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND TRIPLE A RE: REDUCTIONS FOR
1981-82 FISCAL YEAR IN THE SENIOR PROGRAMS
Jim McNaughton, executive director CAA, stated that twenty-two
percent of the cutback in the senior programs is in Title IIIB. The
Area Agency on Aging was cut twenty-two percent for senior services money
and not for any other money, not for the nutrition money. These are the
supportive services. In talking with the new controller, they can take
eight and one-half percent for administration from Title IIIB and III C.
They are not taking all of that. Their funds are being reduced for the
nutrition program. Triple A was not reduced in the Title IIIC program.
There is a four percent increase from the state for nutritional funds.
Chairman Moseley advised they were told the Gridley site was
forthcoming for Triple A. Now, it is being taken out. At the last fiscal
meeting administration was not being cut. Janet Levey told them there would
be no money for expansion. There is a great deal of money to hold back for
outreach when there is no more money for Gridely because of expansion.
Ms. Levy had sent the money back to the federal government.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was willing to write letters to
stress that supportative services-are important to seniors and cost
effective in the long run. She would like the letter to be critical that
the administrative overhead is not being cut while there are cuts in the
services. She understood there would be a twenty-two percent cut at the
local level. Triple A made. the decision.
Mr. McNaughton stated that the -individual.cuts•were based on
recommendations from the Commission on Aging fox each-of the live counties.
The commission came up with. the percentages that would .be used and that was
transferred to monies.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the administrative cost should be part
of the percentage decrease.
Page 366.
May 26, 1981
a1-
z~ay 26-, issl
Chairman Moseley stated that- $125OOO.aras allocated for outreach
and the county is being told there is no money for expansion. .If they
are unable to expand, why is this money .being-spent for .outreach. They
are only taking. care-o£ from three to four.pereent,of the senior citizens
in the county. There is a high-ratio of senior citizens in the county.
860
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded.by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, letters are to be sent to the Department of Aging and the
Area Agency on Aging relative to .the reductions in. the Title IIIB program
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
DISCUSSION AND POLICY DECISION ON T'I'RE PREVENTION ENGINEERING, FIRE
SAFETY AND LAND USE PLANNING STANDARDS = CONTINUED .TO JUNE 2, 1981
Discussion and policy decision on the fire prevention engineering,
fire safety and land use planning standards for new developments in Butte
County was continued to June 2, 1981.
861 PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A public hearing date of June 16, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. was set
for consideration of the following:
862
1. Lloyd and Alyce Moya petition for variance to Sections 19--10
and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on
AP 65-32-60, 14755 Northwood Drive, Magalia area. Zoning: "RT-1"
2. Larry and Margie Tidwell petition for variance to Sections
19-10 and/or 19--12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 27-06-47, 7051 Citrus Avenue, Palermo area. Zoning: "A-5"
3. Wallace Wilcox petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 28-19-95,
388 Mission Olive Road, Oroville area. Zoning:- "A-5"
'PROVE RENEWAL APPLICATION - DENTAL DISEASE PREVENTION PROGRAM - PUBLIC HEA
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor. Wheeler
d carried, the renewal application for 1981-82 to the State Department:
Health Services for the second year Dental Disease Prevention Program in
e amount of $9,000 which is total state funding to provide for the Health
partment to offer a community Dental Disease Prevention Program for all
ildren in kindergarten through third grade with a grade added each year,
th fourth graders now being eligible for this service was approved and the
rector of Public Health was authorized to submit said application.
863 (DENY REQUEST FOR PENALTY RELIEF AND CLAIM FOR REFUND OF TAXES PAID
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following were denied:
1. Charlotte Martz request for penalty relief for AP 035-420-55
2. Raymond Cushman request for penalty relief for AP 062-45-0-038-0
3. LaVonne Gardner claim for refund of taxes paid for AP 47-22-0-46
864 PROVE QUIT CLAIM AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP --WINDING CREEK ESTATES
SUBDIVISION
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following action was taken regarding Winding Creek. Estates
ubdivision:
1. Approved quit claim deed to. Burt Lowen (.current owner) the
riginal easement deeded by Clara H. Brown, for an easement twelve feet
Page 367.
May 26', 1981
May 2fi, 1981
gl- wide for a bicycle path over a portion of the ~xoperty.with The Lowen Company
~ guaranteeing construction of the bieyele,path.with construction to be over
a di££erent easement .than .the one granted by Clara-Brown was-approved and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
2. Approved the deposit by the.developer`in the amount of $548.44
for taxes or special assessments which are-~.a lien, b.ut:not yet payable; the
final map fox the subdivision, eleven lots, AP 42-07--14, property located
on the north side of Lindo Avenue and Lindo Channel, between Guynn Avenue
and Alamo Avenue, Chico area; accepted grant in fee right-of-way for Guynn
Avenue and Guynn Bridge Court; accepted easements granted for light and
air; accepted easement fox public utility purposes (dncluding water, sewer,
electric, gas and utility-purposes (including water, sewer, electric, gas
and communications facilities); accepted easements for drainage purposes;
and authorized the Chairman to sign the subdivision agreement.
865 APPROVE BIG CHICO CREEK ESTATES 4~3 FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the deposit by the developer in the amount of $3;490.71 for
taxes and special assessments which are a-lien, but not yet payable was
approved; the final map for Big Chico Creek Estates ~~3, 42 lots,
AP 42-15-34 and 37, AP 47-27-01, 11 and 12 and AP 43--29-19 and 22, property
located on .the south side of West Sacramento Avenue, approximately 2,000
feet west of Highway 32, Chico area was approved;-grant in fee right-of-way
for Woodbridge Drive, Creekhaven Place, Leafcrest Drive, Lazy Trail Drive
and Scottsdale Court were accepted; easements granted for light and air
were accepted; easement for public utility purposes (including water, sewer,
electric, gas and communications facilities) were accepted; easements for
drainage purposes were accepted; and the Chairman authorized to sign the
subdivision agreement. AYES: Supervisors Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley. NOES: Supervisor Dolan. ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke
866 APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Doian, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the following public. Works items were approved:
1. Approve contract change order No. 4 for Sacramento Avenue
Assessment District in the increasing amount of $2,329.13 which provides
for the repair and working around of utilities that were not shown on the
plans and the Ghairman authorized to sign.
2. Accepted the work of J. K. Hayes for traffic signal installation
East Park Avenue and Fair STxeet, FAU Project MY762(1); authorized the
Chairman to sign the notice of completion;-and directed the Clerk to record
said notice of completion with the Recorder.
3. Approved contract amendment No. 6 to the Gridley Flyer contract
for 1981-82 to extend the service through June 30, 1982 and covers increased
contractor subsidy by 254 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
4. Approved request for authorization to proceed in accordance
with contract previously signed by the Board for Lake Madrone flood protection
project and a separate work order to be established for accounting purposes
and possible fund retrieval.
8b7 (APPROVE ROCK CREEK.- MUD CREEK COUNTY SERPICE AREA PROPOSAL, MC CAIN ASSVCLA
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set ,out. the background of
the Rock Creek, Mud Creek county service-area proposal. His office also
invited Jon Anderson to participate by presenting a proposal. Mr. Anderson
did not do so. There was one proposal from McCain Associates. This would
allow the county to adopt a storm maintenance district. He suggested that
Page 368.
May 26, 1981
May. 26, 1481 _ _____ __
3 ~ - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ~. - ~ - r - - - - - - - -
g1- once the county service area is forn}ed that the first budget include regayment
3 of this proposal ,from-the consultant. Mx: Minasian has: indicated that the
people on the.west side are .forming a district..: This would .give an indication
of the effect of the districts.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the proposal authorizing the consultant, McCain Associates,
to proceed with the .services to be repaid upon county service area district
formation for Rock Creek, Mud Creek county ,service area in the total
amount o£ $1k,500 to cover establishment of boundaries of the service area,
to determine the effects of a service area on properties, to prepared a
focused environmental impact report and establish an equitable fee
schedule for new development in the area was approved.
868 AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR REHABILITATION LEVERAGING (HCD)
Ward Connerly, Connerly and Associates, set out the background
of rehabilitation leveraging. At the public hearing 'to be held later
in the meeting they will be talking about current status of this year's
program. By September 30, 1981 they have to draw down 100% of all the
prior year grants and at least 20% of the 1980-81 grant i:n'rehabiltation
program. In Chapmantown they still have $15,000 from 1978-79. In E1
Medio there is $13,000 public works and $49,500 in rehabilitation that
has to be drawn down by September 30,,1981. If this is not done they
could lose the funding next year. There is $70,000 in program income
that can be drawn down. They have to get the past year's money committed
as soon as possible. One technique is to use leveraging :with one of the .~
banks. Tf the county would deposit $150,000 into anon-interest bearing
account, the bank would put up 30% of the loan. The county would lose
interest on this money. They would be able to draw down about $150,000
with this grogram. He would like authorization to invite proposals from
the local lenders to explore this possibility. If it does not look
feasible then the county would not pursue this program. There would be a
collateral account of $150,000. The money would be loaned at 7% interest.
They would draw 70% of the loan from the account. The principal would be
paid back but there would be no interest earned on the money. They are
trying to get applicants in for the rehabilitation loans.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, Connerly and Associates was authorized to invite proposals from
interested lending insitutions for rehabilitation leverage wich will make
private funds available to local community development projects.
869 CONSIDERATION OF REVISION TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN HELD OVER FQR A
FULL BOARD (HCD)
Ward Connerly, Connerly and Associates, stated that during
the past 30 days they have had two Board hearings and two meetings in
the community on the citizens participation plan for HCD. He felt the
p1.an was much more expansive than need be. He suggested that the county
go the basic number of hearings, which would be two hearings., prior to
the submittal. of the applications. There was one meeting in E1 Medio and
the people thought the meeting was to change the boundaries and activities.
He recommended that the plan, be revised to allow fewer hearings.
Supervisor Dolan did not agree with that recommendation. She
felt that trying to get citizen participation meant more than just one
year to see if the plan works. It is not so much to change things as to
have people understand that sometimes there.ean.be changes made. The
county wanted to go beyond the HUD requixements. This is to encourage
as much citizen information as possible. One of the things the Administrative
Office was responsible for was making quarterly progress reports available
to the public at public places and making notices and program budget
amendments available to affected'1Seople. This is informing people of
what is happening. Page 369.
May 26, 1981
81-
v'
870
871:
872
87 3
- - - - - - - 1~Fay 26, 1981 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Connerly.set oue the difference.between.what was required
and what the county is doing at the present ti?oe: .There is basically
no difference. Citizen'participation-takes place without-hearings.
Every week he is in Oroviale and walks the streets and knocks on doors.
Two weeks ago they prepared a flyer and'invited.people to; the meeting.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the first time she sent out a
flyer she had three or four people respond. After four flyers she had a
greater participation rate: She would rather not having the hearings
at the Board but have the authorized hearings in the neighborhood.
The matter was held until Supervisor Lemke-was present for
full Board consideration.
ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 81-102, 81-103 & 81-I04 SETTTNG PUBLIC HEARING DATES
FOR CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENTS, PARADISE PINES AREA
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following resolutions were adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign:
1. Resolution $1-102 setting a public hearing date of June 30,
1981 at 10:00 a. m. for consideration of .lames Yetter abandonment of public
utilities easement, Paradise Pines No. 5, lots 135, 136 and 140.
2. Resolution 81-103 setting a public hearing date of June 30,
1981 at 10:00 a.m, for consideration of Herbert Guenther abandonment of
public utilities easement and recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 12,
Lot 34.
3. Resolution 81-105 setting a public hearing date of June 30,
1981 at 10:00 a. m. for consideration of Helen McManamin abandonment of
public utilities and recreational easement, Paradise Pines, Unit 11, lot 89.
THE BOARD - JOHN R. LECHNER AND JAMES R. LEWIS DENIED REZONE
The following reports to the Board were received as information:
1. John R. Lechner denied rezone (item on which environmental
documents have not been completed) from "Tirf-5" (timber mountain - 5 acre
parcels) to "TM-22" (timber mountain - 2~ acre parcels), property located
on the east side of the State Highway 32 frontage road, approximately one
mile south of Nopel Drive, identified as AP 63-13-03, Forest Ranch.
2. James R. Lewis proposed negative declaration and denied rezone
from "A-40" (agricultural - 40 acre parcels) to "A-10" (agricultural - 10
acre parcels), property located on the north side of Anita Road, approximately
1,000 feet west of Shate Highway 99, identified as a portion of AP 47-13-19,
Forest Ranch.
INITIATE REZONE FOR "R-3" ZONING {MULTI-FAMILY ZONING) FOR WEST SACRAMENTO
AVENUE AND OAKLAWN AVENUE AREAS, CHICO AREA
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded`by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, "R-3" multi family zoning was,. initiated for West Sacramento
Avenue and Oaklawn Avenue, Chico area for the following parcels:
AP 43-26-4, 43-26-5, 43-26-6, 43-26-14, 43-26-29, 43-26-30., 43-26-32,
43-26-34, 43-26-35, 43-26-36, 43-26-37, 43-26-39, 43T~28-8, 4328-10,
43-28-11, 43-28-12 and 43-29-71.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2219: INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING "R:N" ZONE. TO ALLOW
MOBILE HOMES
Bettye Blair, planning director, reported .on the request of
Phillip L. Wilson for an interim zone to allow placement of a mobile
Page 370.
-May 26, 1981
81-
a
May 26, 1481
home on AP 35-07-1-021. She ,felt the only way to allow mobile homes was
to amend the ':12-N".zone to allow for zgobles in .the interim. She recommended
that this be done over the entire "R-N" zone.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni,. seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, recommendation was-made that the "RrN" zone be amended to
allow mobile homes.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried,the "12-N" zone was modified to allow mobile homes; interim
Ordinance 2219 was adopted for a period of 120 days and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
874 LETTER OF RESPONSE TO CHICO HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CHIP) RE: LETTER
OF COMPLAINT TO DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED
TO JUNE 2, 1981
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, set out the background of the
letter of response to CHIP regarding their Letter of complaint to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Connerly and Associates
submitted a proposed letter and he made several modifications to the
letter. He asked that the Board study the matter and submit any proposed
changes to his office..
The matter was continued to June 2, 1981.
RECESS: 9:58 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:14 a:m.
875 PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN LECHNER - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPEAL
OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VARTANCE TO ALLOW A 4.1-ACRE PARCEL IN
A "TM-5" ZONE, AP 62-13-003, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY 32,
APPROX. 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF FOREST RANCH, FOREST RANCH AREA
The public hearing on John Lechner proposed negative declaration
and appeal o~ Planning Commission's denial of variance to allow a 4.1 acre
parcel in a "TM-5" zone, AP 62-13-003, property located on the east side
of Highway 32, approximately 1/4 mile south of Forest Ranch, Forest Ranch
area was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of
the appeal on the variance.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. William Burch, representing Forest Ranch Community Association.
Mr. Burch stated that the'subcommittee on land use voted eight to zero to
oppose the project. The subcommittee presented findings. to the association,
which included walking the property, and the association requested that
the appeal be dined. The Board has a petition signed by members of the
immediate vicinity and other members of the association. This area is
out of the perimeter of downtown Forest Ranch. It is truly in the "TM-5"
zoning area. A rule is a rule and felt it was very difficult to define
breaking the rules. This could set a precendent. He felt that people
in purchasing the property have a built in responsibilitg to understand
the condition of the purchase in the sense that there are certain rules
and restrictions as to the use of that property.. He felt the purchase
was made with the full knowledge of the zone. He requested Chat the appeal
be denied.
2. Cal Bachman, representing the owners of the property.- Mr.
Bachman stated this was a request for a variance. This would not be
establishing a precedent. They met with everyone on the initiation of
Page 371.
May 2b, 1981
Mag 26, 1281
81:- the rezone-after the application was turned in. He could not argue with
b the point that if a rezohe was made,~or 2~ acres; .that would-seta precedent.
He felt that this parcel being a net 2.. 12.acres.is probably as level as
all the parcels in ,the "TM~-5" zoning. ,The best vse of. that land is the
creation of two hamesites. He did not know-what the new-.petition said.
The last petition made statements that the property was bought-,with the
idea of possible subdivision. Three-fourths of the people signing that
petition were on one acre .parcels of land or less that was created by a
parcel,~map. The statement has-been made that'the well on the property is
not sufficient. The owners of the property discussed this matter with
Claude Willis, who indicated there was no'- doubts there would be a good
ater supply.. He felt that because of the location and topography a
variance should be granted. There is about .7 acres within a road right-
of-way. .After taking the road into consideration this is a 9.8 acre
parcel, They felt that five acres in the back and 4.1 acres in the
front would be reasonable.
Hearing closed to the publicnand confined to the Board.
Supervisor Wheeler felt that the owners were trying to
circumvent the process by applying far a variance. She did not think they
ere being deprived of the enjoyment of the property.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, secdnded by Supervisor Dolan
that the appeal of John Lechner to the Planning Commission's denial of
a variance to allow a 4.1 acre parcel in a "TM-5" zone, AP 62-13-003,
property located on the east side of Highway 32, approximately 1/4 mile
south of Forest Ranch, Forest Ranch axea be denied.
Chairman Moseley had some reservations about denying the
appeal. They are asking for a variance and not a rezone. This is not
setting a precedent. She had no problems with upholding the appeal.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel ,. advised the Board they had to
make specific findings for a variance. His suggestion to the Board was
the Board had no legal grounds to authorize the variance.
Chairman Moseley felt the findings would be that the owner
is being deprived of his rights.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that the applicant could make an
application for a rezone. That is what the applicant did. This is why
she felt that applying for the variance was circumventing the process.
There is no legal way that the Board could make the findings for the
Supervisor Saraceni felt that~the applicant mentioned a few
actors. There are other smaller parcels that are contiguous with this
roperty. The county is looking to the use of land that can be used
roperly and not taking away agricultural land. He had a question as
o whether the Board was taking away the owners rights because of the
maller parcels of land.
Supervisor Dolan stated those kinds of situations were thoroughly
analyzed, including water and traffic impacts, in the Forest Ranch area.
Slopes, erosion were also considered when the xezone was accomplished.
Che rezone in Forest Ranch does allow for dividing .of .land-to -take place
sere there is capacity of water. To allow one parcel split is ,not to
necessarily alleviate the pressure on the agricultural land. This property
Cs also contiguous with larger parcels in the area.
Page 372.
May 2fi, 1281
81-
a
___--_____= May 26a 1981 ___________________
Vote on motion;
AXES: Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler
NOES: Supervisors Saraceni and Chairman Moseley
ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke
No action taken.
The matter-was continued to June 2, 1981.
876
PUBLIC HEARING: JOSEPH.~'ALS APPEAL OF CONDITION 10. .(PROVIDE CIRCULATION FROM
ROUND VALLEY ROAD TO A PUBLIC MAINTAINED ROAD)- ON'TENTATI"VE PARCEL MAP,
AP 55-25-106 (.PORTION), THREE PARCELS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
ROUND VALLEY ROAD, APPROX. 1/4 MILE PLUS WEST OF-CLARK ROAD, PARADISE AREA
The public hearing on Joseph Fals'appeal of Cond~ltion 10 (provide
circuation from Round Valley Road to a public maintained road) on tentative
parcel map, AP 55--25-106 (portion), three parcels, property located on the
west side of Round Valley Road, approximately 1/4 mile plus west of Clark
Road, Paradise area ,was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, pub lie works director, set out the background
of the appeal. This property is located across the road and south of the
old dump site. There is a private easement serving three large parcels.
The ordinance sets out the length of a cul-de-sac. This area does not
have good traversable access. There are more than 20 existing parcels
on this long cul-de-sac. If the Board approves the appeal, perhaps the
Board should look at the ordinance as to the length of cul-de-sacs. These
three parcels are creating a problem. The requirement is to provide
circulation around another area. There are many parcels already created.
The only way to have all the parcels pay for circulation in that area
would be to require no more divisions until there is circulation.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Douglas Bussey. Mr.
Bussey stated there was some eonfusiori in his mind relative. to the appeal.
Condition ZO is being. appealed and the notice they received from Public
Works refers to two items about the cul-de-sac requirements. He asked
that this matter be continued in order to find out if they could go with
a separate assessment district. He submitted a map to the Board.
The hearing was continued to June 9, 1981 at 10:15 a.m.
877
PUBLIC HEARINGS: DOYLE POTHER AND. ROBERT JOHNSON APPEAL OF CONDITIONS ON
TENTATIVE PARCELS MAPS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OROVILLE QUINCY HWY,
OFF OF BELL RANCH ROAD; CANYON-CREEK AREA
The following public hearings were held as advertised:
1. Doyle Folber appeal of conditions 2 and 13 on tentative
parcel map, AP 71-01-93, four lots, property located on the west side
of Oroville Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area.
2. Doyle Folmer appeal of condition 2 on tentata~e parcel map,
AP 71-O1-94, eight lots, property located on the west side of Oroville
Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon Creek. area.
3. Robert Johnson appeal of condition 2 on tentative parcel map,
AP 71-01-95, seven lots, property located on the .west side of Oroville
Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon.Creek area.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set-.out the background
of the appeals. This property is north of Lake Oroville off to the west.
It is lust Section 7 that is being divided into three parcels. One of
Page 373,
May 2b, 1981
"mac ' ~1
~.' -
kSa~26, 1981- -- ___
81-
a
the subdivisions is .the .west.hal~, anotheY.the.northeast ga~adrant and the
other in the 'southeast quadrant.. The property.owne~s.are.appealing the
road requirement for a 20-foot gravel-road. They.would,like a 16-foot
gravel road. The physical cir~~mstances`~nake.the widening o£..the road
difficult for thew.' He did not have too much,of,a problem: with that.
The .parcels are quite large.- If one:pareel was._to be-.further divided
then he felt that flltuYe indication .that traffic will hack up if the
16-foot road is used. He had no ob3ections to the 16-foot road as long
as there was a condition that if one parcel is further divided then they
would have to use the wider standard. On condition l3-this was the
requirement £or the setback for the septic tank for some of the lots. He
did not think the setback would be a problem with the size of the parcels.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
~~
1. Dick Hickman, representing the applicants. Mr. Hickman
stated they had not appealed the septic tank setback. They were appealing
putting a water supply on that parcel. -When they first discussed the
parcel split, they were advised this would be handled as a parcel map
and not a subdivision map. The others did require water information.
They hired a geologist to make a report on three-fourths of a Section
and a number of wells were drilled. They did not consider this
particular parcel.
Mr. Castleberry suggested that the condition read: No evidence
of water. He asked if the applicants would be willing to accept the
condition on the road size with a notice on the map that if there is
any further division of the parcels the county would require that the
roads be put into subdivision standards rather than parcel map standards.
2. Doyle Fulmer. Mr. Fulmer stated what they were trying to
do was do the main road into the center point of the Section with a 20-
foot wide road. They wanted to put the oft shoot roads at 16 feet.
If a person purchased a smaller parcel and divided it they would have
to increase the road from 16 feet to 20 feet.
Mr. Castleberry stated he would like the condition to be amended
that if there is one parcel split that the roads be put in as required
by the ordinance today. He suggested that all the roads be required at
subdivision standards ff one parcel were divided.
Mr. Fulmer was concerned what that condition would do to the
property when it was put up for sale. The main road to the center will
be put in at 20 feet and will be graveled.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the following appeals were sustained with condition 13 on
AP 7.1-01-9~3 being amended to reflect: Note to ;be plaec~d-on•..themap: No
evidence of water: condition 2 on AP 71-0-1-93, 71-01x94 and 71-01-95 to
reflect: Provide two-way traversable access with a 16-foot road to each
parcel from a county maintained road or-state highway.. .Note to be
placed on the map: That any further division requires RS-7 standard:
1. Doyle Fulmer appeal of conditions 2 and l3 on tentative
parcel map, AP 71-01-93, four lots, property located on the.west side of
Oroville Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ranch Road, Canyon. Creek area.
2. Doyle Fulmer appeal of condition 2 on tentative parcel map,
AP 71-01-94, eight lots, property .located on the west side. of Oroville
Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ran~i'.1~oad, Canyon Creek area.
Page 374.
May 26, 1981
sl-
May 26, 1981
3. Robert Johnson appeal of condition 2 on tentative parcel
map, AP 71-01-95., seven lots, property located on the west side .of Oroville
Quincy Highway, off of Be11;Ranch Road, Canyon Creek-area.
CONSIDERATION 02' MODIk`ICATIONS TO BULLRING CODE k'OR`OWNER-BUILT. DWELLINGS
IN DESIGNATED RURAL AREAS (_AS MODIFIED FROM GALIT'ORNLA "K'.'.:CODE) -
CONTINUED TO JUNE 2,'I981 9T lOd3Q;A.M.
Consideration of modifications to building code for owner-built
dwellings in designated rural areas (as modified from California "K" Code)
was held at this time.'
878
Chairman Moseley asked that this matter be continued until
Supervisor Lemke could be present.
Bob Boyden, chairman of the committee, understood that Supervisor
Lemke was not present at the meeting and he was interested in the code.
He felt Supervisor Lemke should have the opportunity to make-any comments,
He asked that a time be set for the matter when it is continued.
The matter was continued to .Tune 2, 1981 at 1Or30 a.m.
.PtPPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR FOUR MEMBERS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL STUDY COMMITTEE TO
ATTEND WASTE WATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORKSHOP
879
Supervisor Wheeler stated there would be a conference in
Sacramento on June 11 and 12, 1981 relative to Waste Water Public Participation
Workshop. She felt that since there were professional people on the
Sewage Disposal Study Committee and they do have a good size package to
present to the Board that the county should send four of these members
to this workshop. The cost is $25 per person. The committee has spent
over 46 hours on this committee.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor
Saraceni that funds in the amount of $25 per person for four members
of the Sewage Disposal Study Committee to attend a Waste Water Public
Participation Workshop on June 11 and 12, 1981 in Sacramento be
appropriated.
Supervisor Dolan felt this would set a precedent. Because
these are professionals in their field and would probably go to the
conference, she felt that staff should attend but not others at county
expense.
Supervisor Saraceni felt this was coaieiding with the land use
committee.. They are talking about alternative uses. A11 the county would
be doing is paying the registration fee and the cost of travel and other
expenditures would be picked up by the members.
Chairman Moseley would not agree to the payment for lodging
the members. She was not opposed to the motion for the registration
of $104.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke
Motion carried.
Page 375.
May 2G, 1981
87:- 880
~.
881
kJay-,.2b, 1981
LETTERS OF SUPPORT TO B.E SENT TO LEGISLAT1TjZE_~'0~ SB 283.(GARAMENDI), DRUG
ABUSE FUNDING .
Sup e7ryisor.Wheeler stated that SB. 283 ~(Garamendi) is primarily
funding for schools and community organization.>~or,drug.abuse in the
state. It is supported by-the county Drug Coordinator and the Drug
Advisory Committee:. There is no cost to-the county. The cost for the
program will be through .the taxes on cigarettes.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler., seconded by. Supervis.nr Dolan
and carried, SB 283 (Garamendi), on drug abuse funding was supported and
letters are to be sent to the Legislature.
APPEARANCE: HENRY MC CALL
Mr. McCall spoke regarding the request that. the Board order
LAFCo to prepare a study to consolidate the water services in Oroville.
There is a proposed joint powers agreement to control the water rates
in Butte County. He felt that if the water agencies were consolidated
this would bring about a reduction in the cost of the water rates.
There is the need for a study to determine these factors. LAFCo did
a study on the feasibility of incorporation in Paradise.' He felt that
LAFCo should do a study on the consolidation of the water services in
Butte County. The standard water rate for Oroville is $25.00 and for
Chico is $6.50 per month. He felt that the position the 6roville City
Council will take is to start proceedings to take over California
Water Service. California Water Service has three wells. The average
rate for fifty cities is about $5.00 per month. He asked that the
Board allocate money to LAFCo for this study. He would like the Board to
look at and make a decision on a date for the joint powers agreement to
take in all the water districts.
Supervisor Dolan stated that LAFCo did not say no. If they are
going to do a study they want to make sure the parties or districts are
cooperative. This will come back on the LAFCo agenda. She would not
want the Board in a position to tell LAFCo what to do. The request is
appropriately addressed to LAFCo.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that there were
two issues. He felt that the first step would be for the city.to make
a decision as to whether they are going to buy California Water Service.
The other issue is should there be one agency for water.
Mr. McCall wanted to know what the cost of the study would be.
He felt LAFCo would be .in a position to advise what the cost of the study
would be. He felt the Board should give LAFCo some direction in this
matter.
Supervisor Dolan was sure that LAFCo would furnish a cost
nalysis. She did not feel the Board should direct them to do so.
he felt Mr. McCall should get in contact with the water agencies and
ee if they were willing to participate.
No .action taken.
882 APPEARANCE: BOB SHEPHERD
Mr. Shepherd spoke regarding a communication to the Board asking
that his property be interim zoned to "C-2" zoi~ing.on Bast 9th Avenue in
Chico.
The letter was referred to Planning Director £or a report back
June 2, 1981.
Page 37b.
Ifay 26, lssl
81- 883
• May 26, 19.81
.PUBLIC HEARING, HCD,.-.~ CITIZEN PAI2TIC11?AT19N
The .public .fieaxing .on .Housing ,anal. Co~tngunity .Development. citizen
participation`~ormalization o~ the contents.of.1881=82_communty.development
block grant application and authorization ,~rom'the)$oaxd,to submit the
application to the Depart~ent of Housing and Urban.Deyelop~nent.was held
as advertised.
Pat Oshorn, Connerly and Associates, set out. the background
of the application. The purpose of the hearing is. to provide an opportunity
for citizens to comment on the application. The application is the second
of a three year comprehensive program which includes, public works improvements,
rehabilitation, cleanup of a blighted condition and construction of
replacement housing. The application contains: $75,000 land acquisition;
$45,000 relocation; $15,000 clearance; $283,500 housing rehabilitation;
$57,500 street improvement and $24,000 program administration. The
application outlines a one-year housing assistance goals for the entire
county, performance report on the county actions of the 1978 grant. HUD
is interested in the rate at which grant funds are spent.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
No action taken at this time.
884
885
CONSIDERATION. OF OPPOSITION TO SB 633 (GARAMENDI) - COUNTY ASSUMPTION OF
COSTS, ETC.
Consideration of opposition to SB 633 (Garamendi) county assumption
of costs, etc. held at this time.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that the bill is
moving fast. He sent a letter on Friday hopefully stating the Board's
position. His concern is putting up ten percent of-the Mental Health
grant. He understood that Senator Johnson's office was going to try to
get the bill amended.
Bob Crisan, welfare director, stated he had sent a memo to
the Administrative Office relative to the ten percent cost in the increase
in the homemakers program. The growth. of 'the program has'been thirty to
thirty five percent annually. It wia 1 be a cost of $70,000 next year.
The cost of living totals 9.2 percent. The cost is to be taken from
the general fund. It looks like it will cost the county additional
funds. He understood that CSAC had testified against the cost increases
to the counties. The CWA have testified for three days on this.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, if the state is going to cut funds then they should give
the counties the flexibility to change programs with letters to be sent
to the state Legislators ..relative to SB 633 (Garamendi) county assumption
of costs, etc.
AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF HOUSING. AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded-l~y~Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, submittal of the Housing and Community Development 1981-82
community development block grant application to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development was approved.
886 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING POLICY AND PROCEDU$E MANUAL SECTION 1.11..CONCERNING
PROCLAMATIONS - CONTINUED TO JUNE 2, 1481
Consideration of amending Policy-and Procedure Manual Section 1.11
concerning proclamations was corn°~tiued to June Z, 1981.
Page 377.
.May 26, 1981
Sl- 887
May 26, 1981 _
AMENDMENT TO GI2IDLEY' LIBRAI;Y: ARCHITECT"S CONTRACT = CONTINUED, TO- JUNE 2, 1981
Dan Blackstock, county.eouns.el, stated-the-architect for the
Gridley Library has requested an a~endment.to.-.the;. contract. In .the letter
the consultant explains liis reasons for the amendment. .He felt this was
equitable. The project has gone for considerably longer than anticipated
in the contract. There is additional cost.., The contract has- wo limitations;
one on the maximum amoun.t.of $20,000 and the otiher was eight percent
limitation on the total cost. The architect ,has performed additional
work over and-above the original contract anticipation. The amendment
to the contract would allow for additional-work,, because of a change of
circumstances. Additional funds should be appropriated if the Board
amends the contract. New services would be provided.
The matter was continued to June 2, 1981.
888
1981-82 PROPOSED BUDGET
Tim Johansen, auditor, made an interim status report for the
1981-82 proposed budget. As he mentioned April 14, 1981. in the report
to the Board on the library relative particularly to the available fund
balances, the final tabulations are not in. He completed a summary as
proposed by Administration and found the amount to be about $67 million with
about $62.5 million for funding. This makes the budget $4.5 to $5 million
shortfall for the budget. In the report he highlighted-..some of the major
items included as concerns. There is being proposed $1.6 million
in capital acquisition, which is higher than the current budget for 1980-81.
Supervisor Wheeler asked about the $760,000 that has been
included in the budget for the libraries. Was she incorrect in assuming.
that the figure will not be put in the budget until next year.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated there were two
things in there. Counsel has advised it will be one year before the county
is paying on the bond redemption. The furniture takes sometimes as much
as five to six months to get here. If the Board starts on the libraries,
within the next 60 days, they will be wanting to order the furniture by
next June so that the furniture is ready for the completed building,
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that the first payment
would be 18 months after the bond issue. That will be January, 1983. At
that time, they would pay only one-half principal which will be in the
area of $280,000 or $300,000 in the 1983 budget. In 1984, the cost would
be about $400,000 plus.
Mr. Johansen stated that in addition to that figure, there are
$4 million proposed read construction programs. They estimated ten to
fifteen new positions being recommended at an estimated cost of $1/2 million.
He included a contingency of $3 million in the General Fund and $250,000
in the Road Fund in the shortfall, They have not included any allocations
for cutback in state revenue or salary increases except for law enforcement.
At the time of budget deliberations, the Board will have to make some
difficult decisions in terms of services and/or reserves for which the
likelihood exists that money will not be available to satisfy all the
needs: He recommended that the Board start considering full budget
consideration processes early in July if it is possible. The Board could
perhaps clear up for the lengthy budget discussions either with department
heads or at the Board level. The second recommendation:,is to hold off on
the library bond financing until. the Board-has the priorities given the
existing finances; the prospective. for €urther increases in revenue;
consideration of annexations and effects on sales tax; .and giving
consideration to long term obligations:
Page 378.
May 26, 1981
t, {
<;~ ~
___--__--__ ~~' 26, 1981 ___________________
81- William Houston spoke.regarding.the:budget at ,this time. He
~ advised the Board.they'woi~ld have to set aside $l.million:for his lawsuit
against the county.
889 WAIVE k'IRST READING OF ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING LEASE AND LEASE-BACK OF CHICO
AND GRIDLEX LIBRA$IES
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, reported on the schedule for
the libraries at this time. The closing would not be until the middle
of July. If one component of the schedule is dropped-i~iis:wll throw
everything out of kilter. The proposed bond issue is for $3.3 million,
There is a question on the discounting. -The discount occurs in order
to sell the bonds. That affects.the interest rate. The higher the
discount the higher the effective interest rate. He was opposed to allowing
as much as five percent discount because of the effect on the total
financing. The ordinance being considered by the Board should reflect
$485,000 instead of $475,000 maximum. The ordinance is a legal requirement.
The Board cannot take action until the referendum period has expired.
it will expire on July 2, 1981. They are planning close by July 10,
or July 15, 1981.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the first reading of the ordinance authorizing lease and lease-
back of the Chico and Gridley libraries with the amount of the maximum
being changed from $475,000 to $485,000 was waived.
890
COMMUNTCATTONS
Terra Engineering, Sacramento. The engineers, on behalf of Kelly Ridge
Investments, Ltd. (J. R. Ferguson, Inc.), appeal the Advisory
Agency's condition No. 9 on the Sunrise Knoll Tentative
subdivision map, AP 36-060-14, 161 lots, property located on
Adriatic Road, north side of Mt. Ida Road, approximately 1/4
mile west of Wyandotte Miners- Ranch Road, east of Oroville.
Set €or hearing June 23, 1981 at 10:30 a.m.
Robert E. and Judith I. Shepherd, Chico. Mr. and Mrs. Shepherd write
requesting that the Board approve an interim "C-2" zone for
property located on AP 45-061-17, 181 East 9th Avenue, Chico.
Handled earlier in the meeting.
Cain Associates, Chico. The engineers, on behalf of Baldwin Contracting
Company, request that the Board review the adequacy of access
on an industrial subdivision in accordance with Butte County
Code Section 20-60(3), AP 40-02-133, two lots, property located
at the Butte Creek Rock Plant site on the Skyway, Chico area.
Referred to Public Works Director for a report back to the Board.
. Roy Kernahan, Chico. Mrs. Kernahan writes thanking the Board for the
service rendered to her through the Rural Senior Service Project.
Information; no action taken.
R. Matthews, Oroville. Mr. Matthews writes in support of the services
being rendered in the Veterans Service Office. Information; no
action taken.
Nelson, Forest Ranch. Mr. Nelson writes in support of the bookmobile
service that is offered the Forest Ranch.communitg. Information;
no action taken.
Butte County Branch - National Association .for the Adyaneement o£ Colored
People. The association wri-tes requesting that consideration
be given to the appointment of a minority member should a public
~ defender advisory committee be appointed. Referred to Supervisors
Dolan and Wheeler. Page 379.
~I May 26, 1981
81-
- - - - - - - _ _ _ _ =~y=26, -1981 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Stewart, Craig, Humpherys & Burchett. The.attoXneys,.on laehalf of ~Roxie A.
Dolligan, ,file a claim in the mount.,o#..$1Q0,000-:for alleged
damages sustained as a.result o,# an.accident.near the intersection
of Skyway and a private driveway in .the 1~lagalia area. To be
considered on `June 2, 19.81.
Christopher R. Lucas, attorney at law. The attorney, on behalf of Phillip
and Winona Stanfield, files a claian in the amount of $25,000
as a result of alleged damages incurred at the Watson Road culvert
and drainage ditch running along Watson Road in the Biggs area.
To be considered on June 2, 1981.
Henry McCall, Oroville city councilman. Councilman McCall writes xequesting
the opportunity to discuss the study of consolidation of water
purveyors within the Oroville urban area. Handled earlier in
the meeting.
County of Sutter. The county writes requesting that the Board endorse
President Reagan's budget and fiscal programs. Information;
no action taken.
U. S. Department of Labor - Employment and Training Administration. The
department sends notification that the Board of Supervisors have
been designated as the prime sponsor for fiscal year T982.
Information; no action taken.
U. S. Department of Labor - Employment and Training Administration. The
department forwards its first quarter assessment of CETA program
operations. Information; no action taken.
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. The Almanor Ranger District
forwards information concerning the environmental assessment for
a multi-year program to release young pine plantations from the
effects of brush and grass competition for soil moisture and
nutrients. Information; no action taken.
891
ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman Moseley stated she had received a memo relative to
the streetlight situation at the old county building on Bird Street.
It is a great deal of money for repair.
Copy to be sent to the~oard members relative to this matter.
RECESS: 12:12 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:40 p. m.
~**
892 I
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-105: DISCUSSION-AND CONSIDERATION OF OPPOSITION TO
STATE RESOURCES AGENCY PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A SACRAMENTO RIVER
PARKWAY
Discussion and consideration of opposition to State Resources
Agency proposal for establishment of a Sacramento River Parkway was held
as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing;
1. Jeff Meith, representing land owners_along,.the Sacramento
River and the Sacramento Valley Landowners Association. It is their
request and hope that the Board will reject the kind of study and plan the
State Resources Agency has been proposing. He felt that the plan. as proposed
and the study as proposed are little more than that. He felt the plan
if it was put into effect would be detrimental to the county and agriculture.
Page 380.
.May 2fi, 1981
81-
a
May 26, 1981
There seems to be an underutilization of parkways now. There does not
seem to be a probleul with. inadequate parking .spaces. He questioned putting
the river into a parkway. Why do they need the'study.. He felt the reason
the Board was beiag asked to support a study would-be misconstrued as the
City of Chico was with: their vote. A vote in_favor~of the study will be
misconstrued as a vote in favor of 'the proposal '.He thought .the study
was going to. be used : to repress and stop erosion control and levy and
flood control protection along the river: He has had personal experience
with these plans. The U.S. Army Corps o£ Engineers have been willing to
do the work on the river"-hut their position is that the state must approve
the plans and fund the local share of the improvements. The state decided
they wanted a study to determine whether rip avian;vegetation would be
good. They no longer wanted to fund flood control until the study had
been completed. He felt that would happen in this case.-This kind of
work would interfer with the parkway. He felt the county had had an
experience with air pollution that would make them want to look very
closely at the parkway. When people in farming come into conflict, it is
farming that needs to bear the brunt of this action by the state.
He felt there would be conflicts as soon as the plan with
the easements along the .river and having public access to the area.
He hoped that the Board would oppose the study and the merits of the plan.
He felt there were problems at the present time, but they were better
resolved at the local level than at the state level. He felt there was a
vehicle within the law to protect the private property of the farmers
and the public use areas. This is a serious attempt to take private
interests and hold it for the state without paying a dime for it.
He felt that if they were really serious they would have asked for
$75 million for the project. He represents about 100 members in the
Sacramento Valley Landowners Association that runs from north of Red
Bluff below Knights Landing.
2. Harry Nichols, pre~i~::nt of Reclamation District 2106.-
This district comprises 50,000 acres of land adjacent to and south of
Oxd Ferry. The thought of a public parkway along privately owned lands
can only create innumerable problems. Unfortunately, a portion of the
public has no respect for private property rights. The farmers who own
the property are resentful of having this happen to the land. There
will be hazards due to vandalism, litter and theft. He opposed the plan.
3. Floyd Perry. Mr. Perry was opposed to the plan. There
are many theft problems particularly in the Tehama County area where
there is more access points. If there is more access along the river •ehere
will be more problems. There are currently many points to the river not
used. Ord Ferry access is very seldom used.. He has access points about
two miles up stream and about three miles downstream from his groperty.
4. Steve Di 11, Butte County Farm Bureau. Mr. Dill stated he
was representing approximately 3,000 family members. The Bureau would
like to see the Board oppose the proposal. When the county hands over
control to the state and releases Butte County boundaries, the county
is going to lose all 0£ those things mentioned previously. When this
is turned over to the state, the access points along the river will
come under the control of the state and-not the county. It will be
encumbent on the county to provide iaw enforcement to-those areas.
Supervisor Dolan stated there was a proposal before the
Sate Legislature for additional land access for the Bidwell State Park.
Did the committee consider this in their deliberations? Was the Farm
Bureau opposed to the additional acquisition?
Page 381.
May 2b, i981
May=2&, 1Q81___________________
81~ Mr. Dill did not want to see the count~* lose control. He would
3 like to see them still maintain the conC.rol.::This would be just .increasing
5. Jack. Madigan. Mr. Madigan re~eried to the past history.
!e submitted a letter article in 1979 from the Sacramento Bee in which
fuey Johnson, head of the,Resources Agency, was interviewed.. The article
pointed out that Mr. Johnson was keeping 'a low profile. Among other things
n the interview was the proposal for a 300 mile long parkway, 100 feet
.n either side of the river. The cost would be $170.,000. Mr. Madigan
'elt that the money would be better spent on hank protection., Mr. Madigan
ubmitted a newspaper article from 1981. The figures were reduced to
.bout one-half of the original estimate. During the first discussion
[r. Johnson had criticized the farmers for farming .too close to the
~iver land. Then the landowners went to the federal government and sued
hem. He would like someone to show that there have been suits.
e submitted correspondence from Senator Johnson to the Governor pointing
ut the big hazard. Ta this date the Governor had not responded to
he letter. He felt that if money was going to be spent,on the river,
t should be to protect property xights of the landowners along the river.
6. Jessie Boswell. Ms. Boswell stated he owned property
bordered on two sides by the Sacramento River and Highway 32.
saw this plan as a complete contradiction of the preservation of
cultural land. If agricultural land cannot be used for homes, why
ld it be taken for peopleTs pleasure. The public will help the
er harvest their crop.
7. Karen Vercruse, representing California Women in Agriculture.
s. Vercruse felt that the Board should oppose the study. A study was
one on the delta-with a recreational concept plan. Her father farms
n the islands in the delta. There were two marinas placed on privately
caned property. This is a example of the kind of thing that is being
roposed with the parkway. There is access available on the Sacramento
fiver. There is also private recreational access for people. The private
yeas are superior and do not cost the taxpayer any money. They are more
requently used than the public areas. Ninty percent of the land along
he Sacramento River is privately owned. There axe about 30 miles of
ublic owned land at the present time. Whether the Peripherial Canal
s adopted or put off, the Sacramento River will be part of that
ystem to transport the water south. If there are conflicts, they should
e resolved according to the priorities that exist. Certainly, agriculture
nd private land owners should be the first priority. She went to the
ublic accesses on the river this weekend. They were nowhere near full.
ssemblyman Statham has requested information from Huey Johnson about
he parkway. Mr. Johnson advised him that the success of the parkway
ill depend on the support. He would not talk to the Legislature without
upport. It is important to organize before the Legislature is lead
nto believing there are thousands of people who support this project.
One of Butte County's residents went to Washington, D. C. to
discuss encroachment problems on the river.. A representative of the
U.S. Axmy Corps o£ Engineers advised he was happy.to hear from .the land-
owner on•the problem. The department indicated they would like to hear
from the area more often. The position is that the. state has not
honored the commitment in the area of bank protection. She asked that
the proposal be opposed and letter b.e sent to the counties that border
the river, to Huey Johnson and to the Legislators.
Page 382
May 26, 1981
81=
d
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~. _ =May=26, =1981 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8. Dale Steyens. k~Lr, Steyens.stated:.that he owned land on the
Sacramento River. :He paid extra money for 7~iyex.land. _He did not like
the idea of the state beiing able to step 'in and take away,the land. He
was opposed to the plan.
9. John.Chauton, secretary.~eclaTDation District: 2106.. Mr.
Chouton stated that he generally did not attend public meetings. He
had an experience with the state on .his property along the.Sa~ramento
River.. This property is one of the 38 points where they. want to watch
birds. He was told he could not do anytfiing with :his property. He will
6e attending more public meetings after that. He was opposed to the plan.
He was tired of picking up the trash and junk from tkie public.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler; seconded by Sa:~pervisor Saracedi
that Resolution 81--105 be adopted strongly opposing the merits of the State
Resources Agency proposal for establishment of a Sacramento River parkway
project and opposing the study on this project with copies to be sent
to all county boards along the proposed parkway; north state representatives;
representatives of the other county areas; and to Huey'Johnson, State
Resources Agency and the Chairman be authorized to sign.'
Supervisor Dolan stated she would support not advocating the
parkway. She did not want to be in opposition to the landowners with
concerns. She felt that the Board in conjunction with other boards
and the visitors and information bureau not close their eyes to the
conflicts. She felt the county needed to 'address the conflicts.
The river is a public waterway.
Supervisor Wheeler felt that this would be happening in the
future when the Sate assumes the cost of paying current property owners
fox damage. Uniil that time, the county needs to stand up and protect
what is right.
Supervisor Dolan stated the county retained the responsibility
for law enforcement. She felt that if they b.egi:n to address the problems
and try to resolve the conflicts, possibly the state could come in with
funds for a little of the control needed.
Supervisor Wheeler felt the county's ability was restricted
because of the administrative attitude in Sacramento. Until that is
changed, she did not think the county could provide leadership.
Supervisor Dolan did not want the county to ignore the problems
they have in the county.
Vote on the motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: None
ABSENT; Supervisor Lemke
Motion carried.
CORRECTION TO MINUTES OF MAY 12, 1981, MINIJTE DRDE$ 81~-80J RE: MEETING
ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The minutes of May 12, 1981, minute order .81-807 relating
the meeting on economic development were corrected:-to reflect having
PIC and oEDP for a preliminary meeting instead of PIC-and BEDCo.
893
Page 383.
May 26, 1981
sl=
May z6, 1~s1
... ~ ~ Bill Collins, Land Aeyelopinent Cnmmittee:,:was,not, sure the
mmittee should he-hearing the appeals, The cownittee.could..be very
eful in listening to developers who have had,condtions added ,to projects.
did not think thep'.should be an appeals board.
**** Supervisor Wheeler did not want .the zuotion amended at this time
to reflect the suggestions by Supervisor Saraeeni. She #elt the issues
should be presented to the committee to he studied as to the standards,
etc. The Board can change policy and look into the ordinances after
a study has been made by the committee.
Mr. Colby asked that the Board recognize that they are to deside
the appeals and if this does not work them they could be eliminated at
that step.
Mary Andrews, Land Development Committee, asked what if the
motion of intent was approved as Supervisor,Wheeler had presented it,
if appeals come in before the standards can be changed. There may be time
when the Board would like the committee's opinion.
Supervisor Wheeler saw that happening.- This happens with all
the other committees and commissions set down by the Board. There are
specific procedures to be followed.
Lee Colby asked that the Board consider amending-the motion
to include paragraph 2 of Supervisor Saraceni's proposal relative to
the composition of the commission.
Supervisor Wheeler had no difficulty with that provision. She
would not want to be precluded from expanding the committee.
Ms. Andrews felt it was difficult to have a bigger committee
unless the group was divided into subcommittees and to come back with
a recommendation.
committee.
Mr. Colby felt they could function better if they were a smaller
Supervisor Wheeler stated the motion would stand as it was
presented for the gresent time. She would not want to be precluded from
expanding the committee.
Motion amended to include the following under paragraph 4:
To insure meeting the primary purpose and reasonable function of this
commission, it is imperative that its members be qualified to-serve by
virtue of their hackground and experience relevant to land development
and/or planning.
Supervisor Dolan requested that staff refine paragraph 4 of
the motion to include the fact that the Board may take the option of having
the committee review some appeals and projects and also to state that
the committee could be expanded at the discretion of the Board.
Vote on amended motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan,.Saraceni.,.Wheeler_and.Chairman Moseley
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke
Motion carried.
Page 386.
May 26, 1481
81=
May 26, 1981
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
;CESS: 2:32 p.m.
;CONVENE: 3.:02 p:m.
894 WORK SESSION I'OR DEPARTMENT-HEADS, LAND DEVELOPMENT-CQMMTTTEE.AND BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS -.MOTION:-0~ INTENT =- CONTINUED :T0:3'2 '1981
The work.session lietween department.heads,.Land,I}evelopment
Committee and Board of Supervisors was held<as continued..
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler that a motion of intent be
with regard'to the Land Development Committee Report as follows:
1. The Enviro~ental Review Department be combined with, and
under the direction of, the Planning Department and Ghat the Administrative
and Personnel Offices prepare the necessary ordinances for this change.
2. That, for the present time, the Environmental Health Department
not be combined with the Department of Public Works but ask the Board's
support and policy direction be that the Environmental Health. Department
examine its operation for providing the service to meet'the'needs of not
only its other activities but those specifically related to land division.
That Dr. Svihus work with the Public Works and Planning Departments in the
analysis of his process to provide that service for which a need has been
expressed in the repor-t and these hearings. This process has already
commenced and there are discussions of coordinating activities to allow
the building inspectors to make septic tank installation inspections as was
discussed by Supervisor Saraceni.
3. The Board not hire additional staff people in view of
current budget considerations. This would eliminate the need for increasing
the fees and the Board direct staff to privde better methods of coordination
to pinpoint project progress or to determine where that progress has stopped
and further that the staff organize the systems of processing-to allow a
developer or his engineer knowledge of where the project is and whether the
county process or an outside factor might be affecting the project status.
4. The committee be given the appreciation of the Board and asked
to continue to serve not only the industry but the people of Butte County
to review and update the ordinances and standards affecting this industry.
The committee be expanded to broaden its interests and representation and
further that it be charged with providing ordinance amendments that will
not only be appropriate for the industry but that will provide answers
and solutions caused by the developments being affected.- This proposal
recognizes the contribution of time and talent by the committee yet does
not add another possible step to the process. Progress of the committee
should be subject to review by the Board on a yearly basis.
5. This is a motion of intent to allow the ..opportunity to'
finalize the language for ordinances, etc.
Supervisor Saraceni seconded the motion and asked that an
amendment be made to the motion on paragraph 4 the last portion to
reflect: That the Board of Supervisors create a Land 1~elopment
Commission to act as a coordinating, review hody and .act as an appeals
mechanism for all land development questions in the county. In its'
function as an appeals Board,- it shall hear all appeals of decisions
from the Advisory Agency concerning conditions imposed by-said agency, and
then to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as the disposal
of such. appeals. Also, to review all staff repots concerning pobcy
changes, ordinances, codes, standards, etc. pertaining to land. development
and to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the action on same.
Page 384.
May 26, 1981
81=
'd
kiay 26, 1481
Su~eryisor Wheeler would ,like to: see.saaf.~.deal.with.the proposal
the way it was brought in and take what.Si~peryiso~-.~araceni.is..suggesting
as an issue to deal with: it at a later date. _She would,have.difficulty
dealing with the motion, She wanted to see what staff Uzas going,.to come
forward with as far as .restructuring.
Supervisor Saraceni stated-the Board had. heard.seyeral appeals
today. That opinion would have been very valuable to the Board. He
felt the Board would be able to eliminate'a great. deal of time, if the
committee submitted a written opinion on the appeals.
Supervisor Wheeler felt this would happen in the middle process
in the situation. They would work on updates of the ordinances and
standards. The Board will be considering the recommendations on the
updates. She felt that was the remedy for the appeals coming to the Board.
Lee Colby, chairman, Land Development Committee, stated that
the main reason they wanted to hear the appeals was in order to hear
what was causing the appeals and those things would take priority as
far as action. He felt the committee should hold a heading with the
appellant. He did not feel this would be a loss of time. If necessary,
the committee is willing to meet more often. The committee does want to
hear the appeals.
Clay Castleberry, public works. director, stated the Board had
heard three appeals today relative to the length of the cul-de-sac.
This condition could be considered by the committee in review of the
standards. He hoged the committee would come up with adequate standards
for street widths and that should answer the question. If any committee
was going to take action there would have to be a noticed public hearing.
Supervisor Wheeler stated the Board knew which appeals come
to the Board on a weekly basis. The committee does not have to be dealing
with the appeals that come in. She wanted the Board to have the control
over the appeals.
Supervisor Dolan did not want to add a step. She felt the value
of the committee was to review the standards and must look at them from
the total process. It is not a project by project basis. It is always
good to get a different opinion.
Supervisor Saraceni felt that the appeals would come to the
Board, but the Board would have a different opinion. These things could
have been processed through another opinion.
Mr,=Colby:~asked that the Board try the committee as an appeal
boaxd and if it does not work get rid of the idea. This would make expert
information available to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan stated that staff did not put on conditions
because it is their opinion. Staff places these conditions because they
are in existence. They exist because the state.or,.county adopted them.
If it is not an appropriate standard then the standard .should be changed.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would very.~uch=-like to have
additional information on these appeals. He felt the Board should take
a look at having them as an appeals b.oard.. It is not taking anything
away from anyone. The Board would make the final judgment.
Page 385'.
May 26, 1481
May 26, 1981
gl- 895 WAIVE ~'iRST READING;.S,ALARX-~0RD2NANCE,AMENDMENT;:
$ On motion of .Superyisor.Dolan,.seconded.:-l~*-Su~eryisor Wheeler
and carried,. the first reading o~ the salary ordinance amendment implementing
the 7. G% pay increase for deputy sheriffs w,as waived.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the first reading of the salary ordinance amendment reclassifying
several positions was waived.
896 DISCUSSION: WORK SESSION 1~0R DEPARTMENT HEARS; LAMA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AND BOARD OF SUPERVSSORS
Discussion of the work session for department heads, Land Development
Committee and Board of Supervivrs held at this time.
Supervisor Dolan wanted to know if people would be allowed to
make any comments at the consideration of the final motion on June 2,
1981..
Supervisor Wheeler felt that the people should have an opportunity
to make their comments. '
OR WHEELER ABSENT AT THIS TTME
Ms. Andrews stated she had a work session with Drake Homes
McCain Associates.
Supervisor Dolan stated she would advise people to write
ters and let the Board know if she is asked whether input is still
n~ considered.
Dan Blackstock, county ,counsel, stated that the committee was
given the Environmental Review Guidelines about two months ago.. That
entire package involves financing of those departments involved in the
changes. They will affect the budget. He suggested that these put back on
the agenda for a report back from the committee at least by the second
week in June so they can be adopted by July 1, 1981. There are modifications
that must be made to the subdivision ordinance every year because of
Legislative changes. They are now behind in ahese things that could be
helpful. The county does not have procedures for development agreements.
These should be forthcoming in the very near future. The recommendations
on modification of Chapter 20 should be made right away.
Mr. Colby stated they had been discussing the committee for
60 days as to whether the committee would function. When the Board takes
final action, the committee will be happy to go over the referrals and
make recommendations as soon as possible. He wauld like the county to
advise what the priorities are on these items soEthe committee knows which
matters should be considered first.
Mr. Blackstock suggested that the recommendation of the
ironmental Review Guidelines would have first priority. They should
followed very closely on the changes to Chapter 20.
The matter was continued, to June 2, 1981 at 11:.00 a.m.
There being nothing further hefore tiie Board at..this time, the
ting was adjourned at 4:01 p.m..to reconvene on Tuesday, June 2, 1981
9:00 a.m.
Page 387.
May Z6, 1981
May 26, 1981
8I~ ATTESTS CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
b RECORDER and es-offico Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
Chairman, Board of Sup visors
By
page 388.
May 26, 1981