HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061786June 77, 198fi
CaTI to order - Board of Supervisors room, County Administration
Building, 25 County Center Drive, Orovi7le. Present:
Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, McInturf, Wheeler and
Chairman McLaugh1in; Martin J. Nichols, chief administrative
officer; Harvey Wallace, county counsel; and Rubye Townsley, deputy
clerk of the Board.
Pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.
86-346 Additional items from Board members to be addressed at the end
of the day.
1. Supervisor Wheeler - submission of dues invoice from CSAC;
discussion of State Court of Appeals order regarding State
Water Re50UrCe5 Control Board.
2. Supervisor Fulton - discussion of debris in Lake Orovi7le.
3. Chairman McLaughlin - appointments.
86-347 Ttems removed from Consent Agenda. for Board consideration and
action:
1. `Approval of minutes of May 20, May 27 and June 3, 1986.
2. 1986 State community Development Block Grant Program -
notification has been received from the State Department of
Housing and Community Development that Butte County's
application was not among those selected for funding.
3. Salary ordinance amendment - the ordinance creates 34 new
positions in the Welfare Department for administration of
the CAIN Program, establishes flexible staffing of the legal
clerk series and places all appointed department heads on
a flat rate salary at E step of the current range.
Page 425
June 77, 1986
Consent Agenda
86-348 7. Budget transfers. APPROVED BUDGET TRANSFERS B-301, B-304,
B-305, 8-307, B-308, B-310, B-317, B-312, B-313, B-314, B--375,
B-316, B-317 AND B-320.
2. Greater Avenues for Independence {GAIN) - a public hearing
on the GAIN plan i s required by the State Department of Soci a7
Services Manual of Eligibility and Assistance Standards
Section 42-720.41 to allo~r the public to present their views
and suggestions. SET HEARING DATE FOR JULY 1, 1986 AT
11:00 A.M.
3. Butte County Board of Supervisors - proposed negative
declaration regarding environmental impact and General Plan
amendment to add an "urban reserve" designation and related
policy statements to the Land Use Element and a rezone from
SR-1 (suburban residential - one acre parcels} to A-5
(agricultural - five acre parcels); M-2 (heavy industrial},
A-5 and AR-MH-1 (agricultural residential mobile home -
one acre parcels) to A-10 (agricultural - 10 acre parcels)
and S-R (suburban residential) and R-3 (medium density
residential) to SR-1 far property located in the Gridley area
(File 85-60 A and B}. SET HEARING DATE FOR JULY 15, 1986
AT 2:00 P.M.
4. Butte County Planning Commission - proposed negative declaration
regarding environmental impact and rezone from SR-7 (suburban
residential - one acre parcels) to M-2 (heavy industrial)
for property located on the north side of West Liberty, east
of Morrison Slough, 1500 feet west of Highway 99, identified
as AP 21-27-20, 27, Gridley (File 85-60C}, SET HEARING DATE
FOR JULY 15, 1986 AT 2:00 P.M.
5. Appointments to Kimshew Cemetery District - action requested -
APPOINT~ HELEN GARTHNER, FLORENCE BROWER RND HERMAN EISAN TO
SERVE UNTIL JULY 7990.
6. Final map = Robert Cowden Subdivision - the developer has
provided a cash deposit to guarantee maintenance of facilities
far a period of one year starting May 29, 1985 on the 10-lot
subdivision, AP 27-05-06, property located 600 feet easterly
of Country Club Drive, 1400 feet northerly of Grubbs Road,
Palermo area. APPROVED THE FINAL MAP AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT.
7. Langerwerf Dairy, Inc. - Land Conservation Act agreement
cancellation -- the cancellation fees in the amount of $1,107.80
have been paid for cancellation of the Land Conservation Act
agreement for AP 40-T4-O1 (portion), property located on the
north side of Durham-Dayton Highway, 1/4 mile east of Esquon
Road, Durham area. DIRECTED THAT THE CLERK OF THE BOARD RECORD
THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF CANCELLATION ON THE ABOVE PROPERTY.
Page 426
June 17, 7986
86-348
{Cont'd} 8. Comments on proposed Land and Resource Management Pian for
Lassen ~iational Forest. INFORMATION ONLY.
9. Law Office of Maxim N. Bach - on behalf of Genevieve Couch,
et al, files a claim in the amount of $195,000,000 as a result
of alleged damages incurred on or about February 20, 1986
involving a levee break in the Marysville area and resulting
flooding. REJECTED CLAIM AND REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL AND
RISK MANAGEMENT.
10. Keith 5. Humpherys, attorney at law - on behalf of
Lucille 0. Schultz, files a claim in an unspecified amount
as a result of alleged injuries and damages sustained on or
about June T8, 1985 as a result of an accident involving a
county vehicle. REJECTED CLAIM FOR NOT BEING TIMELY FILED.
11. Keith S. Humpherys, attorney at law - on behalf of
Lucile 0. Schultz, fires application to present a late claim
as a result of alleged injuries and damages incurred on or
about June 18, 1985 involving a county-owned vehicle. DENIED
APPLICATION TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM.
12. Data processing equipment - requested is acquisition of a
disk drive, disk pack and disk controller at a cost not to
exceed $6,000 to assist in compiling direct assessment tax
rate data. Budget transfer B-314 has been prepared to provide
the necessary appropriation. AUTHORIZED ACQUISITION OF FIXED
ASSETS.
13. Drug test equipment - Sheriff - Board authorization is requested
to acquire a drug detection system at an estimated cost of
$4,700 to provide drug testing .capability for the work
alternative and work furlough programs operating in the new
facility. Budget transfer B-32O has been prepared to provide
the necessary appropriation. AUTHORIZED ACQUISITION OF FIXED
ASSETS.
14. Acceptance of fixed asset - Fire Department - the Clipper
Mills Volunteer Fire Company has purchased a 1954 GMC fire
engine with funds donated by residents of the community and
request the Board accept ownership of the engine for insurance
purposes. ACCEPTED DONATION OF FIRE ENGINE.
15. Investments information report - the Treasurer submits the
May 3T, T986 report in accordance with AB 1073 and the county's
investment policy. ACCEPTED FOR INFORMATION.
16. Penalty abatement requests - change of ownership reports.
APPROVED THE FOLLOWING PENALTY ABATEMENT REQUESTS AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: JOSEPH D'ANDREA, RP 013-
16-0-043-0; MR. & MRS. EDWARD G. KLEINERT, AP 069--12-0-034-0;
VAN MARSHALL AND GORDON AND MRRILYN MARSHALL, AP 045-09-4-015-0;
AUSTIN HOME FURNISHERS, INC., AP 004-28-1-002-0. DENIED THE
FOLLOWING: JAMES W. LEDGERWOOD, AP 039-32-0-064-Q.
Page 427
June 17, 1986
86-348
(Cont'd) 17. Local Agency Investment Fund - a resolution has been prepared
specifying the county's authorization to use the State of
California's Local Agency Investment Fund for investment
monies in the Butte County Treasury. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 86-76
AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
18. Appropriations limit (County of Butte) - a resolution has
been prepared establishing the appropriations ]imit for the
County of Butte for 7986-87 as required by Section 7910 of
the Government Code in the amount of $29,959,763. ADOPTED
RESOLUTION 86-77 AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
19. Appropriations limit (Special Districts) - a resolution has
been prepared establishing the appropriations limit for Special
Districts under control of the Board of Supervisors far fiscal
year 7986-87 as required by Section 7010 of the Government
Code. The resolution sets forth various appropriations limits
far the districts. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 86-78 AND AUTHORIZED
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
20. City of Oroville - Highway 162 widening - the city has
requested that the county adopt a resolution declaring it
has no interest in acquiring fee title to the Southern Pacific
Railroad Spur Line (subject to existing easements of record} -
action requested - ADOPTED RESOLUTION 86-79 AND AUTHORIZED
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
21. Contract Change Order No. 1 - Pavement Overlay on
Oroville-Quincy Highway, Forbestown Road and Lower Wyandotte
Road, Project Na. AC-86-1B. CCO No. T in the increasing
amount of $59,759.77 provides for additiona] overlay on
Forbestown Road and funds are avai]abTe from the origina]
project appropriation. APPROVED CHANGE ORDER, AUTHORIZED
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN, AND AUTHORIZED THE AUDITOR TO MAKE
PAYMENT FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION.
22, Notices of completion:
a. Paving Overlay on Cohasset Road and Skyway, Project
No. AC-86-1A.
b. Paving Overlay on Orovilie-Quincy Highway, Forbestown
Road and Lower Wyandotte Road, Project No. AC-86-1B.
c. Richvale Highway from 1.3 miles to 3.0 miles east of
Aquas Frias Road, Project No. 25202-86-7_
A1T work on the projects has been completed in accordance
with the plans and specifications. ACCEPTED PROJECTS AND
AUTHORIZED FILING OF NOTICES OF COMPLETION.
23. Self-Insurance Program - Certificates of
a resolution has been prepared declaring
intention to proceed with participation in th~
Tiabi]ity se]f-insurance program. ADOPTED
AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGH.
Page 428
Participation -
Butte County's
CSAC-EIA pooled
RESOLUTION 86-8O
June 17, 1986
86-348
{Cont'd) 24. Mork Training Center agreement - the agreement, in the maximum
amount of $6,600, to develop prevocational and supplemental
vocational services to .Mental Health clients covers the period
April T through June 30, ]986. APPROVED CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
25. Community Living Centers, dba Creekside, contract addendum -
the addendum increases the contract from $163,850 to $167,620
and amends the interim rate for the period July 1 through
August 31, 1986 from a maximum of $32,770 to $33,524. APPROVED
ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
26. Satellite health agreement - the Private Industry Council
has accepted the county's offer to cover their employees
under a satellite health agreement. This is a standard
agreement and the PIC wi11 be billed directly by Blue Shield
for premium payments. AUTHORIZED THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR
TO EXECUTE A SATELLITE HEALTH AGREEMENT WITH THE PIC.
27. Agreement name change - conditional zoning agreement -
pursuant to Board of Supervisors action on April T5, 1986,
and as a result of change of ownership, the exhibit to
Resolution 86-53 is intended to change the name from Diamond
Land Corporation to Louisiana Pacific Corporation. APPROVED
THE NAME CHANGE AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE REVISED
AGREEMENT.
28. Amendment no. 2 - Butte County Transit - the amendment
continues the Butte County Transit service until June 30,
1987; provides for direct payment of insurance costs and
establishes a $23 per vehicle service hour rate of payment
to the current contractor, Westcoach, Inc. Butte County
funding for 1986-87 is $155,393 and funded from Transportation
Development Act Funds {SB 325 and SB 620). The budget has
been reviewed and approved by the Intercity Transit Committee.
APPROVED AMENDMENT N0. 2 AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
29. Amendment to 1985-8fi County Medical Service Program {CMSP) -
an amendment has been prepared to the contract with the State
Department of Hearth Services which allows for the reallocation
of eligibility costs. APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT AND
AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN,
30. Palermo pollution study contract - a contract has been prepared
with the firm of Cook and Associates in the amount of $78,856
to perform the Palermo pollution study. APPROVED CONTRACT
AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY
COUNTY COUNSEL.
Page 429
June 17, 1986
86- 348
{Cont'd} 31. Small water systems contract amendment - an amendment has
been prepared to the contract with the State Department of
Health Services increasing the amount payable to Butte County
by $3,613 and extending the term of the contract through
November 1, 1986.. APPROVED AMENDMENT N0. 85-86582-A1 AND
AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
32. Professional counseling services agreements -- Clarence Mahler,
Ph.D., and Rod Letner, Ed.D. - the agreements, covering
the period from July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1987, are in
the amount of $60 per hour each and provide far group
counseling far adults being supervised by the Probation
Department. APPROVED AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN.
33. Fouts Springs Boys Ranch contract - an agreement has been
prepared with the ranch and provides for placement of juvenile
court wards. The contract is in the amount of $1,844 per
month per ward. APPROVED AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN.
34. Bar-O-Boys Ranch agreement - an agreement has been prepared
with the County of Del Norte for placement of juvenile court
wards at a cost of $1,200 per month per ward. APPROVED
AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
35. Diagnostic studies contract (CR) - an agreement has been
prepared with the State Youth Authority far diagnostic studies
ordered by the Butte County Juvenile Court in 1986-87 at
an established rate of $2,670 per month, or a portion thereof.
APPROVED AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
36. Attorney services agreement - Peter Billion Twede - an
agreement has been prepared to provide services in a Public
Guardian case in Butte County Superior Court at a rate of
$85 per hour, plus expenses. APPROVED AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZED
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
37. SB 2612 (Carpenter) - water facilities. OPPOSED BILL AND
AUTHORIZED LETTERS TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
38. Communications.
a. John K. Van de Kamp, attorney general - writes forwarding
information and stating his feelings concerning
Proposition 5i. AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN LETTER
REQUESTING SUPPORT FOR INSURANCE AND TORT REFORM.
Page 430
June 17, 1986
86-348
(Cont'd} 38. Communications {cont'd}
b. California Central valleys Flood Control Association --
forwards information and requests the Board join the
association. REFERRED TO BUDGET COMMITTEE.
c. California Mater Service Company - forwards their
application to the State Public Utilities Commission
far an increase in rates of approximately 9.9% for 1987
with further increases subsequent to 1987 of 2.2% for
19$8 and 1989 in its Chico-Wamilton City District.
INFORMATION ONLY.
d. City of Biggs W requests authorization to permit the
County Clerk to render election services to the city
at the November 4, 1986 General Election. AUTHORIZED
CONSOLIDATTON OF CITY ELECTION WITH GENERAL ELECTION.
e. Governor's Office - pursuant to the provisions of Elections
Code Section 2553, the Governor's Proclamation is forwarded
declaring that the statewide General Election wi71 be
held on November 4, 19$6. ACCEPTED FOR INFORMATION AND
REFERRED TO COUNTY CLERK.
f. Kaiser Engineers, Oakland - forwards a copy of
Oroville/Wyandotte Irrigation District's application
for a major license for the proposed French Creek Project
na. 5601. REFERRED TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW
AND COMMENTS.
Motion: APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA.
S M
Vote: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously carried}
Regular Agenda
86-349 Apprava7 of minutes of May 20, May 27 and June 3, 1986.
(SUPERVISOR McINTURF REQUESTED THE MINUTES OF JUNE 3, MINUTE
ORDER 86-319, BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THAT THE SECOND READING OF
THE ORDINANCE WAS WAIVED.)
Motion: APPROVED MINUTES OF MAY 20, MAY 27 AND JUNE 3, 1986 AS
AMENDED..
M S
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y
Page 431
5 Y {Unanimously carried}
June 17, 1986
86-350 1986 State Community Development 81ock Grant Program - notification
(91) has been received from the State Department of Housing and Community
Development that Butte County's application was not among those
selected for funding. (INFORMATION ONLY.}
8b-351 Salary ordinance amendment - the ordinance creates 34 new positions
(127} in the Welfare Department far administration of the GAIN Program,
establishes flexible staffing of the legal clerk series and places
a1T appointed department heads on a flat rate salary at E step
of the current range.
Motion: WAIVED THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE.
M S
Vote: T Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y {Unanimously carried}
86-352 Extra item:
(250)
1. Resolution recognizing OroviTTe Blues and Cultural Festival
Day. (Supervisor McInturf)
Motion: ADOPTED RESOLUTION 86-87.
M S
Vote: T Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously carried)
Regular Agenda
86-353 Consideration of resolution granting consent for the inclusion
(275} of county territory within the Sierra Sunrise Assessment District
(City of Chico). (WITHDRAL~JN FROM AGENDA.)
86-354 Presentation of the 1986/87 proposed county budget.
(29I} Motion: REQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBLE
ORDERLY, OR DISORDERLY IF NECESSARY, TRANSITION OF THE
WELFARE DEPARTMENT BACK TO THE STATE AND HAVE A REPORT
TO BOARD ON JULY 22.
S M
Vote: T N 2 Y 3 Y 5 Y 5 Y {Motion carried)
Motion: APPROVED TABULATIONS AS PROP05ED BUDGET; SET HEARING
DATE FOR JULY 22 AT 9:00 A.M.; AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION
~F THE PROPOSED BUDGET AT $5.00 PER COPY, AS OUTLINED
IN MEMO FROM CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATED JUNE 12,
T986.
M S
Vote: T Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously carried)
Page 432
June l7, 198b
86-355 Report to the Board on hid opening - Oroville-Chico Highway Bridge
{851) at Butte Creek, Bridge Replacement Project No. BRSOS-007(78).
Motion: AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BENCO CONTRACTING ~
ENGINEERING IN THE AMOUNT OF $922,132.
S M
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimaus1y carried)
86-356 Annual review of conditional zoning (Ordinance 2394 - File 84-13).
(950) INOA MONTH, ANDEANNUALLY THEREAFTERT~R TO SUPPLY AN UPDATED REPORT
Closed Session: The Board recessed at 9:45 a.m. for a closed
session on the Paulsen litigation, two personnel
matters and meet and confer.
Reconvene: The Board reconvened at 10:25 a.m. (NO ANNOUNCEMENTS.)
86-357 BidweTT Heights specific plan - staff requests direction from
(1130} the Board of Supervisors on how to proceed in view of Writ of
Mandate. {from 6/3/86)
Motion: Having reviewed and considered the final environmental
impact report, I move that the Board of Supervisors make
the fo71owing findings:
(T) That the lever of specificity of available
information in the EIR is sufficient to serve as a rational
basis for a decision with regard to the Specific P7 an.
(2) That the environmental impact report addresses
potential environmental impacts from anticipated bui7dout
of the BidweTT Heights project. These potential impacts
are divided into the categories of (1) "potentially
significant," requiring mitigation where feasible, and
(2} those impacts found to be "insignificant."
The Board finds that potential environmental impacts
of the project are as follows:
Page 433
June 17, 7986
(a) Insignificant impacts are subsidence, loss of
mineral resources, volcanism, water quality effects, air
pollution, aesthetics, noise, impacts on rare plants,
impacts on cultural resources, impact on public utilities,
alteration of drainage patterns and flow volumes, effects
on groundwater quality and impacts on schools.
(b) "Potentially significant" impacts are exposure to
seismic hazards, wildlife habitat reduction, traffic
increases at Santos Way and Highway 32, increased fire
danger and exposure to €ire hazard, increase in service
load an police and fire agencies, energy use by homes and
commuting vehicles, expansive soils, erosion and cumulative
impacts.
The Board finds that the potentially significant
effects are addressed in the Specific Plan as follows:
Exposure to seismic hazard. There is no evidence
of an active fault on the site. However, air photos
reveal some lineaments. This potential impact is
mitigated to a level o£ insignificance by
Condition 3,2.1 of the Specific Plan which requires
geological verification that lineaments do not
traverse building sites.
r Page 434
June 17, 1986
Wildlife habitat reduction. This is a regional
cumulative impact which requires a regional cumulative
solution which is beyond the scope of this one
project. Testimony at the hearings indicated the
greatest wildlife concern involved preservation of
deer winter range. According to the January fi, 1983,
Department of Fish and Game letter from Paul T. Jensen
to Steve Streeter, 33 acres of chaparral habitat are
required to support one deer. Using this figure, the
1,000-acre Bidwel3 Heights project site could
potentially support 30 deer. The January 31, 1983,
letter from Paul T. Jensen to Mrs. Bettye Kircher
indicates the East Tehama deer herd has a total •-
papulation of 40,000 to 60,000 deer. Since 50$ of the
project area is anticipated to remain undisturbed,
some of the 30 deer would be expected to use t3ie sate
even after full buildout. Testimony at the hearings
indicates in other deer areas such as Paradise,
Lake Almanar, Morin County and similar places, deer
remain plentiful even after development.
Conditions 3.1.1 through 3.1.4 of the Specific Plan
are wildlife mitigations, providing for reduced
effects an wildlife through clustprP~ hnti~;„t~
retention of r~oariar~corridors, and continuous bands
of open space coordinated with adjoining lands.
Enhancement of alternate habitat off site can
Page 435
June 17, 1986
compensate for the ansite habitat reduction,
effectively mitigating deer habitat loss. To
accomplish this, a new Condition 3.1.5 is hereby added
to the Specific Plan as follows:
"3,1.5
As a condition of tentative .subdivision or parcel map
approval, developer to submit plans for off site or
onsite habitat enhancement program subject to the
approval o€ the California State Department of Fish
and Game. Further recognizing the importance of this
natural wildlife resource, the Board of Supervisors
has established the Deer Herd Study Committee, as of
August 2, 19$3, and further note that the State
Department of Fish and Game should also consider and
pursue the possibility, along with the applicant, with
the State Wildlife Conservation Board, to purchase
conservation easements for the deer migration, if, in
fact, this area is a migratory path."
The Board finds that despite the above described
mitigation measures, it cannot be concluded that project
wildlife habitat reduction has been reduced. to a level of
insignificance.
Page 436
~~ ~~ June 17, 1986
Traffic increases at Hi hwa 32 and Santos Wa .
This impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance
by Condition 2.1.5 of the Specific Plan which provides
for a left turn'lane to be constructed on Highway 32 at
the intersection of Highway 32 and Santos Way, thereby
alleviating potential traffic congestion.
Increased fire danger and exposure to fire hazard,
The potential impact of increased fire danger is
mitigated to a level of insignificance by Conditions
2.7.1 through 2.7.5 of the Specific Plan which
provide the methods £or funding higher levels of
fire protection, fire access and fire facilities.
Increase in service load on oliee and fire
agencies. Formation of an assessment district or
other legal entity to provide supplemental funding
for public services prior to the approval of any
subdivision maps as specified in Condition 4.2 of the
Specific Plan will mitigate this impact and reduce it
to a level of insignificance.
Enerq,Y use by homes and~comrnuting vehicles. This
impact is most feasibly mitigated through the energy
conservation standards for buildings as contained
within the Building Code and federal~.standards for
' Page 437
June T7, 1986
vehicular efficiency. Provisions for car-pooling,
extra insulation for dwellings, encouragement of
solar-assisted domestic heating systems are all
helpful, but not really appropriate as conditions of
an individual project. In this case, Building Code
standards and vehicle design standards are deemed
adequate.
Ex ansive soils. A preliminary soils report
indicated this impact might need mitigation to avoid
potential for foundations to crack over time.
Adherence to Building Code requirements for
foundations should mitigate this concern in most
cases. Additionally, a geologist will be reviewing
the site for lineaments pursuant to Condition 3.2.1 of
the Specific Plan and can also alert potential
builders and reviewing agencies if expansive soils
conflict with potential building sites at any given
location. This can be verified in connection with the
approval of future subdivisions pursuant to the
requirements of the Specific Plan and thus this
potential impact is found to be insignificant.
Erosion. Erosion control measures are required
by Condition 2.6.3 of the Specific Plan, effectively
reducing this impact to a level of insignificance.
Page 438
June 77, 1986
Cumulative Impacts. Development of other areas
near the project which are designated in the County's
General Plan for agricultural-residential ].and use
could be facilitated since this project will provide
impraved access, a pubi.ic water system, improved local
public services (fire protection, security) and
utility extensions. The potentially affected areas
and projects are listed at pages 47 and 48 of the
final E.IR. The potential cumulative .impacts of
development of such other areas is not insignificant.
(3) The only potentially significant impacts of the
project which cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of
insignificance are the potential reduction of wildlife .
habitat and cumulative impacts. All other potentially
significant impacts have,. by virtue of the above-identified
mitigation measures, been reduced to a level of
insignificance. In addition, certain potential impacts are
'found to be insignificant.
(a) Impacts which are found ~to be insignificant
and the reasons for these findings are as follows;
1. Subsidence. Rock types on the project
are of a type in which extraction of subsurface fluids
will not result in subsidence. =Final EIR, p. 18.)
Page 439
June 17, 1986
2. Loss of Mineral Resources. Field
examination showed no evidence of mineral deposits or
sand and gravel on the Sltes (Final EIR, p, 1$,}
3. Volcanism. The potential exposure to
ash from a large eruption in the Lassen Peak area is
considered extremely improbable. (Final EIR, p. 19.}
A. Water quality degradation.
a. Pollution of surface waters by
urban runoff. This impact is expected to be
insignificant for the reasons outlined on page 22
of the EIR {low project density, open areas for
percolation, absorption by vegetation}.
b. Pollution a£ groundwater ox soil
from inadequate soils for septage. This impact
is addressed on pages 22 and Z3 of the ETR and in
the Hydrological Reconnaissance Report dated
9 February 1983 by Jan Anderson, P.E. Both
reports indicated evidence of adequate
percolation capability on portions of the site to
satisfy Health Department standards for septic
tanks for the densities proposed ,.without causing
groundwater pollution. These conclusions are
Page 440
June 17, i98fi
based in part on soil excavations throughout the
site reviewed by Health Department personnel and
actual percolation tests for the subdivisions
alzeady approved within the project boundaries.
The project`s sewage disposal will be
handled in two ways. Individual lots located
on suitable sites will be served by septic
tanks. Cluster areas and lots with inadequate
soils will be served by community septic systems
which will be located in Butte County Health
Department approved areas. Thus, during
subsequent tentative subdivision map review,
Lots shall be designated a$ served either by
on-site septic tanks located in soils having
percolation capabilities which meet County
standards or by connection to transmission
pipes connected to a community septic system
which meets State and County design and
monitoring requirements.
As further assurance that sewage and water
quality impacts will be insignificant, Condition
2.5.2 of the Specific Plan conditions land use
density upon demonstrated soil data for
Page 441 ~.,
June 17, 19$6
each parcel prior to rezone or tentative
subdivision map approval.
5. Air ollution. This impact is regional
and cumulative in scope, with the degree of impact
from this project very minor in comparison to the
pollution yields from agricultural burning, industrial
production and vehicular travel throughout the
Sacramento Air Basin. The effect of approval or
disapproval of this project is insignificant in
comparison to the effect of state and federal
regulations with regard to agricultural burning
practices, industrial pollution control and emission
standards for motor vehicles. While this project will
contribute a minor amount to a cumulatively
significant air pollution problem, the problem itself
is so large that approval or disapproval of this
project will not affect it to a measurable degree, and
the degree of benefit from avoiding this additional
contribution is not large enough to justify
disapproval of the project. Other solutions to the
air pollution problem exist requiring implementatian
by state and federal regulatory agencies. Approval of
this project will not measurably reduce the
:effectiveness of these implementation measures, should
Page 442
dune 17, 198b
the State Legislature, Congress, or the appropriate
regulatory agencies choose to implement them.
6. Aesthetics and Alteration of natural
scenic views, The degree of this impact is somewhat a
subjective judgment, since aesthetics are in the eye
of the beholder. The visual character of the site is
expected to change €rom undeveloped to rural
residential.~i The effect is limited by the relative
isolation of the property, and the distance to
Highway 32 and Skyway, since the project is visible
from segments of those two roads. This impact is
deemed insignificant and unavoidable.
7. Noise ex osure or noise eneration. No
significant noise generators or noise-sensitive
receptors are involved with this project.
8. Removal of native ve etation. White
some native vegetation will be removed for roads and
homesites, as much as feasible will be preserved
through Specific Plan Condition 2.6.4. Since 50$ of
the chaparral vegetation in Butte County is protected
by 9D-acre minimum parcel zoning, the vegetation
reduction at this location is relatively insignificant.
Page 443
June 17, T986
9. Disturbance or destruction of cultural
resources. No cultural resources exist within this
project area.
10. Im acts_on power and tele hone
systems. The respective utility companies have
indicated no problem with providing necessary service.
11. H drolo alterations in drainage
patterns and increases in runoff quantity due to
impervious surfaces. This impact is addressed on
page 22 of the EIR, where i~ is indicated to be
insignificant because of the relatively large parcel
sizes (compared to urban areas). and correspondingly
small amount of impervious surface related to the size
of the drainage basin. Additionally,, drainage impacts
are mitigated through Conditions 2,6.1 through 2.b.3
of the Specific Plan.
12. Effects on roundwater ualit See
discussion under paragraph 4, above.
13. Increase in service load on schools.
Page 16 of the EIR indicates the schools presently
have sufficient capacity for this project with room to
spare.
The cumulative effects of buildout of all
Page 444
June 17, 7986
proposed projects in the Chico area is an unsolved
question affecting any subdivision anywhere in Chico.
As indicated in the Bidwell Heights fiscal impact
study, school operations receive a Fixed level of
funding throughout the state which is generally
sufficient for ongoing operations. Funds for school
facilities expansion represent a statewide problem
to be addressed by the Legislature. This impact is
addressed in Conditions 2.3,1 and 2,3.2 of the
Specific Plan. This will cover any cumulative or
significant effects in the future in light of the
County`s adoption of a School Facilities Ordinance.
Further, the developer will participate with the
school district in enacting the School Facilities
Ordinance.
14. Potential future loss of designated
open areas. The Specific Plan designates areas for
large parcels (2 to 10 acres) and requires that
natural vegetation be retained in the areas not
needed for buildings or roads (Condition 2.6.4).
Cluster development is contemplated for areas proposed
'for PAC zoning, which zoning itself i~s an enforceable
method of preserving open space. Conditions 1.5 and
1.6 of the Specific Plan call for a land trust to
manage the open space and a resource'~nanagement plan
to ensure the open space is properly provided for in
perpetuity. Page 445
June 17, 19$6
15. Fiscal impacts and count subsidization
of new rowth. Through the special district formation
called for by. Condition 4.2 of the Specific Plan, a
legally binding mechanism will. be created for funding
needed levels of services by assessing the project
property owners themselves. This district must be in
place before subdivisions can be approved.
lb. Urban develo meet outside urban
boundaries. The category of development contemplated
in this project is more "rural" or "suburban" .gather
than "urban" as alleged by project opponents. The
most "urban" parts of the project are within the
clustered areas. and the densities are still within
the 1 to q{# acres allowed by the General Plan in A-R
districts, with substantial areas of permanently
preserved open space,
17. Traffic hazards, funding far off-site
im rvvements, and maintenance of the access road.
Traffic impacts are addressed on pages 36 through 38
in the EIR, with further clarification in
Appendices "0" and "P." Mitigations of anticipated
impacts are specified in Conditions 2.1.1 through
~~.2.2 of the Specific Plan.
Page 446
. .
June 17, 198b
i
Adequate vehicular circulation to
adjoining properties to meet county standards is
provided through Conditions 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4,
2.1.5, and 2.1.7 of the Specific Plan.
r
{9y Project alternatives are being rejected in favor
of the original proposal for the following reasons:
1. The "no project" alternative can be divided
into two categories, the first being no additional
buildings or development on the site whatsoever, and
the second being simply to leave the zoning "as is."
The first of these is being rejected because it does
not accomplish the project objectives of providing
rural residential homesites at the site's potential
with proper provision for mitigations. Additionally,
to accomplish the "no development" alternative, a zone
change from the present "A-2" zoning +would be
necessary to some coning category which prevents
development. A purchase of development rights with
county money does not seem warranted since the public
benefits are of limited value and would accrue
primarily to the residents living in .the immediate
vicinity, while the costs would be borne by county
~~taxpayers as a whole, whether or not they received any
.benefit. In this case, a comt~ination of large
Page 447
June i7, 7986
parcels, clustered development and provision of open
space as contained within the applicants' proposal
seems more .reasonable than simply no development
anywhere on the property. This is particularly true
in view of the existing development which has already
been approved within the project boundaries, and the
commitment of resources to improvements to serve
existing and future development levels.
Leaving the zoning "as is" (detaining the A-2
zoning) ~s being rejected because the project as
proposed is less damaging to the environment than the
type of small parcels without open space permissible
under A-2 zoning.
~. 2. Development of the same number of dwelling
units without clustering is being rejected because the
advantages of clustering would be lost (e.g., shorter
roads and utility lines, more open space and wildlife
habitat retention). while the adverse effects on the
visual,, physical and biotic environment {erosion,
increased runoff, habitat reduction) would be of
greater extent and magnitude, due to .more roads and
widespread grading and development. 'Additional
,reasons for rejecting this alternative, listed at the
Page 448
. June i7, X986
top of page 50 of the EIR, are incorporated by
reference.
2.a. The entire project clustered is being
rejected because there are multiple property owners.
3. Substantially reduced density. either with
or without clustering, is being rejected because the
cost of services, improvements and mitigations per
dwelling unit would be increased and the reduction in
dwelling units would have to be substantial to realize
any significant environmental benefits. At this
reduced number of dwelling units, some of the same
disadvantages of the previously described "no
development" alternative become applicable, and the
economic pressure to further develop some other
portion of the property at some future time would
become greater. To gain any appreciable environmental
benefit from this alternative, the overall density
would have to be in the neighborhood of 24 to 40 acres
per parcel, which would not achieve the project
objectives of providing affordable homesites in a
rural chaparral environment and would place the costs
of necessary mitigations, services and improvements
beyond the realm of financial feasibility.
4. Increased density of dwelling units is being
rejected because the rural character of the
development would be potentially affected, it is
questionable whether septic tanks would be feasible at
a higher density, and the onsite impacts to
biological, visual and physical resources would
increase and be more difficult to mitigate, including
exposure to fire and seismic hazards.
(5} Although there may be significant adverse
environmental effects resulting from the approval of this
project, there are overriding considerations which justify
project approval. These overriding considerations include:
1. The project as proposed is environmentally
superior to development which could occur pursuant to
the present A~2 zoning. .The project under
consideration provides the advantages of cluster
development which include, in addition to shorter
utility lines, fewer lineal €eet of roads, easier
~~ provision of public services and the retention of a
substantial portion of the project site in open space,
including deer migration corridors.. Wildlife habitat
value would be severely reduced if A-2 type
development covered the entire property, and septic
Page 450
June T7, T986
tank pollution problems and traffic hazards would be
greater.
2. The project will provide housing of up to
33? additional residential units which will assist
in satisfying the County's Housing Supply Needs as
set forth in the General Plan Housing Element
,(particularly at Housing Element pages ZI-l through
II-50}. This project also provides for neighborhood
. commercial and residential facilities in an area
that does not have prime agricultural soils, which
is'consistent with the General Plan goal of
preserving agricultural lands (see e.g. Open Space
Element at pp. 14.3 through 14.5 and Final EYR at
p: 46)..
~3. The project, as prepared, appears to be
.the least environmentally damaging alternative
capable of achiev~.ng project and General Plan
objectives.
4. Deleted as unnecessary.
Page 451
June T7, T986
5. Butte County General Plan Land Use Element
. (p. 33} sets forth the policy of making available
~,~a "diversity of housing sites varying in size,
dens'ity', and location." The-Housing Element of
the County General Plan (e.g., pp. II-1 through
II-5) identifies and projects County housing
needs. The Board finds that the project will
provide a type of rural, housing which will
contribute to the land use element "diversity"
. ~ policy. The Board also finds that the project
will: contribute to meeting the'County's housing
needs and site availability policies as identified
in~.the General Plan Housing Element.
(~} The adoption of the Bidwell Heights Specific
Plan is irk conformance with all elements of the Butte
County General Plan.
Having made the above findings, I move for
introduction, of Resolution No. 86-82 adopting
the:.~idwell Heights Specific Plan as amended by the
. ~~~addi~tion of.the previously described Condition 3.1.5.
. M S
Vote: 1 N ~ 2.N 3 Y 4 Y 5 N (Motion failed}
June 17, 1986
Public Hearings and Timed Items
$6-358 Continued hearing - consideration of Special Districts augmentation
(2684) fund distribution pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code
5ectian 98.6. (from 6/3/86}
~"~ Motion: ADOPTED THE DISTRIBUTION OF AUGMENTATION FUND AS SUBMITTED
00 BY THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS AUGMENTATION FUND COMMITTEE
AT THE BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1986. FORMED A SPECIAL
DISTRICTS COUNTY LIAISON PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE, WITH
TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVI50RS
AND TWO OR THREE MEMBERS FROM THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION.
S M
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously carried}
(SUPERVISOR FULTON INDICATED THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF $101,665
WHICH GOES TO THE COUNTY WILL BE SPLIT BETWEEN FIRE PROTECTION
AND LTBRARIES.}
86-359 Public hearing - RB 2536 Ad~isary Committee - report and
(630) recommendations concerning the disbursal of the initial allocation
of funds amounting to $226,874 in disaster relief funding.
Motion: AGREED TO MAKE DISTRIBUTION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE AB 2536
COMMITTEE.
M S
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously carried)
86-360 Public hearing - consideration of consolidation of Biggs-Gridley
(71O) Justice Courts.
Motion: WAIVED FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2-26
OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE RELATIVE TO JUDICIAL DISTRTCTS.
M S
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y {Unanimously carried)
86-367 Charles W. Jacob - appeal of the Advisory Agency`s denial of
(933) tentative parcel map (item on which environmental documents have
not been completed}, four parcels, property located an Quiggle
Road off Batt Road west of Doe Mi17 Road, Doe Mill Ridge area.
(CONTINUED OPEN TO AUGUST 19, T986 AT 71:00 A.M.)
86-362 Continued hearing - Harold and Shirley Stepp - appeal the Planning
(1000) Commission's denial of rezone (proposed negative declaration
regarding environmental impact) from TM-5 (timber mountain
five acre parcels) to TM-1 (timber mountain -- one acre parcels)
for property located at the northeast corner of Nopel Drive and
Cody Lane, 1/4 mile south of Highway 32, identified as AP 63-09-17,
Forest Ranch. (from 6/3/86)
Page 453
June 17, 1986
86-3G2
{Cont`d} Motion: FOUND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA HAVE BEEN COMPLETED
AND CONSIDERED IN MAKING THIS DECISION; AND FOUND THAT
THE PROPOSED REZONE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH BUTTE COUNTY
CODE SECTIONS 24-27, 24-28, AND 24-165, AND BUTTE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN AND ALL ITS ELEMENTS; AND DENIED THE PROPOSED
REZONE FROM TM-5 TO TM-1 ON AP 63-09-17 (HAROLD STEPP}.
S M
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 N 4 Y 5 Y (Motion carried)
Recess: 11:50 a.m.
Reconvene: 1:31 p.m.
86-363 Recognition of persons wishing to speak.
(1056)
T. Barbara Seawall - concerns regarding library funding.
2. Rhonda Hoffman ~- concerns regarding library funding.
3. Louis Camenzind, Jr. - comments regarding land use decisions
by the Board.
4. Glenn Miller - priorities in funding.
5. Barry Myers - requested status of noise ordinance.
6. Katrina Madsen - opposition to GWEN tower.
7. John Martin - requesting public hearing on GWEN tower.
8. Tom Yukic - concerns regarding library funding.
9. Ramona Flynn - concerns regarding library funding.
10. Ken Schooner and Jamil Waaziq - Qroville Blues Festival
(PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION 86-81 MADE BY SUPERVISOR McINTURF
AT THIS TIME.}
11. Weather Clewett - opposition to GWEN tower.
12. Glenn Miller - rights of those living in rural areas.
*~* 13. Rhonda Hoffman - requesting suggestions of ways to help library
000 crisis.
Motion: FARMED BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARY TASK FORCE, WITH MEMBERSHIP
MADE UP OF TWO SUPERVISORS APPOINTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
AND MEMBERS FROM FRIENDS OF LIBRARY OR CONCERNED CITIZENS.
AGREED TO CONTRIBUTE STAFF TIME.
S M
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously carried}
Page 454
July 17, 1986
86-363
(Cont`d} 14. Dave Rimes - regarding Board's following civil disobedience
in stopping state mandated programs.
i5. Louis Camenzind, Jr. - requested copy of "Greenbook."
76. Lynn Vanhart - requested an amendment to contract for the
Palermo pollution study to extend completion date to
November 1, 1986.
Motion: APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY COUNTY
COUNSEL.
M S
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y {Unanimously carried)
Closed session: The Board recessed at 2:35 p.m. for a closed
session on City of Chico and ielati litigation
matters.
Reconvene: The Board reconvened at 3:33 p.m. (NO ANNOUNCEMENTS.)
86-364 John S. Morgan, et al - rezone from FR-10 to FR-5 (foothill
{427) recreational - five acre parcels} (proposed mitigated negative
declaration regarding environmental impact) far property located
on both the north and south sides of Hurleton Road, approximately
1000 feet west of Wyandotte, identified as AP 72-20-O1, 72-25-O1,
02, Oroville area (File 86-11}. (NEARING CLOSED. CONTINUED TO
JULY 1, ]9$6.}
86-365 Continued hearing - Gary Jacobs - proposed mitigated negative
(1126) declaration regarding environmental impact and tentative subdivision
map for property located on the east side of Quista Drive and
the west side of Alamo Avenue, 220 feet south of East Avenue,
identified as RP 42-07-38, Chico (File 86-46A}. (from 6/3/86)
(SET NEW HEARING DATE FOR JULY 1, 1986 AT 11:30 A.M. FOR REZONE
AND SUBDIVISION MAP.)
86-366 Continued hearing - Richard Peters - proposed mitigated negative
(1205} declaration and rezone from U (unclassified) to M-2 (heavy
industrial) for property located on the west side of the Skyway
opposite the intersection of Humbug Road, identified as AP 40-02-87,
11-05-69, Chico. (from 6/3/86}
Page 455
June 17, 1986
$6- 366
{Cont'd} Motion: FOUND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA HAVE BEEN COMPLETED
AND CONSIDERED AND ADOPTED R MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FOUND THAT
TWIS PROPOSED REZONE COMPLIES WITH BUTTE COUNTY CODE
SECTIONS 24-26 RND 27 AND THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION;
ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2530 REZONING TO M-1 ON AP 40-02-87,
1i-05-69 WHICH CONFORMS TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OF
4-7-86 (RICHARD PETERS); ADOPTED RE50LUTION 8fi-83 APPROVING
THE AGREEMENT (PETERS) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES 1 - 14 OF MEMO DATED APRIL 9, 1986, AND CONDITIONS
15 AND 16 AND ADDITION TO 3.d ON JUNE 10, 1986 MEMO FROM
PLANNING REGARDING ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY.
M F
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously carried)
86-367 Continued hearing - Richard M. Camaren, et al - rezone from U
(2091) (unclassified) to AR-2-1/2 (agricultural residential - 2-1/2
acre parcels) (proposed negative declaration regarding environmental
**** impact) property located on the south side of Keefer Road and
0000 on the west side of Cahasset Road, identified as AP 47-23-109,
110, 112 and 117 through 121, north of Chico. {from 6/3/86)
(SUPERVISOR FULTON ABSENT AT THIS TIME.)
Motion: FOUND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA HAVE BEEN COMPLETED
AND CONSIDERED IN MAKING THIS DECISION AND ADOPTED A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION; FOUND THAT THE SR-5 (SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL - FIVE ACRE PARCELS) ZONE CONFORMS TO THE
POLICIES OF THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN; ADOPTED
QRDINANCE 2531 REZONING TO SR-5 THAT PROPERTY IDENTIFIED
AS AP 47-23-109, 110, 112,_117, 718, 119, 120 AND 121
(RICHARD CAMAREN, ET AL).
S M
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 AB (Motion carried}
86-368 Consideration of Superior Court request for fourth department.
(95)
Motion: ADOPTED RESOLUTIQN 86-84 REQUIRED BY AB 19 DECLARING
THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE GOVERNOR TO APPOINT THE
FOURTH DEPARTMENT.
S M
Vote: 1 Y 2 N 3 Y 4 Y 5 AB (Motion carried)
86-369 Selection of alternate meeting dates far joint meeting with the
(599) City of Chico regarding street facility improvement fees. (NO
ACTION TAKEN. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DIRECTED TO TRITE
LETTER TO CITY THAT BOARD IS NOT PREPARED TO MEET ON TRANSPORTATION
FEES, BUT WILL BE AMENABLE TO DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION FEES
AT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE LEVEL.)
Page 456
July 17, 1986
86-370 Consideraticn of ordinance regulating on-street parking of vehicles.
(685} {from 5/6/86) (NO ACTION TAKEN.)
86-371 Rppointment to the ~1TPA Private Industry Council.
(729) (SUPERVISOR McINTURF TO MEET WITH CANDIDATES AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION
TO BOARD ON JULY T.)
86-372 Appointment to Emergency Medical Care Committee.
Motion: APPOINTED PAUL ROBIE.
M S
Vote: T Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 AB {Nation carried}
86-373 Appointment to Durham Irrigation District.
Motion: APPOINTED HARVEY LEE, IVAN SOHNREY AND JOHN T. THORPE.
S M
Uote: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 AB (]Notion carried}
Closed Hearings
86-374 T. Closed hearing - Butte County Planning Commission proposed
negative declaration regarding environmental impact and rezone
from R-4 (maximum density residential restricted service}
and S-R (suburban residential} to either C-1 (light commercial),
C-2 (general commercial}, C-C (community commercial}, N-C
(neighborhood commercial) or H-C (highway commercial) for
property having frontage on East Avenue located east of Cohasset
Road and west of Ceres Avenue, Chico {Fire 84-70 B and D}.
(from 6/3/86)
2. Closed hearing -- Drake/Isom - appeal of a denied rezone (item
on which a supplement to a previously certified environmental
impact report is being used) from U (unclassified) and S-H
(scenic highway) to R-C (resource conservation} and either
A-R (agricultural residential}, A-SR (agricultural - suburban
residential), SR-1/2 (suburban residential - 1/2 acre parcels}
or FR-1/2 (foothill recreational -- 7/2 acre parcels) on
property located on the east side of Humboldt Road, five miles
northeast from Highway 99E, identified as AP 46-35-04, 23;
46-7T-T7, l8 (portion), Chico (File 83-50}. (from 6/3/86}
Page 457
June 17, T9$6
$6-374
(Cont'd) 3. Closed hearing - Nichols Trust - proposed mitigated negative
declaration regarding environmental impact and rezone from
AR-MH-3 (agricultural residential mobile home - three acre
parcels) to PDD (planned unit development) for property located
on the northeast corner of Clark Road and Hidden Valley Road,
approximately 3/4 mile north of Clear Creek Cemetery Road,
identified as AP 4T-41-53, south of Paradise (File 86-T8).
(from 6/3/86)
{CLOSED HEARINGS CONTINUED TO JULY 1, 1986.)
Recess: The Board. recessed at 5:20 p.m. to reconvene as the Air
Pollution Control District Board of Directors_
Reconvene: The Board reconvened at 5:20 p.m. as the Board of
Supervisors.
86-375 Additional items from Board members:
1. Supervisor Wheeler - submitted dues invoice from CSAC.
2. Supervisor Wheeler - submitted excerpt from a newspaper
regarding a ruling by the state Court of Appeal that Water
Resources Control Board must raise water quality standards.
3. Chairman McLaughlin - appointed Supervisors Wheeler and Fulton
to Butte County Library Task Farce.
4. Supervisor Wheeler {for Supervisor Fulton who had to leave) -
would Tike a letter sent to California Department of Water
Resources, State Department of Parks and Recreation and the
office of Senator Nielsen to assist county in getting Lake
Oroviile cleaned up.
Motion: AGREED TO SEND LETTERS.
S M
Vote: 1 N 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 AB {Motion carried)
Closed Session: The Board recessed at 5:24 p.m. for a closed
session on meet and confer.
Reconvene: The Board reconvened at 5:45 p.m. {NO ANNOUNCEMENTS.)
Pagd 458
June 17, 1986
Adjournment: There being nothing further before the Board at
this time, the meeting was adjourned at 5:46 p.m.
to reconvene on July 1, 1986 at 9:OD a.m.
Q ~
Chairman, Board of pervisors
ATTEST:
MARTIN J. NICNOLS, Chief Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board
Page 459
,tune 17, 1986