HomeMy WebLinkAboutM060882June 8, 1982
8:
946
tiOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 8:01 a.m. to hold a closed session
on a personnel matter
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 8:58 a.m, following a closed session
regarding a personnel matter. No decisions were made.
RECESS: 8:59 a.m.
RECONVENE: 9:08 a.m.
Pledge of Allegiance to the 'Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by
APPROVAL OF MINiFTES
Apgroval of minutes of May 18 and May- 25, 1982 was conti~iued to
June 15, 1982. .
947 ~ADAITIONAL ITEMS FROM BOAF
Supervisor Saraceni
with County Counsel.
TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE DAY
have some questions on the modified code
Supervisor Dolan would be discussing the parking ticket surcharge.
948 IAAOPT RESOLUTIONS 82-85 AND 82-89: APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA
11 On -motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the following consent agenda was approved:
1. Approved the following budget transfers:
B-218 - Manpower Administration. Transfers appropriations within
the Manpower budget in the amount of $7,000 to cover maintenance and rents
and leases expenses.
B-219 - Community Action Program. Establishes an operating budget
for the Community Action Agency 1982 Weatherization Program as approved by the
California State Office of Economic Opgortunity. The program is in the amount
of $21,635.
B-220 - Community Action Program. Transfers unexpended funds in the
amount of $16,327.98 from the CAA 1981 Community Food and Nutrition ~arogram
to the 1982 Program per Budget Modification No. 1 as approved by the
granting agency.
B-221 - Planning. Transfers $350 from office expense to special
departmental expense to cover line item deficiencies..
2. Approved renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 21--23-022,
227 West Evans Reimer Road, Gridley area, zoning: "A-40" for Richard and
Mary Gregg.
3. Authorized the Chairman to sign amended conveyance of development
rights and open area easement for Sherman Hinaman to comply with condition of
approval of use• germit far AF 29:=07-38.
Page 96.
June 8, 1982
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
~QUNTY OF BUTTE )
The Board of Supervisors met at 8;00- a.:m. pursuant to adjournment.
Present;- Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer; Del Siemsen, county counsel;
and Eleanor M. Becker, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to
the Board.
June 8, 1882
82- 4 „ .Set a public hearing date of June 29, 1982 at 10.:15 a.m. for
3 ' consideration o£.M,.FL Balken proposed negative.declaration and rezone from
"T1~S an:d 10" (ti2gber 'mountain - 5 and '10 acre parcels to "Tip-3" (timber
mountain - 3 acre parcels), located on the weS~C side of Coutolenc Road,
', approximately 1/2 mile north of Skyway, identified as AP 65-22-4, 65-22-6,
65-23-01, 65.23-~05 and 65.23-06, north. of Paradise.
', 5. Adopted Resolution 82-88 setting a public hearing date of
July 13, 1982 at 10:OQ a.m. for consideration of Ron McElroy, Cook and
Associates abandonment of the public utilities easement on Parcels A and
', B of Kelly Ridge Estates,-Unit 4-B, and the Chairman authorized to sign.
6. Adopted new Juvenile Hall billing rate per juvenile at a
daily rate of $49.32 to be effective July 1, 1982.
7. Adopted Resolution 82--89 setting a public hearing date of
June 29, 1982 at 10:00~a.m. for consideration of intention to rename a non-
county maintained road in Butte County: Timothy Avenue as shown on the
South Thermalito Subdivision Map (Larkin Road to end) to Farrar Lane and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
8. Approve specifications for Durham-Dayton Highway bike lanes
from Midway to 100 feet west of Stanford Lane, Project No. 44201-82-1;
adopted wage scale and set the 'bid opening at 11:00 a.m., June 24, 1982
at the Public Works Office.
9. Approved contract change order No. 1, Skyway pavement overlay
from 2.4 miles east of Oakridge Drive to the Paradise town limit, Project
No. 51261-82-1 in the increasing amount of $54,898 and an additional five
working days which provides for a pavement overlay on the eastbound lanes
from 0.8 miles east of Oakridge Drive to 2.3 miles east of Oakridge
Drive with funding from the present project and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
10. Approved joint Grand Jury/Board of Supervisors contract
for annual audit with Sloven, Roster and Johnson at a cost not to exceed
$18,000 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
949 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-90 APPROPRIATING MONIES TO COUNTY SERVICE AREA LOAN
FUND FOR COUNTY SERVICE AREA N0. 24
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-90 appropriating moneis to the
county service area fund for County Service Area No. 24 in a loan of $10,000
to be repaid from 1982-83 funds was adopted and the Chairman authorized to
sign.
950 APPROVE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM EXISTING JAIL MAINTENANCE REVENUE SHARING
APPROPRIATIONS: MAKE FTNDING THAT EMERGENCX CONDITION EXISTS: APPROVE
HVAC JAIL PROJECT
On motion of Supervisor Fulton,. seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the transfer of $40,000 to an appropriation
designated by the Auditor-Controller and Buildings and Grounds from exist-
ing Jail maintenance revenue sharing appropriations-was approved making
a finding that an emergency condition exists per the Government Code a11ow-
ing immediate installation; and approved the ventilation,-cooling and air
filtration project in the Jail for a cost of no more than $40,000.
'951 AUTHORIZE FTLLING OF POSITIONS FOR CLERK.; SHERII'F AND COUNTY COUNSEL
Discussion of filling the positions being held under the hiring
frees for the Clerk, Sheriff and County Counsel held at this time.
It was felt that condensed minutes for the .Board meetings and possible
Page 97.
', June '8, 1982
82=
952
June 8, 1982
sharing of the word processor in Counsels Office could .help. All of these
positions are still in the reduced budgets.for the departments. There is
a need for the tfiree positions in that the position ,for the-Clerk would help
to maintain the-recordkeeping, the position for jailer is necessary because
of demonstrated need, and the position for Counsel is necessary to avoid
the contracting out of legal services. This would be an economic move in
that overtimes.extra help and contracting out would not be necessary.
Administrative review to be placed back into process for positions
that become vacant or promotional
Supervisor Saraceni did not feel that these positions should be
filled until after July 1, 1982.
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
carried, the hiring freeze for the Clerk regarding a position in the Clerk
of the Board Office, the Sheriff regard~.ng a position of Jailer, and County
Counsel regarding a position of deputy county counsel was lifted. AYES:
Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, lyioseley and Chairman Wheeler. NOES: Supervisor
Saraceni '
Supervisor Moseley will be discussing the pos~?tion for County
Counsel's Office with "the department head before the position is filled.
Discussion of filling vacant positions by people who are
taking demotions and lay offs held at this time.. Jim Rackerby, personnel
director, stated the concern was due to the interpretation of the hiring
freeze as it had to do with promotions and demotions. As they go into
reducting of staff they always attempt to transfer people into the positions
that are currently vacant.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, demotions, promotions and lateral transfers were
exempted from the hiring freeze and administrative review with the hiring
of new people to continue on administrative review and the hiring freeze.
RESCINA RESOLUTION 82-$7 RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTX CRIMINAL JUSTICE
FACILITX TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FUND
Jim Lynch, Greater Chico Area Chamber of Commerce, presented
a letter from the Greater Chico Area Chamber of Commerce and the City of
Chico relative to the establishment of the County Criminal Justice
Facility Temporary Construction Fund and establishment of the parking
ticket surcharges. There was an overestimation of the amount that would
be generated by the surcharge and the people paying this surcharge do not
go to jail. There is approximately 75 percent of the revenue that will
come out of theChico Municipal Court. '
Andrea Nelson, clerk of the Chico Municipal Court, stated the
estimated amount figured for the Chico Municipal Court would be running
about $195,000 per year, with the additional amount being generated being
approximately $100,000 with about $50,000 coming from the Chico Municipal
Court with the addition of the $1.00 surcharge. Between the city and
the campus there would be $150,000 total and they would be looking at
$200,000 to $225,000. There is a bill pending that would separate the
criminal and parking violations.
Bob Crow, Downtown Chico Business Association, spoke regarding
the economic impacts this surcharge could have on the downtown business
community. The parking has been increased to $.05._ The City of Chico
is committed to over $l million to pay for on-•going parking. The fact
that a parking meter violation could go up 150 percent could have a definite
effect. Fage 98.
June 8, 1982
8;
Tune 8, 1982
Mr. Lynch.urge.d the Board to rescind their action in approving
this surcharge. He felt the xaising of-the parking ticket violation would
have a definite effect on the-city.
2ii.ke Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, expra.ined that when
the Board previously rescinded the approval of the surcharge, the county
was in the process of applying for a grant far construction of the jail.,
Since that time, the. county has been turned down twice on their grants.
There are some real needs that have to be taken care of in the jail and the
only source of funding available is through this surcharge.
Mr. Lynch felt that there should be more communications between
the Board and the business ector. If the situation was that serious, maybe
they could help promote something. He felt this type of tax was counter
productive. If the county is collecting $lOR,000 in tickets and that
amount will go up, the people will quit Barking in downtown Chico. He
asked that the county wait until the pending legislation is adopted.
Mr. Pyeatt felt it was hard to place the burden on the Board
when they did not write the citations and did not put th2 meters in.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the arguments presented against the
surcharge were not so much emotional as that the parking surcharge was
unfair because parking violators do not use the jail. If they placed the
surcharge on it would be generating revenue from one part of the county,
that is not county-wide, for a county-wide facility. At the same time,
everyone has said they understood the county's problems.in the jail and
want to work with the county on a positive note. There is a problem
with the criminal justice system that needs to be addressed in cooperation
between county governments relative to jail facilities and upgrading of
those facilities.
Mr. Pyeatt responded that part of what the Legislature allowed
was the mechanics for the criminal justice system and there is surely a
need of $1 million or more in the jail. This is the only way they
can get the money within the criminal justice system.
Supervisor Dolan felt that AB 2607 was brought about because
of Butte County and has passed the Senate and is on the Governor's desk.
The Board is taking action when they supported the legislation pending.
Discussion of the amount of money generated by the surcharge
held at this time. Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated
the ten percent surcharge on misdemeanors would be $100,000 and the parking
surcharge would be $100,000 to $150,000 alone. If the county receives money
through a grant there would be a 25 percent match in county funds and there
is no money available for the matching funds.
Supervisor Fulton felt that the argument that the people who
get parking tickets do not go to jail would be the same argument that
the jail is funded by people who do not use it. If they-could find away
to pay for the jail without having the surcharge that would be gxeat.
3e assumed that nothing had been done in the way of consultations with
the Chico Chamber of Commerce since the December, 1481 action. Six months
1as past and no one has suggested an alternate plan.
Mr. Lynch felt that a very small section of the county would be
Funding 75 percent of the funds for this surcharge. He would be willing
to sit down with the other Chambers of Commerce in the county to see what
could be done. He believed the communities had to be more involved to
cork with the Board and,come upPwith a joint effort.
age 99.
June 8, 1982
8:
_ June 8, 1982 ______ ___ _
Tt was ~ooyed by Supervisor Bolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that the-Board rescind Resolution 82-$7 relative to the establishment of
the County Criminal ,Tus.tice I'acili~ty Temporary Construction k'und.
Mr. Pyeatt asked that if the motion was approved that as
part of that motion the money in revenue sharing budget. be made available
to fund the on-going operation to the tune. of $40.0,000.
Vote on anotion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisors Fulton and Saraceni '
Motion carried.
953
On motion of Supervisor Dolan,;seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the Governor's Office is to be contacted urging
signature of AB 2607 whicfi would allow the severing of the two issues.
Mr. Pyeatt advised the Board that in view of the p roposed budget
his office would be asking the Auditor to reflect the $400,000 back. This
money would be out of on-going operations and in the major construction:
The money from the surcharge was planned to provide a decrease to the
projected shortfall.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 10:02 a.m. to hold a closed session
regarding litigation.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 10:30 a.m. following a closed session
regarding litigation. No decision was made at this time.
PUBLIC:HEARING: $UDGET TRANSFER B-216 DZSTRTCT ATTORNEY
The public hearing on budget transfer B-216 relative to the
District Attorney's Office was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
954
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, budget transfer B-216 - District Attorn_ey_ - transfers
$9,000 from the appropriation for contingencies to professional and specialized
services to cover unanticipated costs of blood alcohol test program was
approved. `
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-41: PUBLIC HEARING: MATT PEARS ON ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES EASEMENT, LOT 282 UNIT 3 KELLY RIDGE ESTATES OROVILLE
The public hearing on Matt Pearson abandonment of public utilities
easement, Lot 282, Unit 3, Kelly Ridge Estates, Oroville was held as
advertised.
Bettye Kirsher, planning director, set out the background of the
abandonment.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the abandonment of public utilitiese easement, Lot
282, Unit 3, Kelly Ridge Estates, Oroville, for Matt Pearson was approved;
Resolution 82-91 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
Page 100.
June~B, 1982
°~~ 955
~,
June 8, 1982 ____~ _______
ADOPT RESOI;UTION 82--92; PUBLIC HEARING: INTENT TO 'RENAME ROADS TN BUTTE
COUNTY
The public hearing on the resolutiron of intention to rename roads
in Butte County, Olive Highway (Highway i62 to Forbestown Road) to old Olive
Highway was held as advertised.
Bi11 Cheff, public works department, set out the background of
the resolution of intention.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
956
On. motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the intent to rename roads in Butte County, Olive
Highway (Highway 162 to Forbestown RoadZ to old Olive Highway was approved;
Resolution 82-92 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING: TOM SWARTHOUT APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCX'S DENIAL OF
TENTATTVE PARCEL MAP, AP 71-40-16, THREE PARCELS, 400 FEET MORE OR LESS
NORTH OF MIDDLEFORR LAND AND WHITEWATER ROAD INTERSECTTON, BOTH SIDES OF
MIDDLEFORK LANE, BIDWELL BAR AREA
The public hearing on Tom Swarthout appeal of the Advisory Agency's
denial of tentative parcel map, AP 71-40-16, three parcels, 400 feet more or
less north of Middlefork Lane and Whitewater Road intersection, both sides
of Middlefork Lane, Bidwell Bar area was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
appeal. This was denied because it does not conform to the General Plan.
The applicant was cautioned in October, 1981 that they would not be able
to find conformity with the General Plan. She submitted a map with an
overlay at this time, including the surrounding parcel sizes. These
properties were created prior to tfie adoption of the 1979 land use element
and some were before 1972, which was the deadline for parceling by parcel
map. This property also sits on a point with state properties on both
sides of the subject property.
Hearing .open to the public. Appearing: Bill Geddis, representing
Mr. Swarthout. Mr. Geddis set out the five criteria that is required for
denial.,: Item #1 refers to compatiblity with neighboring agricultural
activities. This has agricultural--residential zoning on the property. There
iss~attered oak, brush and poison oak. This hardly falls within agricultural
land. Item ~k2 deals with evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal
capacity. The Health Department has reviewed this property for adequate
septic and there is a well on the adjoining property. Item ~l3 deals
with availability of adequate £ire protection facilities. There is a
distance to fire protection, but this is no different from the outlying
areas. Item 4~4 deals with adequately maintained approved road access with
sufficient capacity to service area. There 'are very few parcels in the area.
In 1979, they did a parcel map and road up grade to RS8-LD-I standards. The
road has been there since about 1969 and has been upgraded from time to time.
The road with some maintenance is adequate to serve a number of parcels.
Item X15 relates to reasonable accessibility to public services. Everyone
knows where that is. He asked that the Board approve the map.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that finding although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigations mreasures described below have been added to the
Page 101.
June 8, 1982
8
V
_ ?une 8, 1982 _ ______
project, a negative declrationTbe adopted; Finding the proposed property in
conformity with-the General Plana uphold the appeal and approve ,the tentative
parcel map, AP 71-40--16, three parcels; 40.Q feet more or less north of
Middleford Lane and Whitewater Road intersection, both. sides of 2iiddlefork
Lane, Bidwell Bar area for Tom Swarthont subject to the following mitigation
measures and conditions.:
Mitigation Measures
1. Erosion control measures shall be implemented at the time of con-
struction. These ~measvres shall include:
a. Revegetation of all exposed soil. surfaces or use of other soil
stabilization techniques.
b. Proper development of roadside drainages.
c. Stabilize all graded areas with. surfacing of gravel or pavement,
perimeter berms, etc., according to PWD standards.
d. Storm water runoff channels stabilized with installation of
culverts, riprap rock lining, energy-dissipating structures,
etc., according to PWD standards.
e. Earthwork conducted during the dry season only. No exposed soil
surfaces shall be left unprotected during the winter rainy season.
'2. Install properly sized culverts in any drainage courses crossed by
roads or driveways.
3. Road locations shall conform to the terrain, following contours as
much as possible and avoiding steep embankment cuts. Road grades shall
not exceed 15%.
4. Locate building sites on areas of less than 20% slope, unless erosion
control is demonstrated through site design.
5. I~Feet Butte County Environmental Health Department xequirements for
sewage disposal systems.
6. Retain natural vegetation where removal is not essential for site
development.
7. Meet the following Butte County Fire Department/California Division
of Forestry requirements:
a. Access road to site road shall be a minimum width of 20 feet.
b. Access road to site shall support a minimum weight of 40,000 lbs.
c. Remove all vegetation within 10 feet on either side of the road.
(Conditions
8. Verify legal parcel,.
9. Verify legal access.
10. Provide two-way traversable access RS-8-LD-T to each parcel from a
county maintained road or state highway.
11. Access to be reserved in deeds as per county ordinance and offered
far dedication on the final map.
12. Show 50 ft. building setback~`line measured from centerline of access
easement.
Page 102.
.Tune 8, 1982
8 2-
3'
______ June 8, 1982_ __ ___ _____
13. Provide toad.maintenance agreement.
14. Show all easements o~ record on the final-map.
15. Pay off any assessments.
16. Pay any delinquent taxes.
17. Meet the requirements of the Butte County Fire Department.
18. Show a 50 ft. leachfield setback from the drainage way on parcel 3.
19. Show a 100 ft. leachfield setback from the highwater line of the creek
on parcel 3.
20. Show the usable sewage disposal area proven to meet the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance and with slopes less than 30% on parcels 1, 2
and 3.
21. Prove that the required quantities of domestic water are available or
place the statement on the map that "there is no evidence that domestic
water is available" for parcels 1, 2 and 3.
Supervisor Fulton questioned how far away was adequate fire
ptoection facilities and was it regular or volunteer service.
Mr. Geddis stated there was Kelly Ridge Fire Department and
Canyon Creek Fire Station during the fire season, which is only about five
or six miles and is only manned during the fire season. There is a well
on the adjoining garcel in service.
Vote on motion:
AXES: Supervisors Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:-DICK CHAPPELL APPEAL OF CONDITIONS 12, 13 & 14 ON TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP, AP 41-01-141, PROPERTY LOCATED ON HUMMER ROAD, APPROX. 1,000
FEET WEST OF DOE MILL ROAD, FOREST RANCH AREA
The public hearing on Dick Chappell appeal of conditions 12, 13
and 14 on tentative parcel map, AP 41-O1-i41,~property located on Hummer
Road, approximately 1,000 feet west of Doe Mill Road, Forest Ranch area
was held as advertised.
957
Bettye Kirsher, planning director, advised that originally the
appeal was on conditions with two of the conditions predicated on the
findings to the General Plan and therefore, the Board would be looking at
the environmental conditions and the entire map. There is additional
information available from the Department of Fish and Game. Size had
provided an excerpt out of the State Subdivision Map Act relative to
wildlife habitat. She would like to have a continuance of two weeks for
further exploriation of the design of the map and working with the Department
of Fish and Game. This property is included in the area of Bidwell Heights.
Since this came in before Bidwell Heights, it was Counsel's opinion that
thexe,:could not be a negative declaration and but would require an EIR for
the project. The option was to either withdraw-this project from the
specific plan or to hold until there was an EIR. The EIR for Bidwell
iHeights is in the clearinghouse at this time.
Page 103
June 8, 1982
8:
3
June 8, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _
.. Supervisor Bolan noted that .during the Advisory Agency meeting
of April 26, 1982, there were some summary statements by Russ Croninger
about the Board's discussion somewhere in this- area when there was a parcel
map. Her memory was that this was a rezone proposal from Cussick and they
discussed the boundaries of the remaining unclassified lands. She remembered
there was a peculiar•motion done to rezone but they left out the "A-2" zoning
on the predication that the property owners would get together.
I3s. Kirsher advised this was the result of a parcel map on
appeal and they had asked for a specific zone. The Board chose not to impose
the zone and directed staff to work with the property owners. They met with
the property owners in the Doe Mill, Highway 32 and canyon on the east areas.
The results of the meetings were that the property owners had plans in process.
There are two major properties and Bidwell Heights who wanted to do their
own plans. A report was~made to the Board, and it was determined to allow
the property owners to pursue their own plans and the rest was left sitting.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Russ Croninger, representing
Mr. Chappell, advised that he remembered Cussick having an approval of a
parcel map and asking for specific zoning of 40 acres. There was discussion
of a community water system. The property was on top of the ridge which will
slope under 30 percent. There was discussion about why zone the property
"A-40" as well as coming back with a map of what will happen in this area.
Mr. Chappell started his map. A number of owners went together and decided
to put a map together which became specific plan. About the time the draft
was completed and he was working on this parcel and others to make sure
they conformed. The opinion was turn the map in and the processing could
start as soon as the map was turned in looking at the same property, lot
sizes, circulation etc. Mr: Croninger questioned where two points of
access for this property came from. The only problem is they are looking
at Cohasset and the upper area of the ridge of Paradise. Many parcels
do not have this. He did not know where these requirements were coming - -
from in the General Plan. The other condition relative to providing evidence
of domestic water would be covered by the ordinances and rules governing
water sources and Environmental Health and could be handled at the time
of building permits. The land use in the area is agricultural residential
and the zone is "A-2" zoning. There is a negative declaration on the project
and the property is relative flat.. The controus are indicated. The Health
Department approved the leach and it is adjacent to a 16-foot traversable
road. The property has access to Highway 32 via a gravel road which
has recently been oiled and chipped. Tt has a community water system.
He wondered why the access would have to be doing to Doe Mill Road to
Schott Road to Forest Ranch to Highway 32 when the portions of maintained
access on Schott Road are narrow in some places. The road from Sierra
Foothill to Highway 32 is basically completed except for a portion and is
much shorter to go 3-1/2 miles than to go 8-1/2 miles and then 22 miles
back to Chico. There is fire access by two different points, one off
Doe Mill Road and the other off Centerville Gap Road.
The other condition regarding the letter requesting exclusion
from the specific plan. This owner and all the owners in the area were
under the impression that by doing this that maybe that project would fall
under better findings and work out the problems. He attended one of the
meetings on this. These people have paid a processing fee for the parcel
map, the environmental checklist fee for the parcel map, the environmental
fee for the draft EIR and the specifiel plan fees and are now being asked
to exclude from the area and to later come back in if it fits the use. This
map fits the draft EIR and the specific plan. He did not know why the
applicant had to be excluded from the plan in order to continue with the
project. The parcel just adjacent to the subject project has already been
tentatively approved. It was done prior to this draft but is also in the
rage 104.
June' 8, 1982
S 2-
3'
~~
June 8, 1982 __ _____TT__
specific p1an.~ Two other projects have prior approval. This new application
happened to fall within a given two to three months: and are now being asked
to exclude from the plan. He wanted to know•hoia•to handle these three items.
Ms. Kirshex advised she did not see a problem with the requirement
to provide circulation because this is usually handled at the time the
final map is €iled and there are three roads into the parcel. The condition
is normally handled by providing deeds that the owner can use the access.
This was a condition of approval on the other parcel. The condition to
provide adequate domestic water could be handled at the same time as the
Environmental Health Department conditions are met. If they can prove there
is water outside that is not one the map, it would meet their-requirements.
At the Advisory AGency a water district was formed for one of the subdivisions.
The map could be incorporated. She did not know how the property was included
in the specific plan. This subject property was proposed for "SR-3" zoning.
On Counsel's advise, they could not have a negative declaration and an EIR
on the sameproperty. She suggested that had the applicant not wished for
this to have been processed that their office would have been notified.
They have time lines to reply to under CEQA. There-were maps that went
through prior to the time the specific plan came in with•the ETR.
Supervisor Dolan felt that part of the problem was whether this
is a separate projector a specific plan did not rest with the Board but
with the applicant. Following on the heels of this project is another
specific plan for this same property.
Chairman Wheeler suggested that the Board continue the hearing
for two weeks until they had the answers to the questions in writing back
to the Board. Staff has also asked that the applicant work with staff to
consider redesign and the Department of Fish and Game comments.
-.Supervisor Dolan suggested that particularly applicable to the con-.
terns of the Department of Fish and Game abaut the protection of deer habitat
would be the considering of parcel sizes or clustering of homesites so the
deer herds are not eliminated. The other question is what does the Board
do with a project when one is by itself with a parcel map and negative -~
declaration and other other is with a specific plan and backed with an EIR.
The Board does not have a handle on the projects in the works or close to
being proposed based on the same road and water systems. As long as they
do this area piece meal, they will never have a firm handle. She was also
concerned with fire protection as well.
The hearing was continued to June 22, 1982 a5 10:45 a. m.
958
959
APPEARANCE: JAMES HANSON
Mr. Hanson spoke regarding his concerns with the county employees
and the young attornies in the District Attorney's Office working in the
Justice Court.
charge of violating the penal code.
APPEARANCE: BILL MEGGISON
Mr. Meggison spoke regarding the harassment he had been receiving
from the Sheriff's Department. He asked for an investigation. As a result
of these actions, he has been brought into court and arraigned on a
The matter was referred to the Administrative Office to meet
with the Sheriff to get the answers and to respond back on this matter.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENE: 11.:37 a. m'.
Page 105.
June 8, 1982
82- 960
$''
June 8, 1982
APPEARANCE: JOHN LWAAS
Mr. Luvaas submitted-information on behalf of the Butte County
Citizens for Responsible Government. In the past -month, the Board has taken
several actions to slash funding for the Sheriff, road, fire protection and
other essential fundamental services. He gave the Board two examples of
the effects of lack of planning. -One is in the Road Department, where the
county approved a budget for 1982-83 of new major road construction in the
amount of a little over $l million. More than one-half of the money is
budgeted for one leap frog development on Keefer Road owned by the Planning
Commissioner in the Third District. This person and many others have been
asked by the public to pay their fair share for road costs on approval.
The second example is in the west Chico area on Sacramento Avenue, where
the majority of the Board approved the Big Chico"Creeks Estates Subdivision
contrary to the wishes of the people, and were sued. The neighbors asked
that the Board consider this was one of many. The public asked th at the
county require the paying of funds for widening Sacramento Avenue by the
developer. This year one of the top projects was the widening of
Sacramento Avenue at public expense because the county recognizes that
the road must be improved. Sacramento Avenue Road Project was slashed
because so much money was being spent on Keefer Road. The Board is
currently considering a development of 6,000 acres or more in the east
Chico area. The Board has been requested to do advanced planning for
roads, police and fire protection. They have been asked for overall effects
in the area and what is the effect on the Chico water and Little Chico Creek.
How much is the cost to the county. These have been requested repeatedly
and the Board has repeatedly refused. Supervisors Dolan and Fulton requested
that the county take a proper study before allowing any development to
proceed. The Board refused to undertake that study. Three of the
Supervisors have abandoned the responsibility to the public to keep the
county from financial ruination. There is no more time to lose if the
county is to survive and it is essential that the people of the county be
warned and the people considering moving into the county be warned that
the county has lost control and given up control and in the process of
dismantling county government.
The organization has declared there exists a state of fiscal
problems that required immediately response o£ the county. He asked that
the county declare a temporary moratorium on all major developments in
the rural county and set out the other steps of the emergency plan
requested in file exhibit submitted to the Board.
Supervisor Saraceni felt that Mr. Luvaas had a conflict of
interest by coming to the Board suggesting control of people in the county
and their rights to live on property they own, when Mr. Luvaas lives ti~ithin
the City of Chico. He did not feel that government should control everything.
Government is about listening to people who own property and making decisions
on whether the property available should be used or not. He did not feel
that government should control property without hearings on thatproperty.
Mr. Luvaas stated he did not speak of government control. He was
discussing the fact that government should be finding out how much they
will need to charge for development. Government is protecting citizens
with police and fire. There are a substantial number of people concerned
with the elimination of police and fire.
Supervisor Saraceni advised that all counties are seriously
impacted and part of the problems are the separation of costs with the
cities and the problems they are facing in the courts. All the counties
are facing problems, but they are from over regulation and the kind of
things that are being suggested as far as government control.
Page 106.
June' 8, 1982
8 2-
a
961
962
June 8, 1982
_ - _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Supervisor Dolan felt it was important that the Board was here to
listen to the contrary. She felt Yhat the U.S. Supreme Court decisions
should be reviewed. One of the reaons there is a tremendous problem is
because the county ,provides services every year. She felt that in asking
whether a person lived in the city or not sounded Like the person lived
in another area. To do development piecemeal requires that the Board spend
hours and hours trying to figure out the impacts. They spend years and
years trying to figure out how to meet the needs.. She did not feel that
the Board should be accusatory to anyone at the podium.
Supervisor Saraceni felt that the observation that city or county
people in the county should not have the same opportunity was ridiculous.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the Board would take Mr. Luvaas'
comments under submission. She was not so certain she was ready to
accept the proposal that came from Mr. Meagher because his name is assigned
to many political things that have erroneous statements. The Board will
respond in writing to every issue that was raised.
Supervisor Fulton advised he could not see an argument of city
versus county because they are all in the county together sink or swim.
The population projection for the year 200 i5 266,000 which is an increase
of about 115,000. He felt it was the Board's-job through various agencies
to find out where the people will be and it was important to have some
kind of a plan. He felt they needed a little bettex direction than what
they have had.
Supervisor Moseley was concerned about a moratorium being placed
in the county because of what it would do to the economy. She has heard that
the Board is accountable for everything that goes on in this county but
there are appointed and elected department heads that have to be
accountable for their budgets. It is up to the department heads to say
what they can get along with and it is wrong to say that throwing money
at everything is a cure.
APPEARANCE: FLO O'FLATTERY
Ms. O'Flattery spoke regarding the efforts that had been made on
behalf of the citizens on the Butte Creek Canyon rezone matter and hoped that
they did not have to go through it again. She felt the citizens had put
the Board into office and were depending on the Board to listen tb the
citizens. She felt the citizens had spoken when the vote was taken on the
canyon rezone.
Chairman Wheeler advised she kept hearing about the results of
the election on the rezone in the canyon but the fact is that there
was a very low turn out of registered voters in the county.
APPEARANCE: ARTHUR B. WIGGINS
Mr. Wiggins stated that the Board had adopted a resolution on May 25,
1982 relative to the drainage fees in the Thermalito area. These fees would
be assessed for people obtaining building permits in Thermalito. The cost
of the fees is $250. He is trying to obtain an Aunt Minnie for his property.
He felt the amount of .drainage fees seemed to be a little out of line fox a
one-year permit. He asked that the Board consider an amendment to the fees
or eliminate the fees for the Aunt Minnie applications. He had applied for
the Aunt Minnie prior to the adoption of this resolution.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, assumed that what would be done was
to amend the drainage plan and fees established in the Thermalito area to
provide that a permit for an Aunt Minnie would not be required to pay for
drainage fees or permits.
Page 107.
June'8, 1982
June 8, 1982
8;
5
963
964
Mr. Wiggins felt that there should be an incremental fee charged
for the Aunt 'Minnie. He felt that tike occupation under the Aunt Minnie would
be around five or six years. To make it equitable there could be the imposition
of an incremental fee of $25 for a period of five years payable with the
yearly fee of $37.50 for the permit. There is already a cost on the property
for improvements of between $G,000 and $5,000 that are not recoverable when
there is no longer a need for the Aunt 2iinnie.
County Counsel to work on this matter with theEnvironmental Health
Department and report back to the Board.
DISCUSSION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF BUTTE COUNTY' ABULT DAY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL
Discussion of the letter from Northern California Health Systems
Agency relative to the establishment of the Butte County Adult Day Health
Planning Council held at this time.
Kathleen Stevenson,. Area Agency on Aging, spoke in support of
the resolution of intention to establish a Butte County Adult Day Health
Planning Council. This is the result of the enactment of AB 1611. In order
to proceed with the establishment of this council, it is•necessary for the
Board to adopt a resolution of intention and set a public hearing date on
this matter. The purpose of the council is to do a study to find if there
is a need for this type of matter.. .The reason the Butte County Senior
Citizens felt it was appropriate timing for the planning council is because
the State Department of Health advised there are now start up costs available
for rural counties.
Chairman Wheeler referred the matter to Supervisor Moseley and
the Administrative Office staff to make a proposal back to the Board for
formalization.
Alice Smith, president of the Butte County Council of Senior
Citizens, appreciated the Board's continuing support for the council. She
submitted possible appointments to the Board for appointment to the planning
council.
Ms. Stevenson.,advised that the law provides that if the B oard
passes the resolution tfiat sets the public hearing, ae the time of the
hearing that would be the time for persons or groups interested in belonging
to the planning council to be appointed.
APPEARANCE: MARGARET REIV~JS
Ms. Reivus was concerned about the feelings of the Board to Mr.
Luvaas. She felt there might be some personal feelings toward Mr. Luvaas
and hoped they would not color the Board's feelings. She would like to
be sure the Board is keeping an open mind. She knew there were people who
were not present at the hearings of the Board who would have liked to
attend but they do work and she felt it was the Board's job to attend the
meetings.
Chairman Wheeler advised she would not like to see the Board make
a decision based on emotionalism. The Board members are elected by the
people to represent their viewpoints. She hoped the Board took into
consideration even those people who are not present at the hearing when
making decisions on issues.
Supervisor Saraceni questioned kls. Reivus about her feelings
of having a moratorium placed in Butte County.
Ms. Reivus felt that the Board members had more information than
she did and felt it was the Board responsibility to consider the entire
picture and-not just each. individual project. She felt that in terms of
Page 108.
June 8, 1982
8 2-,
b ',
965
966
_ June 8, 19_82 ____ ____
a moratorium if the Board had a master plan to follow, then the residents
and citizens would find it easier to follow the leadership of the Board.
Chairman Wheeler advised that was the purpose of the General Plan.
Mr. Luvaas was-one of the master designers of th.e map and language of the
General Plan. Ib is not as though there was. not public participation
in the process and total responsbiliCy lies-with the Board. The citizens
of the county have been active participants in tiie framing of development
and where it will be placed in the county. The reason the counties in
the state are facing shortfalls is tiecause of more people and growth.
Growth is inevitable. A moratorium would stop future development and
construction in tfiis county. That would have an effect on the growth
and economy of the county.
Mr. Reivus was not saying there should lie no growth. It is
projected there will be many snore people coming to this county. She felt
that for this reason there should be a master plan of where the people
would be located.
Supervisor Moseley felt that a moratorium would effect all the
citizens in the county. It is a dangerous thing to impose.
Ms. Reivus felt that the developers should be paying their share
rather than imposing additional expenses on the residents of the county.
She felt they needed to be more involved in the fiscal responsibility of
the land divisions and developments.
APPEARANCE: JOHN LUVAAS
Mr. Luvaas felt that perhaps the Board was a little excited about
the word moratorium. The request was for a temporary moratorium on all
rural residential subdivisions. They were not talking about commercial
areas. They were not talking about approved divisions. The request was
to stop all new rural subdivisions until a fiscal analysis can be made
of the fiscal, needs and environmental concerns. The main thing they were
asking for is a study of what it would cost the taxpayers in the county,
to find out the overall cumulative effects that would be placed on the
county.
DISCUSSION OF CHEMICAL PLANT ON DAYTON ROAD
Mrs. A3.ice Lord spoke regarding the chemical plant on Dayton Road.
Supervisor Dolan presented the following letters i`n opposifion.sto
the operation of the retail sales chemical plant on Dayton Road:
Byron Tobey .
Ruby Real Stilley
Mrs. Helen Parks
Mary Merrick
Iva Morgan
Vera Summers
Bill Cottingham
Supervisor Dolan made a report on the situation at this time. The
retail sales was legally established. The legal determination comes from
the Planning Commission's discussion that the sale of fertilizer was appropriate
in the "A-10" zone. There have been concerns from adjoining property owners
about Jack's Orchard Supply which seem to center around three things: 1)
commercial use creating incompatibility with residences and agricultural
area; 2} safety concerns about the high speed arterial road and the fact
commercial use of the property will attract large trucks, personal health
concerns because of the loading of fertilizer and chemicals from overhead,
Page 109.
June '8, 1482
', June 8, 1982 --------- _ --_ __-__
62- potential of what happens if the chemicals and fertilizers are on the
v '; ground and drain off onto the adjoining properties, and the possibility
of some kind of accident and spill; 3~ the understanding by everyone of
hat the extent of the use will be.
The Planning Commission winutes:indicated agricultural chemical
ertilizer insectidde sales. Then there was an April, 1982 letter defining
nd narrowing the definition. She suggested that in the future that any
otental incompatible use and the question of whether it would be allowable
nder the zoning ordinance should come to the Board rather than the
lanning Commission. She suggested that she sit down with the Planning
taff to work out some agreement on the use of the property and the safety
oncerns and any expansion of the use. She was nat suggesting that the
ounty tell Mr. Vanella to move his business-but to come to an understanding
nd containment so there can be co-existence.
Mrs. Lord stated there were five other chemical fertilizer plants
that are not anywhere near residences. She wanted to know why this one came
100-feet from their residence. She asked why they were being pushed out.
There were two hours when there was the filling of the bulk storage that
there were fumes and blowing residue. She had nose bleeds for three days
after that. Last Thursday they again filled the bulk storage. They have
to stay away from their property. She set out the other conditions she
had suffered after the filling of the bulk storage. She felt the operation
should be closed down.
Larry Lord advised that when he checked into this matter, he
as told that the plant was allowed to move-into the area because of the
nterpretation of a gray area in the zoning book. He read from the zoning
ook, page 49, section 24-75, part A, subsection 3 about agricultural
rocessing plants. He felt that they should have considered page 9, section
4-21.34 under definition of agricultural processing plants. He read from
he minutes of May 4, 1982 and referred to the article in the Chico
nterprise Record on May 29, 1982 about this problem, and the overturn of
tanker and how it might effect Lake Shasta. The truck was loaded with
hick propane that was used for fertilizer. He wondered if the Board
ould afford to have this type of use in this zone surrounded by people.
he Environmental Health Director's report was given on May 11, 1982, and
e made reference to the comments in the report about the fumes and odor.
Supervisor Dolan stated she would like this matter also referred
to County Counsel. The concerns should be answered and a person should not
be afraid to use their property or have their health effected by going out
their door. At the same time, the county has issued this permit legally.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, understood the problem as being
the fact that the county has said this could be placed an this property and
issued a building permit. He felt that at this point, the county would be
unable to reject the permit on the basis that the Planning Commission gave
the authorization. They could change the zoning codes to make sure this
type of use will not be permitted. This would give the county control over
any expansion. Another thing that could take place is to have the Air
Pollution Control Officer run a check on the odors and see if there can be
some immediate relief. Unless there was something in the building permit
relative to the distance away from the property line or structures, there
is no control over the location of the building. There is always the
option of Mr. and Mrs. Lord pursuing the private nuisance theory. Since
the county has taken the position this is a permi.ted use, they cannot go
into court on a public nuisance complaint. If the country tried to do this,
he felt they would have a lawsuit brought against the county.
Page i10.
June $, 1982
June 8, 1982 _ _ _ _
82-', _ _ Mrs.. Lord stated that originally the permit was for a-barn. There
~ have been things moved and hidden behind the two-story old house on the
', property. This•is next to their house and well. When these people know
anyone is coming, they-move these things.
The matter was referred to County Counsel, staff-and Supervisor
Dolan to get this matter resolved.
Mr. Lord stated that according to the hfay 4, 1982 minutes of
the Board meeting discussion was held that if there was to be.a Board
interpretation for dispensing of fertilizer, this would not be an allowed
use.
Bettye Kirsher, planning director, stated that when this was
originally discussed, she told the Board she felt in deferring to Counsel
in effect that if the Board chose to make the decision there might be
limits. If there is a need for further interpretation on that, the
Board could limit to what use could be through an allowable use.
967 APPEARANCE: THELMA DALBY
Ms. Dalby stated that in 1972 she purchased 40 acres of land in
the Bloomer Mountain area that was illegally subdivided. In 1974, the
courts found this to be an illegal subdivision and they were informed that
there would be a $100 fee for a certificate of compliance on each parcel.
She had given two parcels to her sister in 1973. Her sister is now ready
to sell the parcels. She is asemi-invalid and wodowed and the $200 fee
would be a hardship.
The matter was referred to Supervisor Saraceni to report back
to the Board.
John Mendonza, public woxks department, advised that the lots
had to be combined to meet the Health Department requirements and therefore
there would be one fee.
968 APPEARANCE: ROD WEYAND, BCEA
Mr. Weyand asked that the Board consider holding occasional evening
meetings. He also spoke regarding SB 1850 which passed in 1980 on the
disclosure of information. He was having a problem getting some of the
information that is presented to the Board. This comes from department
heads who come into the meeting to discuss a matter and hand out the paper-
work at tfi at time. The law says that everyone has a right to see that
information. Tn the future, he hoped that when people brought in the information
that the people would have the right to see that information. He would like
to see the Board stick closer to the agenda.
Comments taken under submission. The Board will consider looking
into holding some night meetings.
RECESS: 1:12 p. m.
RECONVENE: 1:28 p.m.
969 CLOSED HEARING: JOHN D. DRAKE & HOWARD 250M REZONE FROM "A-2" AND "S-H" TO
"PA C" TO ALLOW RESIDENTTAL AEVELOPrIENT NORTHEAST OF CHI CO
The closed public hearing on John D. Drake and Howard Isom rezone
(item on which an EIR was previous certified} from "A .2" (general} and "S-H"
(scenic highway) to "EA-C" (planned area-cluster} to allow a residential
development of 109 parcels of one-half to three acres each and a common open
space with pulilic facilities to be~maintained by a homeow ners association
on approximately 1,050 acres. located on the east side of State Highway 32
and klumboldt Road, approximately five miles northeast of Chico, identified
as AP 46-71-17, 46-Z1-18 (portipna; 46-35-4 and 46-35-23 was held as continued.
Page 111.
June 8, 1982
June 8, 19_82 _ _ _ _
S2'- Bettye Kirsher, planning director, advised that the Board had
$ ' directed that staff address the cumulative effects. The Board has received
the memo from Steve Streeter of their office and copies of the additional
information. There is concern that since this is a closed hearing that
the additional information would have to go back through the clearing house
', and the hearings would be reopened. The applicant's representative disagrees.
', Possibly tfi e Board might want to let the applicant discuss-that one point.
', Del Siemsen,,county counsel, stated that he understood that the
cumulative impacts question was the additional information to be put into
the environmental document.- Prior to that the EIR was certified for the
specific plan. This would constitute a supplement to the EIR and would
ave to be recirculated and the Board would have to hold public hearings
on it.
Ms. Kirsher stated that the applicant agreed these were comments
to the comments and were not a supplement to the EIR. She felt they should
ave the opportunity to discuss that much with the Board.
Supervisor Dolan felt that this was substantive information and
if the Board had certified the EIR and then added to it. She felt in fairness
and legally the Board should reopen the hearings, because this is new.
Mr. Siemsen stated that the impact report was prepared for a
pecific plan and there is nothing wrong with using the document, but
hen it is supplemented, the document has to be recirculated and a public
eating held. He suggested that the Board reopen the hearing on the rezone
tself and continue it to the same time as the hearing set for the EIR,
hick would be published for hearing. This would have to go back through
he clearinghouse.
The hearing was reopened at this time and continued to June 29 ,
982 at 1:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the supplemental EIR with it to
e republished. Planning staff to respond and send to clearinghouse for
espouse.
Chairman Wheeler read the letter from Thomas McCready into
record relative to this project. '
Appearing:
1. Jere Bolster, representing the applicant. Mr. Bolster asked
hat rather than submitting this matter back to- the clearinghouse, if the
oard would give the applicant an opportunity to set out the reasons why
hey do not-agree with County Counsel. He asked that if the Board was going
o reopen the hearing that they not go back through everything that has
een said. He felt if '.this were the case the proceedings would never cease.
Mr. Siemsen reiterated his comments relative to the requirements
Eor rehearing the supplement to the EIR. The hearing would be on the
>upplement to the EIR only. As to'hFr. Bolster's comments regarding the
Eact that the process would never cease, the Board could have accepted
:he prior EIR as being adequate for that project, but the chose to supplement
.he EIR regarding additional information and to study the cumulative effects.
Che process will certainly stop at one point. It is up to the Board whether
:hey want to allow the applicant to come before the Board to set forth
:heir reasons for not wanting this to go back though the clearinghouse and
~.nother public hearing. The county has been sued a number of times in
terms of environmental documents and attorney fees-have been awarded against
the county. If the county is sued, it is not the applicant who will be paying
she attorney fees but the county.
Page 112.
iTune 8, 1982
8 2-',
_ _ June 8, 1982 _ --____-- _--
Supervisor-Saraceni felt the applicant should have the opportunity
to make their arguments for not readvertisng the. supplement.
3~r. Siemsen questioned whether it was the applicant's suggestion
that the county hold off sending this back to the clearinghouse until after
a presentation had been made. If this was the case, the hearing could not
be held on June 29, 1982.
Mr. Bolster was asking for one week for the opportunity to try
to define the limits of the testimony. They will pass the timeline for
certifying the EIR and they are also trying to process this project
correctly .also. He felt the Planning Department should be allowed to
process this through the clearinghouse and for them to be given the
opportunity to define what would be discussed at the hearing. Thera has
been a number of people testifying on the issue everytime they get to the
end of the meeting. They are trying to work with the neighbors and he
would hate to keep rehashing things that have been discussed.
Mr. Siemsen advised that if the applicant wanted to discuss the
contents of the document, that should wait until the public hearing date.
If they want to discuss the scope of the hearing, there would be nothing
wrong with them coming back next week fox that purpose.
Applicant to be allowed to come back on June 15, 1982 to discuss
the scope of the hearing to be held on June 29, 1982.
2. Kelly Meagher. Mr. Meagher supported the opinion of County
Counsel. This is a question of fairness and the public should have an
opportunity to speak to this matter. The hearing has been continued as
a closed hearing. He agreed this was a substantive change of such importance
and should be sent back and looked at. He was confused by what the scope
of the hearing would be since state law says there is a need to advertise
and allow for the giving of comments. He supported that action.
WAIVING OF SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING BUTTE COUNTY
CODE SECTION 24 TO PROVIDE FOR CONSIDERATION OF "CONDITIONAL ZONING" CONTINUED
TO JUNE 15, 1982
_.. The report to the Board on the proposed amendment to the Butte
County Code Section 24 to provide for the consideration of "conditional
zoning" and consideration of waiving the second reading and adoption of
the ordinance was continued to June 15, 1982.
970
Joe Bandy, agricultural commissioner and director of w eights
and measures, set out the memo relative to his position as Director of
Weights and Measures. He spoke regarding the fact there was no salary
adjustment made when he became the Director of Weights and Measures.
Two years ago he was reappointed as Agricultural Commissioner. He set
out the information from his memos regarding a request for pay adjustment.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY DIRECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND ,MEASURES FOR FOUR YEAR TERM
971
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, Joe Bandy was appointed the Director of Weights
and Measures for a four year term.
ITEMS CONTINUED TO JUNE 15 1982
The following items were continued to June Z5, 1982:......__.
972
1. Appoi:ntanents to the Gridley 3Semorial Hall Committee
2. Appointments to the Biggs Memorial Hall Committee
Page 113.
June '8, 19$2
8 2-
_ June 8, 1982 _ _ _
_ _ _ - - _ = W ~ - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ - - - _ _ - - -
- 3. Appointments to the Paradise Memorial Ha11 Committee
4. Appointment to the Community Action Board, District 1
5. Appointment to the Butte County Council of Senior Citizens
6. Report by Supervisor Dolan concerning the research of AB 90
application for funds.
7. Discussion of County Supervisors Association of California
assessment to finance renovation of Sacramento building.
NOTICE OF HEARING BY BUTTE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT FOR PROPOSED
FEE SCHEDULE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE
Joe Bandy, air pollution control officer, submitted the proposed
notice of hearing for proposed fee schedule for Air Pollution Control to
the Board for their revipw and acceptance. This also includes the executive
summary.
973
Notice directed to be published
APPOINTMENT TO COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD, DISTRICT 1
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, Joan Townsend was agpointed to the Community Action
Board, District 1.
974
COMMUNICATIONS
U. S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor forwards their assessment
of the CETA Program performance in Butte County for the quarter
ending March 31, 1982. Referred to Manpower for information.
975
County of Shasta, Sheriff. John Ba1ma, sheriff, provides notification of an
increased rate for the cost of maintaining prisoners at the Crystal
Creek facility to be increased from $15.50 per day to $20.00 per day.
See motion following communications.
Solano County. The County Administrator. Richard E. Watson forwards notification
of an increase in rates at the Fouts Springs Boys Ranch amounting to
an increase of $130 per month. See motion following communications.
Hamby Surveying, Inc. The engineers, on behalf of Harry E. Koenig,=•appeal
condition li and 17 on tentative parcel map, AP 63-12-04 (portion),
dividing 21.7 acres to create four parcels on 6.6 acres and three at
more or less 5 acres located on the southwest corner of A. J. Stohr
Road and Forest Ranch Road, Forest Ranch area; and, on behalf of
Pat Gates, appeal conditions 15 and 16 on tentative parcel map,
AP 63-12-12, dividing 23 acres more or less to create four parcels,
two at 6.5 acres and two at 5 acres, more or less, on the northwest
corner of A. J. Stohr Road and Forest Ranch Road, Forest Ranch area:
Set for hearing June 29, 1982 at 10:30 a.m.
Ringel & Associates, Inc. The engineers, on behalf of Bruce Roe, appeal
condition 10 (must meet City of Chico requirements at access road
connection with Cohasset Road) on tentative parcel map, AP 48-01-16,
dividing 40 acres to create four parcels of 10 acres+ for residential
ranchette use located approximately 3/4 mile north of Eatorn Road
and 0.3 mile east of Cohasset Road, north Chico area. Set fox
hearing June 29, 1982 at 10:45 a.m.
Page .114.
3une 8, 1982
', ,Tune 8, 1982
82- ity of Chico. The Mayor writes. requesting grass- and .weed abatement on the
~' north: side. of Lindo Channel between Longfellow. Bridge and Manzanita
Avenue. Referred to Fire Department and Administrative Office.
', ity of Chico. The Mayor provides information regarding the concerns of
several citizens on developments being considered in Stilson Canyon
', and on the south: s2 de of State Highway 32. Handled earlier in the
meeting.
ty of Chico. Fred Davis, city manager, at the direction of the City Council,
provides the Board with a copy of a xii.nute Order offering all property
tax revenue derived from the Cohasset Road Annexation Road District
No. 18. The Administrative Officer, Supervisor Dolan and Chairman
Wheeler will be meeting with. the city on Friday.
Brand,. Seymour and Rohwer. The attorneys provide information on
issues regarding the Adams-Esquon Water District, Gorrill Ranch,
on liehalf of the Nevis family. Information; hold and file for
further reference.
Cromwell. Mr. Cromwell submits a claim in the amount of $250,000 as a
result of an occurance on February 21, 1982 with the Butte County
Sheriff's Department. See motion following communications.
lliam C. Barry, attorney at law. The attorney, on behalf of the Town of
Paradise, submits a claim to seek equitable and implied indemnity
from the County of Butte in the matter of Catherine Drake vs. the
Town of Paradise. See motion following communications.
ounty of Siskiyou resolution. The Board of Supervisors of the County of
Siskiyou forwards their resolution in opposition to the transfer
of medically indigent adults to counties, AB 3480. See motion
following communications.
orthern~alifornia Health Systems Agency. The Agency provides information
pertaining to the establishment of the Butte County Adult Day
Health Planning Council. Handled earlier in the meeting.
lifornia Health Systems Agency. The Agency is recruiting nominees
for a governmental health provider vacancy on their Board of
Directors. Information; no action taken.
& Beasley, a law corporation. The attorneys, on behalf of the
Northern California Emergency Medical Care Council, provide information
on the concept of reorganization of the Council to a non-profit
public benefit corporation funded by users. Information; no action
taken.
tudent Nurses' Association of California. Marlene Housman of the Scholarships
Committee, Student Nurses' Association of California, per AB 558,
provides information on the establishment of a scholarship fund by
the Butte County Board of Supervisors for student nurses. Referred
to Administrative Office to make response from the Board.
. and Mrs. Archie Paterson, Chico. Mr. and 1~Irs. Paterson submit additional
information relating to their appeal of the Gerald Lugenbeel
proposed negative declaration, approved use permit to allow home
occupation and variance to the sideyard setback requirements on
property located southwest of Chico on the northeast comer of
Elk. Avenue and Pierce Avenue. To be considered at the time of
the hearing on June 22 1982. Copies to be made for Board members.
gage 115.
June 8, 1982
s2- 976
~'
9771,
9781
9791
9801
9811
982
June 8, 1982
APPROVE INCREASED"RATE FOR CRYSTAL CREEK.~ACILZTY"
On -motion of Supervisor 2'foseley, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the increased-rate for .the cost of .maintaining
prisoners at the Crystal Creek: facility from $15.50-per day to $20.00 per
day was approved.
APPROVE FOUTS-SPRINGS BOYS RANCH. CONTRACT AMENDktENT
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by $:uperyisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the contract amendment for the Fouts Springs Boys
Ranch which-increases the rates to $130 per month was approved subject to
Counsel and Auditor's review and the Chairman authorized to sign.
REJECT CLAIMS OF KENNY CROMWELL AND TOWN OF PARADISE
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the following claims were rejected and referred to
County Counsel and Risk 24anagement Coordinator:
1. Claim of Kenny Cromwell in the amount of $250,000 as a result
of an occurrence on February 21, 1982 with the Butte County Sheriff's
Degartment. '
2. Claim of Town of Paradise seeking equitable and implied
indemnity from the County of Butte in the matter of Catherine Drake vs.
the Town of Paradise.'
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-93 IN OPPOSITION TO AB 3480 TRANSFER OF MEDICALLY INDIGENT
ADULTS TO COUNTIES: SUPPORT OF COUNTY OF SISKIYOU RESOLUTION
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-93 supporting County of Siskiyou
resolution in opposition to AB 34$0 transfer of medically indigent adults
to counties was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign, with copies
to go to the necessary agencies and legislators.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moseley gave the Administrative Office letter from
Frieda Boeger relative to the display for the State Capitol for answering.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET FOR THAD WAKEMAN APPEAL OF CONDITION ON TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP CHANGED FROM JUNE 15 1982 TO JUNE 22 1982
The public hearing date set for June 15, 1982 for the Thad Wakeman
appeal of condition on tentative parcel map, AP 30-10-2-06, located on 16th
and Grand, Thermalito (provide a 60-foot right-of-way) was changed to June 22,
1982 at 10:00 a. m.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moseley questioned what had been done with the Durham
Cemetery.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, reported that the Hays have submitted
the necessary figures to the District Attorney. The District Attorney's
Office is checking the figures to see which are appropriate for the sale
of the property owned liy the Burial Society in Chico.
Supervisor Saraceni stated the "K" Code owner-built housing code
was passed some time ago and there is a need for an ordinance to implement
the code.
Mr. Siemsen advised that this was being placed into proper format
for the Board's- adoption.
Page 116.
June'8, 1982
June 8, 1982
82- AbJOUTtNMENT
~''', Thexe.being nothing Further before the Board at this time, the
', meeting was adjourned at 2;38 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, June 15, 1982
at 9:00 a.m.
ATTEST: ELEANOR 2~1, BECKER, COUNTY CLERK
and ex-officio Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
rman, Board of Supervisors
~ ~ /~ J
Page 117.
June' 8, 1982