HomeMy WebLinkAboutM062982June 29, 1982
OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
OF BUTTE )
82'.
The Board of Supervisors met at 9;OO,a..m. pursuant to adjournment. ,~
Present: Supervisors Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. Mike
Pyeatt, interim administrative officer; Del Siemsen, county counsel; and
Eleanor t1. Becker, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the
Board
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Supervisor Moseley
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE DAX
Chairman Wheeler advised that Sugervisor Dolan was speaking
at Girls State conference and would return to the meeting later in the day.
10 71
Supervisor Fulton had one item he would be bringing up.
Chairman Wheeler would be adding letters as part of the record.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2294 & 2295: RESOLUTION 82-106: APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Consideration of the following items was removed from the
consent agenda: Amendment to Butte County Code Section 24 to provide for the
consideration of conditional zoning; ordinance zoning a portion of the
County of Butte, State of California, pursuant to Chapter 24-29 of the Butte
County Code; Resolution establishing fees to be charged by the Building
Division of the Department of Public Works for building, plumbing, mechanical,
electrical, and mobile home permits and providing authority for refunds; and
resolution adopting the proposed budget for fiscal year 1982-83 per Government
Code Section 29066 et seq.
1072
On. motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following consent agenda items were approved:
1. Approved budget transfers as set forth in the .Tune 25, 1982
memo from the Administrative Office attached as Addendum 1 to the minutes.
2. Approved penalty abatement requests, change of ownership
reports within 60 days as set forth in the June 24, 1982 memo from the
Administrative Office attached as Addendum 2 to the minutes.
3. Waived the second reading of ordinance amending Ordinance 2252
of the County of Butte known as the salary ordinance (Veterans Service
Officer); adopted Ordinance 2294 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
4. Waived the second reading of the ordinance amending Ordinance
2252 of the County of Butte known as the salary ordinance (Law Enforcement
Officers Association contract); Ordinance 2295 was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
5. Authorize purchase of excess insurance with funds coming from
the Self Insurance budget from the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority for a
fee of $57,488.
6. Approved renewal of the service agreement with Gates, McDonald
at a rate of $100 per claim with a total annual fee not to exceed $30,000
for fiscal year 1982-$3 for workers' compensation claims administration and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
Page 160.
June 29, 19.82
8 2-
a'
1073
--____--___= June 291482___________________
7.- Approved renewal of the agreement with Brow?n Brothers Adjusters
to provide liability claims adjusting service for fiscal year 19.82-83 and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
8. Approved permit for aerial fireworks display at North Forebay,
Oroville, July 3, 1982 for Pyro Spectaculars Company, Rialto, California.
9. Approved continuation of the Senior Nutrition Program contract
1982-83 and authorized the use of General Fund monies pending receipt of cash
grants from the Area 3 Agency on Aging-:
10. Adopted Resoltuion 82--106 amending Thermalito area drainage
fees and the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-107 ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 `''
SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF gINAL BUDGET AND REVENUE
SHARING HEARINGS: APPROVE REVISIONS TO PROPOSED BUDGET
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, Resolution 82-107 adopting the proposed budget for fiscal year
1982-83 and setting a public hharing date of July 21, 1982 at 1:30 p.m. was
adopted; the Chairman authorized to sign; the final revenue sharing hearings
set for the same time as final budget hearings.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and carried, the following revisions were made to the proposed budget:
Chico Munici al Court Bud et
Account 36, prof/Spec Services. Delete $6,000
Account 12, Extra Help. Add $6,000
e Justice Court Budget
Account 36, Prof/Spec Services. Delete $105,000
Account 12, Extra Help. Add $105,000
1074
1075
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2296 ZONING PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 24-29 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE - GRIDLEY-BIGGS REZONE
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the second reading of the ordinance zoning portions of the County
of Butte, State of California, pursuant to Chapter 24-29 of the Butte County
Code was waived; Ordinance 2296 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to
sign. AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. NOES:
Supervisor Fulton ABSENT: Supervisor Dolan.
DISCUSSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL RE: EXTENDING OF THREE
YEAR AGREEMENT WITH ASSOCIATION, MODIFYING COST-OF-LTVING RAISE AND ELIMCNATING
Discussion of the Law Enforcement Association proposal to extend
the three year agreement with the association, modifying the cost-of-living
raise and eliminating layoffs held at this time.
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, advised that several months
ago the Board authorized him to contact the association and propose opening
of the three-year contract to find some means of negotiating seven percent
less in terms of savings jobs. Initially that was rejected. TheBoard naw
has a proposal before them. The manner in which it came to the Board takes
this out of the labor relations. The analysis that has been made of the
proposal shows an increase to the county in wages and benefits over the
next two fiscal years of $1.2 million approximately. The proposal would
retain 22 officers that are going to be layed off tomorrow. The Law
Enforcement Unit would be granted a 3-1/2% increase in-lieu of the seven
percent increase. It would assure the jobs continuing this year and next year.
Page161.
June 29., 1982
2
8 2'-
3'
,Tune 29, 19.82 _ _ __________
• _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~ t ~ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If the Board rejects the^proposal, he would-suggest that the county still extend
the offer to the assocation that there is area for negotiation and that they
seriously consider negotiating and opening-the contract.
Discussion open to the public. Appearing:
1. Paul Walters, president of the Law Enforcement Officers'
Association, set out the proposal that was the result of a general membership
meeting held June 18, 1982. The T?OU for this-year provides for a 7 percent
payraise effective July 3, 1982. The association is willing to accept
one-half of that amount and defer the remainder until fiscal year 1983-84.
This would also include a one year extension on the present contract plus
establish minimal staffing level to assure all positions currently filled
would be maintained. He hoped the Board would consider this proposal.
2. Sheriff Gillick had submitted a memo to the Board. He was
lawfully obligated to protect the property and persons living in the unin-
corporated areas of the county. He found it impossible to provide the
minimal protection to the people. He would work with the Board on the
law enforcement needs of the citizens. He requested two considerations
and actions by the Board. If the Board would be willing to commit an
additional $250,000 to the budget and if he could maintain the 23 officers
facing lay offs on June 30, 1982, he would before the finalization of the
budget like to have a meeting with two members of ,the Board to show where
he could save the money and keep the deputies. This would be adding to the
current budget. He would also make cuts in his budget.
Chairman Wheeler advised that she appreciated the proposal that
had been made but did not see how the Board could make a decision at this
time. Since she and Supervisor Fulton are on the finance committee, she
suggested that the meet with the Sheriff and bring back something this
afternoon.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, commented on the
memo from the Sheriff. The $5.5 million indicated in paragraph one appears
to be considerably more than the amount that is in the proposed budget by
about $200,000 and the Sheriff is requesting an additional $250,000. As
far as the comments in the first paragraph relative to the fact that the
thing could be handled internally, he indicated that kind of money could
not lie handled internally. The Government Code requires certain dollar
figures assigned to the accounts within a certain framework. Any substan-
tial changes in the proposed budget cannot be made until the time of the
final. budget hearings.
The Sheriff to meet with Supervisor Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
with the matter to be brought back later.
REPORT ON LINDO CHANNEL WEER HAZARD - LETTER TO BE SENT
The Board considered the report from the Fire Warden relative to
the Li:ndo Channel weed hazard at this time.
Letter to be prepared to the City of Chico sending the comments
outlined by the Fire Warden.
D15CUSSION OF RE VEST FOR PENALTY ABATEMENT'BY STEVEN WEST
Discussion of the request for penalty abatement by Steven West
held at this time.
Steven West set out the events that lead ug to the request for
the penalty abatement on his property.
1076
1077
Page 162.
June 24., 1982
_____ _ June 29, 1982 __________
- - Mr. West was.-advised that the Board could take no action on his
request for penalty aBatement since the law does not allow for the granting
of relief if the request is filed after the 60-dap requirement. No action
taken."Mr. West.was told that he might want to consider writing to his
legislators to try and have the law .changed,
1078 AWARD BID FOR BIKE -,ANES ON DURHAM DAYTON HIGHWAY PROJECT N0. 44201-82-1
On motion of Supervisor 'Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and carried, the bid for bike lanes on Durham Dayton Highway, Project No.
44201-82--1 was awarded to Robinson Construction Company in the amount of
$21,410 and tfie Chairman authorized to sign ttie contract.
Staff to send a letter to the Durham Community Association
advising them of the bid.
1079 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-108 ESTABLISHING FINDINGS FOR THE NEED TO PROVIDE A BUILDING
CODE FOR OWNER-BUILT DWELLINGS IN RURAL AREAS: DISCUSSING OF ORDINANCE
IMPLEMETING "K" CODE HOUSING
Discussion of the waiving of the first reading of the ordinance
implementing °K" Code Housing was held at this time.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that before the Board could
adopt an ordinance they would have to make findings of why low density
regulations should be made. He was asking that the ordinance be taken off
the agenda at this time.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, Resolw.tion 82-108 establishing findings for the need to provide
a building code for owner-built dwellings in rural areas was adopted and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
RECESS: 9:47 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:07 a.m.
1080 PUBLIC HEARING BUDGET TRANSFER B-233, DATA P_RO_CESSING ISF
The public hearing on budget transfer 8-233, Data Processing ISF
was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the following budget transfer was approved:
B-233 - Data Processing ISF. This transfer propases utilization
of $22,190 of unanticipated revenue and an additional transfer between line
items of $15,000 to cover current deficits and anticipated expenditures to
end the fiscal year 1981-82.
1081 PUBi.IC HEARING BUDGET TRANSFER B-235, SUPPLEMENTAL k1AN~'OWER ADMINISTRATION,
ADMINISTRATIVE COST POOL
The public hearing on budget transfer B-235, Supplemental Manpower
Administration - Administrative Cost Pool was held as advertised.
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 carried, the following budget transfer-was approved;
Page 163.
June ~29, 1982
8 2-
~'
8 2-
~ ''
June 29, 1982
- 8-235 - Supplemental Manpower Administration - Administrative Cost
Pool. Proposes an increase in-the Supplemental Manpowex Program of $350,723
of unanticipated revenue from the Federal 1lanpower Program and a decrease in
various line items of $470.,537.40•to estah.lsh appropriations for the
Supplemental Manpower Program to reflect changes on NFA .1~5, May 20, 1982.
1082 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-109: PUBLIC HEARING; INTENTION TO RENAME NON-COUNTY
MAINTATNED ROADIN BUTTE COUNTY -- TIMOTHY LANE (LARKIN 120AD TO END) TO FARRAR
LANE
The public hearing on the intention to rename non-county maintained
road in Butte County, Timothy Lane {Larkin Road to end) to Farrar"Lane was
held as advertised..
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni., seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and carxied, the renaming of non-county maintained road in Butte County,
Timothy Zane (Larkin: Road to end) to Farrar Lane was approved; Resolution
82--109 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
1083 PUBLIC HEARING: DICK CHAPPELL APPEAL' OF CONDITIONS ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
The public hearing on Dick Chappell appeal of conditions bn
tentative parcel map (conditions 12, 13 and 14) on property located on
AP 41-O1-141, Hummer Road, approximately 1,000 feet west of Doe Mill Road,
Forest Ranch area was held as continued.
The hearing was continued to July 20, 1982 at 10:00,:a.m.
1084 .REPORT ON THE JACK VANELLA REQUEST FOR A BUILDING PERMIT T6 EXPAND HIS
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL OPERATION ON DAYTON ROAD, CHICO
The report on the Jack Vanella request fox a building permit to
expand his agricultural chemical operation on Dayton Road, Chico was
considered at this time. The Agricultural Commissioner has submitted a
report to the Board also.
It was felt the matter should be held over until later in the
meeting when Supervisor Dolan will be present and a letter from Neil
McCabe, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Lord, have been received.
Mr. Lord presented a suggestion to solve the problems at this
time. He xead a prepared statement at this time which was presented to
the Board.
Mrs. Alice Lord advised that they had tried to figure out options.
She wanted to know why the operator had never appeared before the Board.
The Agricultural Commissioner had said that the sock was to be over the top
of the tank when it was being filled. When they are filling the trailers,
they do not cover as the Agricultural Commissioner has said. There is no
high fence around them, even though they are required to have one. Because
of the high speed highway and the chemical hazards, there:~.is still the intent
to hurt, harm or kill. She did not approve of the expansion at least next
to their well.
The matter was continued to later in the meeting.
1085 APPOINTMENTS CONTINUED TO JULX 20, 1982
The following appointments were continued to July 20, 1982:
1. Appointments to the Community Action Agency Board of Directors.
Page 164.
June 29., 1982
i
June 29, 1982
82'- - 2. Appointment to the Butte-County Council of Senior Citizens.
~ ',
1086 COMMUNICATIONS
Connie Morgan, Oroville. 2'Ls. Morgan pxovdes perspective regarding the
Butte County Employees Association and their current contract
proposals. Information; no action taken.
Paul R. Walters:, president, Butte County Law Enforcement Officexs
Association. 1~Ir. Waltexs provides information on the Association's
position regarding contract negotiations. Information; discussed
earlier in the meeting.
I Mx. & Mrs. Kenneth R. Barnes, Magalia. Mr. & Mrs. Barnes write requesting
that Sheriff's patrol not be withdrawn from Paradise Pines.
', Information; no action taken.
James H. Moore, Chico. Mr. Moore writes in complaint of campaign and
election activities in the 2nd District. Referred to Elections
and District Attorney- Office.
Maxim N. Bach, attorney. The attorney, on behalf of Susan Charlene Moses,
submits a claim £or damages pursuant to Government Code 910 et.
seq. in the amount of $2,000,000. See motion following communications.
City of Chico. The Mayor requests consideration of participation with the
city on a Cohasset Road improvement project utilizing funds from
other road projects. Referred to Public Works to correspond with
the city.
W. S. Warner, president, Warner Petroleum, Inc. Mr. Warner indicates a
dangerous condition exists on a county road north of Nord-
Gianella Road at Rock Creek. Referred to Public Works Director.
Irvin E. Berry, Redding. Mr. Berry requests an opportunity to bid on the
animal control contract fox Butte County. Referred to Administra-
tive Office for response.
Department of Water Resources. Albert J. Dolcini, chief of the Northern
District, DWR, provides a statement of cost for watermaster
service in Butte Creek service area in Butte County for the
1982-83 fiscal year. Information; no action taken.
Tillman & Beasley - A Law Corporation. The attorneys offer a resolution
', approving participation in the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
and authorize funding regarding the Northern California Emergency
Care Council. To be considered later in the meeting.
'1087 REJECT CLAIM - SUSAN CHARLENE MOSES
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the claim of Susam Charlene Moses for damages pursuant to
Government Code 910 et. seq. in the amount of $2,000,000 was rejected and
referred to County Counsel and Risk Management Coordinator.
'1088 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-110 & 82-111: PUBLIC HEARING: BUILDING PERMIT FEE
INCREASES DUE TO NEW ENERGY REGULATIONS
The public hearing on building permit fee increases due to new
', energy regulations was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works. director, set out the background
of the fee increases. The Board by policy have asked that the building
permit department be self sufficient and he felt they were on their way to
that goal. They have reduced 'the .cost of the operation. This would be
Page 165.
June 29, 1982
82-
~ ''
_ _ June 29, 1982
:~~ r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
an increase in building permits of approximately ten percent. If the
Legislature does postpone the-regulations for energy efficiency, they do
not want to have to charge the fees. These fees would go into effect on
7uly 13, 1982.
Jim Glander, building department, reported on the energy
regulation legislation, It has passed both houses and on the Governor's
desk for consideration. The bill mandates that they inspect the energy
regulations, which is not the way it is at this time. If the Board chose
not to implement the energy regulation fees, the resolution could be changed
to delete $60.00 for new buildings on page 2 in the second full paragxaph.
The plan check fee on page five second paragraph first sentence could be
deleted.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Robert Martin, represent-
ing several developers. Mr. Martin advised they were trying to keep the
costs down and felt that if the fee for plan checking for licensed contractors
and engineers was eliminated this would help to keep the cost down. They
are liable if there is anything that goes wrong with a building.
Mr. Castleberry advised the Board that if they felt strongly
about this situation, they could ask the Legislature to as the Governor
to postpone implementation of the energy regulations. Those sponsoring
the legislation feel these regulations will have much more in energy
costs.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
~~
1089
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following resolutions were adopted and the Chairman authorized
to sign:
1. Resolution 82-110 implementing building permit fee increases
due to new energy regulations with the deletion on page 2, second full
paragraph of the $60.00 for new buildings and on page 5, second paragraph,
first sentence of the $30.00 for plan check fee for energy regulations.
2. Resolution 82-111 imploring the Governor not to veto the
postponement bill for implementation of the energy regulations.
AXES: Supervisors Fulton, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. NOES: Supervisor
Moseley ABSENT: Supervisor Dolan
PUBLIC HEARING: HARRX KOENIG APPEAL_OF CONDITIONS ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
The public hearing on Harry Koenig appeal of condition 11 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 five acres located on the
southwest corner of A-,T Stohr Road and Forest Ranch Road, Forest Ranch area
held as as advertised.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental-health director, set out the background
of the appeal. This appeal is based on the conflict between the General
Plan and the land division ordinance. The Land Use Element requires adequate
water supply. The land division regulations states water need not be proven
for parcels five acres or larger. He has-been advised by Counsel that the
General Plan takes precedent. If the discretion is to be at the Health
Department level, he wanted to be reasonalile certain that water was available.
The information they have available now is that water is not available every
year in Forest Ranch. where there is no information available, the only way
to prove water is to drill a well. They do not know at this time if water
is available in the higher ground.
Page 166.
,7une 29, 1982
8 2-
3',
-_____-__===June 291982==-==_____--______-_
Hearing open to the p.uhlic. Appearing;
1. Tom Wrinkel, Hamby Surveying. 24r. [~rinkel advised that the
Planning Department first asked for a condition on Lower Doe Mill Ridge.
Thereis only one well within three or four miles and felt the condition would
apply. Then the condition was on every map outside the valley. The Planning
Department clarified the ~cot4dition and advised that if there are a few wells
within one mile, it would tie evidence of wells.. He supplied the Health
Department with. a list of 17 wells within. one-half mile of this parcel. The
Health Department said that was not evidence of water in that area. He has
asked the Health Department to supply information showing that Forest Ranch
is a problem area for water. There has been nothing provided to him. He
thought this matter had been taken care of at the Advisory Agency meeting
when they asked for clarifcation of the condition. He was asking that
the Board give the Health Department direction as to how the condition should
be met and to try to resolve this problem for all future parcel maps having
this condition.
2. Gordon Shields, manager of Hamby Surveying. Mr. Shields stated
that the parcel map was designed for the, average citize to create four parcels
for selling. This is one of the many regulations so-far out of line that
makes it only possible for a full blown developer to develop any property.
There is water all over the Forest Ranch area. He would like for the
Board to look at the Forest Ranch area.
The hearing was continued to July 20, 1982 at 10:30 a.m.
1090
1091
PUBLIC HEARING: PAT GATES APPEAL OF CONDITIONS ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
The public hearing on Pat Gates appeal of. conditions 15 and 16 on
tentative parcel map, AP 63-12-12, dividing 23 acres more or less to create
four pacels, 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 was held as advertised.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, advised that this
was the same issue as the Harry Koenig appeal. He would welcome direction
from the Board on this matter.
Hearing .open to the public. Appearing: Gordon Shield, manager
of Hamby Surveying. Mr. Shields was in agreement with Mr. Vanhart.
The hearing was continued to July 20, 1982 at 10:30 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: BRUCE ROE APPEAL OF .CONDITION ON TENTATIVE PARCEL 1+TAP
The public hearing on Bruce Roe appeal of condition 10 on tentative
parcel map to meet the City of Chico requirement to provide access road
connection with Cohasset Road, AP 48-01-16, four parcels, property located
approximately 3/4 mile north of Eaton Road and 0.3 mile east of Cohasset
Road, north Chico area was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the appeal. This is four ten-acre parcels on the east side of Cohasset
Road. Since this is a city street, the Advisory Agency placed the condition
on the map. The city has not been very well defined in their requirements.
~iThe city has not yet defined what tBey want on this condition.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Russ Croninger, Ringel
and Associates. Mr. Croninger advised that since March 29, 1982 he had
held numerous meetings with the city to try to determine what to do for
encroachment. On an old subdivision 'map next to this, the city has a
50-foot right-of-way. They would like to move the entire encroachment to
50 feet. Page 167.
June 29, 1982
S 2=
$'',
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
June 29, 1982
~. Hearing closed to the public and^confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the appeal of. Bruce~Roe on condition 10- on tentative parcel
map, AP 48-01-16, four parcels, property located approximately 3/4 mile
north of Eaton Road and 0.3 mile east of Cohasset Road, north Chico area
was upheld and the condition was deleted.
RECESS: 11:14 a.m.
RECONVENE: 11:44 a.m.
GENERAL ASSISTANCE FAIR HEARING
The Board went into closed session at this time to hold a
General Assistance fair hearing.
APPEARANCE: GERALD HERMANSEN
Mr. Hermansen presented the Board with a check to defray the
maintenance costs on the Raymond A. Leonard Memorial which was built at the
Superior Court building. This check was surplus money from the building
of the memorial. The amount of the check is for $1,366.•
APPEARANCE: GEORGE WORTH
Mr. Worth spoke regarding the requests by county employees for
raises every year. He felt that the people in outside industries would like
to be guaranteed that type of salary and raise, especially the people working
in agricultural production.
APPEARANCE: GEORGE SCHWINDEMAN
Mr. Schwindeman, representing the Retired Public Employees,
spoke in support of SB 46. He asked that the Board go on record in support
of this legislation. He presented a copy of the bill to staff at this time.
APPEARANCE: JUNE VAN GOODEN
Ms. Van Goo den spoke relative to the letter from Leslie A. MacKowiak
last week on a proposal establishing the Community of Mesilla Valley.
She collected 81 signatures from 4:00 p.m. yesterday afternoon in opposition
to establishing the Community of Mesilla Valley. The people in the area
would like to retain what is there now.
The matter was referred to staff.
1097
lags
APPEARANCE: WILLIAM BETHARD
Mr. Bethard spoke in opposition to the establishment of the
Community of Mesilla Valley.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman Wheeler advised that she lied seen a newspaper article
relative to the fact that the Nord Gianella bridge was back in the STIP.
The State Transportation Commission approved of having this back in the plan
over the objection of the State Transportation Director.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, urged the Board to
ask the Governor not to approve the appeal.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 12:04 p.m. to hold a closed session
regarding meet and confer.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 1;38 p.m. following a closed session
regarding meet and confer.
SUPERVISOR DOLAN PRESENT AT THLS TIME
Page 168.
Sane 29, 1982
.Tune 29, 1982
99
1100
1101
RESCIND RESOLUTTON 82105: ADOPT RESOLUTION 82=112 REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-105 relative-to revenue anticipation
notes was rescinded; Resolution 82-112 reflecting a revised pledge repayment
schedule for the revenue anticipation notes was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A public hearing date of July 20, 19.82 at 10.,00 a.m.(first item
on the agenda) was set for consideration of Board of Supervisors extension
of interim "A-160" (agricultural - 160 acre parcels), Sections 4 through 9,
Wookey Road area off Meridian Munjar, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of T23N
121E MDB&M.
PUBLIC HEARTNG DATE SET
A public hearing date of July 27, 1982 at 1:30 p.m. was set on
the following:
Butte County Planning Commission General. Plan Amendments and rezone
A. Concow Area General Plan amendment (item on which an EIR has
been required) for the Concow area, including the Yankee Hill,
Big Bend, Jarbo Gap, Concow Lake, and Jordan Hill areas.
Designations under consideration are: Timber Mountain,
Grazing and Open Land, Agricultural Residential, Low Density
Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Public. The
establishment of a new Foothill Area Residential designation
will also be considered for the Concow area.
B. Butte County Planning Commission (item which is not subject
to environmental review) General Plan Amendment.
1. Unadopting and eliminating from the General Plan the
operational sewer and water element, the recreation
element, the people element, the economy element,
and the public facilities element.
2. Revising the implementation program of the Land Use
Element to allow for geographic policies by appendices
or as a supplement, provide consistency with the Housing
Element on Planning areas, and to clarify map scale.
3. Revising the Land Use Element to delete references to
the wildlife and vegetation maps.
C. Butte County Planning Commission rezone (.item on which an
EIR has been required) of the Concow area, including the
'Yankee Hi11, Big Ben, Jarbo Gap, Concow Lake and Jordan
Hill areas.
1102
(PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN D. DRAKE AND HOWARD ISOM REZONE (ITEM ON WHICH AN EIR
The public hearing on John D. Drake and Howard Isom rezone (item on
which an environemtnal impact report was previously certified) from "A-2"
(general) and "S-H" (scenic highway) to "PA-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 public facilities to be maintained by a
homeowners association on approximately 1,0.50 acres located on the east side
of State Highway 32 and Humboldt Road, approximately fire miles northeast of
Chico, identified as AP 46-71-I7, 46-71-•18 (portion), 46-35-4 and 46-35-23
was held as advertised.
Page 169.
June 22, 1982
~0
8
_ _ _ June 29, 1482 _ _
Bettye Blair, planning director, adys.ed-that they had not yet
received the comments from the Clearinghouse on this matter and there was
not sufficient time to respond. She asked that the matter be continued for
one week. The Board must act on this project b.y July 20, 1982.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Jere Bolster, representing the applYCants in this development.
Mr. Bolster stated that since the hearing would be continued, he would like
to have some additional new information submitted for the record. They
will be providing a cost revenue analysis for the Board's consideration.
2. Richard Recht, Recht, Hausrath and Associates., presented
the Board with the cost revenue analysis that their firm prepared for this
project. He submitted a copy of their qualifications. He would be spending
most of his presentation on the possible difficulties in providing county
services and ways to provide that service. There are three service potential
problems: fire services, police services and road services. The exhibits
were presented to the Board.
The hearing was continued to 3uly 20, 1982 at 1:30 p.m.
1103
RECESS:. 2:20 p.m.
RECONVENE: 2:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: GERALD LUGENBEEL PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPEAL
BY ARCHIE AND RUTH PATERS ON OF APPROVED USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO SIDEYARD
SETBACKS
The public hearing on Gerald Lugenbeel proposed negative declaration
and appeal by Archie and Ruttier Paterson of approved use permit to allow a
home occupation which may be objectionable by reason of noise, and a variance
to the sideyard setback to allow a studio three feet from the property line
and a tool shed at the property line, on property zoned °A-10" (agricultural -
ten acre parcels), located on tine northeast corner of Elk Avenue and Pierce
Avenue, approximately hree miles southwest of Chico was held as continued.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
*~~
Supervisor Dolan stated she had received a telephone call from
a former neighbor of Mr. Lugenbeel who supported tfie use permit and variance.
1. Katthy Schifferly. Ms. Schifferly asked if the Board would
explain the difference between a use permit fqr home occupation and one
for a business as opposed to a hobby. There is no money involved.
Bettye Blair, planning director, explained that the question was
whether this was a home occupation because of the language that says no
employees and no one other than the family.
2. Ron Haberman, Chico Craft Guild. Mr. Haberman spoke in favor
of the use :permit. Mr. Lugenbeel is one of the few people who produces this
tyep of work and is an asset to the comment. There is very little dust or
noise involved. His discontinued his work with Mr. Lugenbeel because of the
problems with the neighbors. Across the street from the neighbor is an
industrial building for almond hulling. That operation produces more noise
and dust than Mr. Lugenbeel's operation.
3. Dorothy Collet. Ms. Collet stated she was. a retired school
teacher of arts and crafts. She wanted to point out that a person does not
move to the country to get away from noise. She lives by an almond orchard
and there is noise from 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m, with. removal of the orchard,
D-8 cats, irrigation and spraying": ,`This is a farming area and people learn
to live with the noises. Page 170.
June 29, 1982
/~
8 2-
3',
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ~T.une 2921982_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- _
4. Ruth. Paterson. Mrs. Paterson adv?-sed that she moved to this
area from Sacramento, where.tliey wexe in the flight path_of McClellan AFB,
five years ago. There were agricultural noises. in the area and figured they
could lire with those noises and that was part of living in this area.
Their enjoyment is being violated more and~more liy tie medal foundry and
the workers. She read, and submitted a letter from Neil McCabe, attorney at
Iaw.
5. Margaret Brown. 1+is Brown felt it was Netter to place metals
in molds than to place people in them. She had been at Mr. Lugenbeel's
when the furnace was fired and it was very beautiful.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan felt that what was before the Board was a use
permit with a home occupation because that type of activity was allowed under
the home occupation ordinance. The county has alloed auto repair facility
north of Chico in the "A-10" zone without a use permit. A cusory review of
the area shows there are separate accessory buildings within the setbacks,
which would not he granting a special privilege to Mr. Lugenbeel. The noise
in this type of activity is similar to the noises of agriculture.. The first
noise reading were over 85 decibels and now are within 62 to 70 decibels.
She was working with residents in another are to bring the noise level down
to 64 to 70 decibels and the people have nearly stopped complaining.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
that the requirements of CEQA have been met, and they have reviews all of
those they were suppose to, and moved the adoption of a conditional negative
declaration with those mitigations that are in the information before the
Board, making the findings under the Code Section 24-49 regarding the variance
that there are special circumstances in regard to the location and surroundings
and that the strict application of this chapter deprives the property of
privileges enjayed by other properties, the record showing that there are
other buildings within the setback, and, therefore, approve the variance to
allow those structures within the sideyard setback in this zone; to make the
findings that use of property for the home occupation as described will not
impair the integrity or character of the zone nor be injurious to the sur-
rounding properties or detrimental to the health, welfare of people residing
or working in the neighborhood because it is so similar to what occurs in
other areas and approve the use permit for the home occupation with the
conditions forwarded to the Board by the Planning Commission with the
exception of the eight-foot solid masonry wall as set forth below:
outside noise levels shall not exceed 60 dB (Ldn) on adjacent
residential properties, nor exceed indoor levels (Ldn) of 45 dB on
those same parcels.
2. iFse and store all fuels, welding equipment and flammable materials in
accordance with the following Butte County Fire Department recommendations
and standards:
A. Provide 2016 ABC fire extinguisher to be readily accessible in
studio.
B. Gas and oxygen cyclinders to be stored safely and chained to
prevent falling over.
C. Studio to be maintained clean and free of flammable material.
3. Store all toxic or hazardous chemicals under lock and key when not
in use.
Page 171,
June 29, 1482
~~
.Tune 29, 1982
4. Collect, s-tore and-sipose of all waste.inaterYals,- liquid or solid, in a
manner approved by Butte County Environmental Health.Department and Butte
County Public Works Department and State Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
8:
5. Deleted
6. All conditions imposed by the Board of S.uperyis-ors must be complied with
prior to the use of the facility (Section 24-44~.
7. Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local
statutes, ordinances, and regulations.
Discussion of whether anything could be used to keep the noise
level down held at this time.
Ron Haberman and Gerald Lugebeel felt that Kaowool could be
used for that purpose by lining the furnace wiah the material. This could
muffle the noise.
Motion amended to show condition 5 to xead as follows:
5. Material will be added to line the furnace with Kaowool.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
RECESS: 3:09 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:20 p.m.
1104 DISCUSSION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE COUNCIL REORGANIZA
Letter from Tillman & Beasley, A Law Corporation, relative to the
establishment of a nonprofit corporation acknowledged at this time.
Gary Rapport, executive director of Chico Community Hospital, set
out the concerns of the medical community relative to the Northern California
Emergency Medical Care Council. They feel it is the county's responsibility
to support the communications system that connects the emergency providers
to the other counties in the nine county region. He understood the county
had paid $12,000 of the $24,000 from last year. He suggested that the
county pay $20,000, which would be the additional $12,000 from last year
and $8,000 for this year. He did not feel that the county had received
their fair share in the past. There is a need to support the communications
system.
Chris Laventan, Enloe Hospoital, stated that the repeators are on
Bloomer Mountain, Forest Ranch, Tehama County and the Tuskin Buttes. The
county would be receiving a repeator this year. The services in the county
are not adequate at this time. With the EM5 expanding in Oroville there is
a need for bettex radio coverage in Oroville and the foothill areas around
Orovoille. They are trying to set up a central dispatch system in the City
of Chico. The service has mobile radios supplied by the EMC and the
hospitals have base stations to communicate with the ambulances. There are
four frequencies for the bio-medical system. It is necessary to have repeator
functions for the four frequencies. They cannot send telemetry on anything
but medical systems.
Page 172.
June 29, 1982
1~
June 29, 1982
- - Supervisor Saraceni was .under-the impression that some of the
counties.were~using the system for thex polio=_.and fire s.ystem.. He had met
with the emexgency~medical community and was also-under the impression that
there would be contributions forthcoming. if at all possible to help with the
cost of the system. Tehama County received $3,500. in contributions from
one hospital.
Mr. Laventan advised that some fire departments do use the system
since they respond and are the primary responder on medical aid calls. In
that sense the fire departments do use the medical frequency radios.
Chairman Wheeler suggested that so?t3ething be put together for the
Board's consideration on this matter, by staff.
Mr. Rapport asked if there was a Board committee to work on this
issue rather than just having staff working on the issue.
Supervisor Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler to work together on
this issue and make a report back to the Board on July 20, 1982.
1105 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO BUTTE COUNTY CODE SECTION 24 TO PROVIDE FOR
CONDITIONAL ZONING SENT BACK TO PLANNING STAFF FOR FILING AWAY
Discussion of conditional zoning proposal held at this time.
Supervisor Dolan recalled that in previous Board discussions on
conditional zoning versus development agreements, it seemed the accepted
procedure was development agreements on advise of Counsel that this would
be the vehicle that allows the most protection to the county.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that it was their opinion that
conditional zoning was'no more effective than the zoning the county has now.
The only real remedy is to rezone the property. A development agreement setup
allows for entering into an agreement for certain thangs and there is the
added advantage of being able to enforce them. The preference would be to
have development agreements rather than conditional zoning. There is no
written authority for conditional zoning as it refers to the county's ability
to enforce it. He was not aware of any case involving Sacramento County
that said the county could enforce the conditional zoning.
Bettle Kircher, planning director, advised that Sacramento County
has had conditional zoning for about 25 years. She felt the county could
use both tools. They have had instances in the past when they were looking
at the environmental evaluations,if they had keen able to mitigate concerns
through development agreements, the development could have moved forward
much more smoothly. One instance is that on the Skyway Project, in which
there was identified an endangered plant species. If they had had
conditional zoning they could have required an easement at that level.
The matter was sent back to the Planning staff for filing away.
1106 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2297: CLOSED HEARING: DAN HAYS PROP05ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND REZONE, SOUTHEAST OF CHICO
The closed public hearing on Dan Hays proposed negative declaration
and rezone from "A-2" (general) and "A 40" (agricultural - 40 acre parcels)
to "ICE-1" (light industrial), property located on both sides of State
Highway 99 at Durha~Oroville Highway Pentz Road interchange, identified as
AP 40-12-22, 23 and 24, southeast of Chico was held as continued.
Bettye Kircher, planning director, advised that this had been sent
back to the Planning Commission for consideration of conditional zoning.
The Board has received the memo on the Commission recommendations and there
is a letter from Caltrans. Page 173.
June'29, 1982
/ C~
82
3
S
a
~___-______= June 29ZI982___________________
It was,anoyed by Superyisor Moseley finding that the Hays. project
substantially is in conformitX-with: the policies of the Butte County General
Plan, and, finding also that the environmental documents have been considered,
the requi::rements of the California Enyi'roxunental Quality Act have been
completed, a negatiye declaration .be adopted regarding the environmental
impact and an ordinance be adopted rezoning the Dan Hays property from "A-2"
(general) and "A-40" tagricultural - 40 acre parcels) to "M-1" (.light
industrial, including the conditions that were approved by the Planning
Commission.
Del 5iemsen, county counsel, advised there were no mitigation
measures approved because there is no conditional zoning. The impacts are
not going to be~mitigated by a development agreement and the Board is faced
with making findings there were no longer be potential impacts and thus a
negative declaration is appropriate.
Motion amended to delete: including the conditions that were
approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Siemsen advised that there will have to bean indication of
why the potential impacts on the General Plan are no longer impacts. The
Board during their hearings on the General Plan amendment said they potential
impacts of traffic, drainage and so forth would be handled as mitigations
with a development agreement by the developer. This is not being done at
this time.
Motion tabled at this time.
RECESS: 4:12 p.m.
RECONVENE: 4:39 p.m.
It was moved, by Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
finding that the environmental documents have been considered; the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act have been complted; a negative
declaration regarding environmental impact be adopted; and finding that
the findings are not significant on the checklist:
A. The increase iri drainage. Finding that they already~:have hardpan there
and its not going to cause that much of an impact and Caltrans will have
some control of the drainage also, and,
B. Alteration of the land uses. This is grazing and open land now, but never
remembering having seen animals in there, ,I cannot agree that that's going
to cause an impact; and this also agrees with the General Plan; and,
C. There is conflict with the land uses addressed. This would not be in
conflict because the land on the west is industrial already so that would
not be in .conflict with that; and,
D. There would be an increase in traffic. This is know to be true but it would
not all be on 99 because they also have the Pentz Road which would take part
of the traffic, so, they're talking about two roads onto this, one onto
99 and also one onto the Pentz Road; and,
E. There would b.e an impact on 49 Highway north. of the interchange coming into
the four lanes and coming back into the two lanes, but it would not be
much of an impact on that; and,
F. Change of visual aspect of the area. It would have a change because it
would be changing and going into haying, eventually there would evidently
be buuildings there, but that's just part of change and that would not be
and significant impact; andy'~i;~or the. aesthetics there should be some
Page 174.
June 29, 1982
1~
June 29, 19.82
plants and shrubs for a buffer and landscaping, but that would all come
at a later tune when-the buildings were put in and the building permits
were issued-and there could b.e some things for parking and other items
which would be controlled by the Building Departments and, the fire does
not even need to be addressed because there is a fire station in Durham
and at Butte College and not really that far from Chico so that would not
be an impact; and,
8 2-
a
finding the project subsaantially in conformity with. the policies of the Butte
County General Plan, therefore, Ordinance 229.7 rezoning the Dan Hays property
from "A-2" and "A-40" to "I~1" be adopted and the Chairman be authorized to sign.
**~*
Supervisor Fulton was concerned with. the findings there would be
no significant effects as far as traffic even though the Board had received a
letter from Caltrans dated June 21, 1982. There was also concern over the
drainage for this axea.
Supervisor Moseley felt that the traffic could be taken care of
because of the Pentz Road since not all the traffic would be going onto
Highway 99.
Nir. Siemsen responded to Supervisor Wheeler's question relative
to having these items mitigated at the time of building. The impacts may
or may not be mitigated. If there were a use permit required there could be
control, but as to other issues he did not know of any other kind of control.
Supervisor Fulton questioned whether police protection had been
considered in the motion.
Supervisor Moseley felt that if they were so concerned about the
road, they would have completed the four laning since it had been on the
priority list. This was not done.
Chairman Wheeler felt that if it was such a hazardous situation,
Caltrans would have put money into this road and complted the freeway system
through the county.
Supervisor Fulton felt that the motion was saying the county knew
more about highway conditions and what this project will do than Caltrans
knew. The project in development will spread fire protection further and will
also spread police protection. There would be dependence on the volunteer
fire station at Butte College. Tine fire station at -urham was one of those
on the list to be closed, but will not close this year because the Board found
enough money to keep it open. The only real fire protection will be from
Chico. If the revenue falls next year, there is no way the county can keep
all twelve of the stations open.
Supervisor Saraceni advised that there were a number of homes
and industrial sites a little further up the road from this project.
Supervisor Fulton asked how much industrial acreage was located
in the unincorporated area and how much was in the incorporated areas. He
wanted to know how much of the 5,000 acres of industrial zoning was occupied.
Supervisor Saraceni advised that they did not know how many of
the thousands of acres had not power and there is a question of whether the
land is really useable. The figures are misleading because so many of the
parcels are unuseable.
Vote on motion:
Page 175.
June 29, 1982
1~
_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _Ju_ne_ 29 i 1_982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
82- - AYES: Supervisors kioseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
'y ', NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton
Motion carried.
1107
REPORT ON THE JACK"vANELLA REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT FOR AGRICULTURAL
CHEMICAL OPERATION EXPANSION ON DAYTON ROAD, CHICO
The deport on the Jack vanella request for a building permit to
expand his agricultural chemical operation onDayton Road, Chico was held as
continued from earlier in the meeting.
Del Siemsen,,county counsel, advised that the building permit
process is generally a ministerial process and normally if the plans and
specifications meet the standards, the county cannot deny the building permit.
The question was whether the Board was requesting consideration of changing
the zone to limit further projects like this and whether the county could
make it applicable to this particular building permit. He had a letter from
Neil McCabe, attorney at law, addressing the issue as far as whether or not
the county can deny or'issue a building permit as a result of rezoning going
in to prohibit the use. The ordinance would have to redefine the term agri-
culture to specifically limit retail sale of, fertilizer.
Chairman Wheeler felt it would be the proper procedure to send
the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission and staff to hold hearings.
An interim zone could be adopted pending adoption by the normal process. The
question is whether an interim ordinance would be sufficient to stop a
building permit request. Her research has shown that normally where a rezone
takes place and the effort is to frustrate a developer, the courts have said
no. The courts have upheld in same instance where the Board was considering
changing the zone prior to the request for a permit.
Mr. Siemsen advised that only after the building permit application
was made, was this brought to the Board's attention. The Board at the time
of previous discussions, had not given specific directions as to what to do.
He felt that in his opinion the court would take the position that any refusal
to issue a building permit would be on the basis of trying to frustrate the
applicant. In 1979, the Board in granting a building permit to Allen
Thompson took the position that applying for a building permit prior to rezoning
was a vested interest. Mr. Vanella made application for a building permit
around June 15, 1982.
Chairman Wheeler felt that Counsel had answered the issue on the
building permit. As far as the ordinance prohibiting retaih sales of fertilizer,
she felt this needed to be sent to the Planning Commission and public hearings
need to be held. This will impact agriculture in total. There is the
possibility of a compromise situation after the neighbors sit down and discuss
this matter.
Supervisor Moseley felt that after hearing Mr•. Lord's presentation
earlier in the morning, that this could be resolved without any problems.
Mr. and Mrs. Lord are making a very forthright effort to resolve this problem.
Supervisor Dolan advised that she had not been present for Mr.
Lord's presentation but had been handed a letter. She felt they were being
very cooperative.
Mrs. Lord wondered if the Board wanted Mr. Lord to review his
proposal that .was made earlier. 'She knew the Board had received a copy
of the attorney's letter.
Mr. L. W. Lord asked if someone would pass their proposal on to
the other party. It looks 1ike~-tTreq-might b.e able to solve the problem.
Page 176.
June. 29, 1982
~~
a z-
b
• _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _Ju_ne_ 29 z 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
He is willing to take this on and to contribute quite a lot if necessary
to solve the problem to di:ffnse the situation. When their attorney is well,
he will handle his part. in this matter.
Supervisor Dolan felt Mr. and Mrs.. Lord had come a long way in
that initially, the request was to abate the use and close the business
down. Now, if some agreement can be made to alleviate the problems, the
business could stay. She would convene a neighborhood meeting, if she had
to. What she was struggling with before was why was the business there.
She found out the business was there by interpretation of the Planning
Commission even after the Board passed an ordinance that it was the Board
who decided policy.
Chairman Wheeler felt it would be interesting to send the ordinance
to the agricultural community for their comment. As far as many people in
agriculture are concerned, the storage of any fertilizer is an on-going part
of the operation and, certainly, retail sales of fertilizer are a part of
it to offset the cost..
Supervisor Dolan did not read the ordinance as .stopping f.ertiilizer.
They are struggling with hulling also. She felt the county should try to
prevent these types of problems in the future. Maybe the county might want
to make the use allowable with a use permit so there can be review and
conditions to negate the problems that could arise.
The ordinance was referred to the Agricultural Advisory Commission,
Farm Bureau, Women in Agriculture and the Chamber of Commerce agricultural
committees before the matter goes to hearing before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lord asked if they could get copies of the minutes to see what
was said. It could be that Mr. McCabe's description is more accurate,
otherwise it would be different. He felt that some of the minutes would
probably give the facts.
Mrs. Lord felt that what Mr. Lord was saying was there should be
no expansion of the building.
Mr. Siemsen advised that it was the Board's decision whether they
wished to withhold the building permit. Technically speaking, Mr. Vanella
could go into court with a Writ of Mandate to force the Board to issue the
permit, with the fact that the Board in 1979 took the position that applying
for a building permit prior to an ordinance going into effect constitutes
a vested right. The Board would have to reverse their policy.
Supervisor Dolan wondered if someone could call Mr. Vanella and
ask him to politely not build anything until the neighborhood meeting. Perhaps
this could be done by someone in the Building Department who could make the
call to Mr. Vanella and indicate that Mr. Lord wanted an amicable solution
and would they not do anything until the solution has been reached.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that he had visited Mr. Vanella yesterday
and the reason for the building permit is to put the motorized equipment behind
the building under the overhang instead of on the property line.
Mrs. Lord stated that when Mr. Vanella requested the new building,
it was requested for within ten or twenty feet from they well.
Supervisor Dolan to hold a neighborhood meeting with all parties
and the matter will be brought back on July 13, 1982. Sf the matter is not
solved it will be placed back on the agenda;:
Page 177.
June•29, 1982
/ :~
8 2-110 8
$!
1109 i,
1110
- - June 29L 1982_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DTSCUSSION OF PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTRACTS
Supervisor Dolan reported~on the Puhlic Defender contracts at this
time. The county has contracts with_two law firms to provide bifrocated
services. Part of the action to change from ten years was the establishment
cf a Putilic Defenders Advisor Committee. The committee met several times
Suring this last year to try to get a handle on weighty situations. The
committee is charged with providing a recommendation to the Board that calls
for the contract to be'renewed for another year unless notice is given 54 days
in advance. It is the concensvs of the committee,-all the judges and through
roundtable discussions'.. with the contractors, that the contract should be
continued for another year. There are several issues the committee will
be handling. It is hard to compare eight months on the current bifrocated
system wiah the ten years way it was handled. The Chico contract may or may
not have more of a workload than the Oroville contract. Recently, a number
of cases had court appointed public defenders. The committee will have to
review these issues to, see if there is a trend. Tt is the unanimous concensus
that the bifrocated system is afar better system than what the county had.
The contract is automatically canceled after another year and this will dive
the committee time for a study.
Supervisor Saraceni had requested that the Board look at this
contract to see if the fiinancial savings could be made by going out to bid.
He hoped the Board would go out early enough for bids to have a comparison.
Supervisor Dolan stated this was a contract for services. The
committee looked at the question of service, cost and the potential for better
service for less money!. It is the committee's unanimous opinion that the
contracts should continue for another year. The contracts that came in are
significantly less than the proposals that came in. She felt the county
received a good deal as far as cost is concerned.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS PRESENTED SX BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Fulton advised that Paradise Irrigation District had
just had a moratorium placed on new service connections.
Supervisor Fulton asked that the Board appoint him, Jim Johansen
and Gerald Lively to engage in a revenue analysis for projects to report
back to the Board every six weeks as an on-going committee.
Chairman Wheeler hoped that the Board would consider doing a fiscal
impact study for the county and ask the cities to share with the county. She
felt they had to seriously look at hiring a consultant for the county, someone
totally disassociated with the county and special interest groups.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the Board would have to change the
resolution adopting the proposed budget by adding to it to allow for the
Meals-on-Wheels program.
Mike Pyeatt„ interim administrative officer, advised that the
allocation toward any revenue sharing projects are not final until the final
decision on the budget is made. The county has not antered into agreements
with the Meals=on-Wheels organization until the budget is adopted.
COMMUNICATIONS
County Supervisors Association of California. Larry E. Naake, executive
director, provides comments on AB 1743, county service contracts
with cities. Information; no action taken.
Thomas. A. 2~IcCready, Chico. 1+1r, xlcCready appeals the Advisory Agency's decision
to approve the Louis Camenzind proposed negative declaration and
tentative parcel map, AP 40-06-64, 65 and 6b, dividing 9.$ acres
Page 178.
June 29, 1982
,.j_
8;
'b
__ June_29, 1982 -- __ ___ ~_
plus or minus into four separate parcels, ranging from .5 acre to
6.6 acres in size located on the north side. of the Oroville-Chico
Hwy., approximately 1,200 feet east of the Midway. Set for hearing
July 22, 1982 at. 10;00 a:m.
California Arts- Council, Sacramento. The council writes regarding the Arts
Council contract and seeking information on the contract number.
Referred to Administrative Office.
City of Chico. The city writes concerning the- negotiation situation. To
be considered on June 30, 1982.
RECESS: The Board recessed at 5:30 p:m. to reconvene on Wednesday, June 30,
1982 at 10:00 a.m.
Page 179.
June. 29, 1982
Z. '~