HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072082July 20, 1982
OF CALIFORNIA )
S5.
OF BUTTE )
82
1145
1T46
The Board of Supervisors 'met at 9,00 a.m. pursuant to recess.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
Puke Pyeatt, interim administrative officer; Del Siemsen; county counsel; and
Eleanor M. Becker; county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to theBoard.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America led by
Soy Scout Troop 32 from Oroville
Invocation by Supervisor Moseley.
PRESENTATION BY BOY SCOUT TROOP 32 OF OROVILLE
Frank Curly, scoutmaster for Soy Scout Troop 32, introduced Morgan
Price who presented a certificate of appreciate to Chairman Wheeler for
allowing the troop to participate in the Beautification Program. He also
introduced Jeff Olson who presented Clay Castleberry, public works director,
with a certificate of appreciate for the same program.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE DAY
Supervisor Saraceni would be bringing up a letter later in the day.
Chairman Wheeler commented on the NACo conference she had attended
in Baltimore. She had the pleasure of being present and speaking with the
President of the United States relative to local issues. The main topic•of
conversation was that the federal government was certainly looking forward
to transfering local programs to the local-jurisdictions and at the same time
the funding mechanisms would be coming with the programs. The concern of
the counties was they did not want the program routed through the state but
to come direct to the counties. They had assurances it would come direct
and the state would not have control of the programs.
Supervisor Fulton asked if the federal government was taking into
consideration the fact that the counties are the poor relations of the state
and will be running into local problems with the state.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2299: APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler asked that the Board consider relinquishing the
hiring frees and allowing the department heads the ability to make those
kinds of decisions. She felt there should be administrative review through
the Administrative Office and the Board. They can just advise the Board.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, advised that xhere
was a Management Council meeting yesterday and this was one of the topics
of discussion. There is concern over the Board hiring freeze on positions
in the proposed budget. The council is asking that the Board relinquish on
the hiring freeze and allow the department heads the ability to do the hiring.
The department heads feel they can evaluate staff needs and whether the position
should be filled or not. The freeze creates some unnecessary delays.
Supervisor Saraceni questioned the request for setting of a public
hearing for the building permit fees for energy requirements.
Clay Castleberry, public works .director, advised that the Governor
signed the bill that postponed the requirement in certain instances. It was
not postponed for additions but for lots approved in the tentative lot stage
for one year. He was not sure whether they were postponed for existing lots.
There is a need to set a hearing for those areas not excluded.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the following action was. taken:
Page 202.
July 20, 1982
July 20, 1982
8 2-
a
1. Approved budget transfer 5-003 ~- Cpm~nunity Action Program -
~ood and Nutrition Prflgram. To transfer an appropriation; $1,000, from travel
o consumable.supplies in the CAA Commodity Food and Nutrition Program per
Budget modification ~~2 approved by the grantor.
2. Approved variance renewal to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the
Sutte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 36-30-81, 6330 Carmel
avenue, Oroville area, zoning: ,"AR~MH" fox Gerald Phillips.
3. Approved variance renewal to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the
Sutte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 31-25-3-41, 1131 Grand
venue, Oroville area, zoning: "A-2" for Fred Gates..
4. Approved variance renewal to Sections~l9-10 and/or 19-12 of the
Sutte bounty Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 40-29-19, 1904 Sycamore
.ane, Durham area, zoning: "A-5" for Verde P. Danker.
5. Waived the second reading of salary ordinance amendment for
ieletion of eligibility workers, adopted Ordinance 2299 and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
6. Approved mutual aid agreement for fire protection with the City
~f Chico and the Chairman authorized to sign.
7. Approved mutual aid agreement for ~>fire protection with the City
>f Oroville and the Chairman authorized to sign.
8. Approved personal services agreement for psychiatric services
Tith William H. Lorack for no more than 90 days per year at $40 per hour fi-
ianced with Short-Doyle Mental Health funds and the Chairman authorized to
sign.
9. Approved contract change order No. 1 for Lakeridge Village
assessment District in the increasing amount of $32,053.70 which provides for
payment to the contractor for conduit and crossing within existing county
roadways, and to relocate booster pump station and the Chairman authorized
.o sign.
10. Set public hearing date for August 3, 1982 at 10:45 a.m. to
consider estahlshment of fees to cover costs of plan checking and building
Lnspection for new state energy regulations.
11. Approved contract change order No. 1, bike lanes on Durham-
)ayton Highway, Project No. 44201-82-1 in the increasing amount of $515.48
Erom available funds for furnishing and placing additional base material for
construction of the bike path and the Chairman authorized to sign.
12. Accepted the work of Robinson Construction Co., Inc. for
the bike lanes on Durham-Dayton Highway, Project No. 4420182-1; authorized
the Chairman to sign the notice of completion and drected..the Clerk to
record said notice with the Recorder.
13. Approved contract for water quality monitoring in Paradise Pines
CSA ~~4 with Robert L. Nevin, consulting engineer, extending a current agreement
Eor fiscal year 1982-83 for an amount not to exceed $3,565 and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
14. Concur with the hearing officers decision on State Department
~f Employment Development appeal of CETA audit requesting the Auditor to bill
3DD for disallowed costs.
Page 203.
July 20, 1982
°i?J,-
a 2-
7
1148
1149
July 20, 1982
15. ~lppzoye release from hiring freeze'.gf one principal clerk position
in the Mental Health Department.
16. Approved release from hiring freeze of one deputy district
attorney I position in the District Attorney's. Office.
17. Approve release from hiring freeze of one typist clerk I/II
in the Probation Department.
1$. Approved lease renewal for office space utilized by the Victim
Witness Program in the amount of $400 per month, to be paid from the Criminal
Justice Planning grant and the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-116 SETTING OFFICE HOURS FOR VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE IN
CHICO
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the background
of the request for setting the office hours for the Veterans Service Office
in Chico. The new Veterans Service Officer Jim Collingsworth was hired and
started yesterday. With only one person staffing the office, he as&ed that
the resolution be adopted.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supexvisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82--116 setting the office hours for the
Veterans Service Office in Chico was adopted and the Chairman authorized to
sign.
DISCUSSION AND POLICY DIRECTION: MC KINNEY BROTHERS ESTABLISHMENT OF A NON-
CONFORMING USE
Bettye Kircher, planning director, set out the background of
the McKinney Brothers establishment of a non-conforming use. This matter
was referred to Counsel in May of last year: The zoning investigator's
report showed there was not an established commercial use. Tn as much as
the applicant has asked for a plan check she needed to have direction on whether
this is an established non-conforming use. The application was made for
a plan check in July, 1980 and this is good for 180 days with an option for
a one year renewal. In July, 1981 that option expired. She recommended
that this might be referred back to Counsel for a report back to the Board.
The matter was referred to Counsel for a report back to the
Board on July 27, 1982.
DISCUSSTON OF GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 99 AND PENTZ
ROAD PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65356.1 - CONTINUED TO JULY 27_,_1982
Bettye Kircher, planning director, set out the memo relative to
a General Plan change at. the intersection of Highway 99 and Pentz Road
pursuant to Government Code Section 65356.1. The Board might want to
consider referring this matter back to the Planning Commission for a
possible General Plan amendment. There have to be specific recommendations
made to refer the matter back. They could consider it again for grazing and
open space designation. Since the specific zone was denied, the Board might
want to consider an interim zone until the report is made from the Planning
Commission on possible General Plan recommendation.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan that the matter be referred back
to the Planning Commission for a General Plan reeoidmendation.
Motion withdrawn.
The matter was continued to Jnly 27, 1982.
Page 204.
July 20, 1982
a 2-x15 0
b
1151
July 20, 1982
DISCUSSION OF AMENDING ZONINNG ORDINANCE TO PROyiDE FOR QUARTER QUARTER SECTION
DESCRIPTIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH 40 ACRE ZONING
. Bettye Kircherr planning director, .set out the background of her
memo relative to the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to provide
for quarter quarter section descriptions to he. consistent with. 40 acre zoning.
The request is that the zoning ordinance be amended to reflect quarter quarter
sections identified acreage to 40 acre parcels. This is caused by irregular
sections that contain fi40 acre snore or less which. means that some quarter
quarter sections are not a full 40 acres.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the staff recommendations were accepted.
RECESS: 9:28 a.m.
RECONVENE: 9:34 a.m.
CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF OROVILLE ON RUDDY CREEK D12AINAGE BASIN
CONTINUED TO AUGUST 24, 1982
Clay Castleberry, public works. director, set out the background
of the agreement between the City of Oroville and Butte County delineating
drainage basin responsibilities in the Ruddy Creek drainage basin. The agree-
ment is very simply but not as well defined as some people had expected or
desired. This matter was before LAFCo and many people expressed concerns
about annexation into the city. The property owners have asked for annexation.
The agreement says the city will maintain the facilities within the city limits
which happens now. It also says the city has- offered to pay their share of
the cost of downstream drainage created }iy development within the city. This
has nothing to do with whether TID does the facilities maintenance in the
county or whether the county does the maintenance work. LAFCo approved the
annexation subject to approval of the agreement. He tias received questions
from the TID committee that was appointed to study this matter.
Mr. Castleberry explained the calculations that must be agreed
upon by the county and city. This is an arbitrary engineering matter. It
would be for the proportionate cost of downstream drainage which would be
computed on the distance downstream and the density or type of land use.
Supervisor Moseley advised that some of the people feel that some
of the drainage problems would be caused if there were large developments
approved. The concern of the residents is that they might be placed in
a district and that would not be necessary at all unless the properties
on the outside of the district would have runoff into Ruddy Creek Basin.
She felt there were some money figures that were a little wide open and
some things that could not be answered with this resolution. She asked
that this matter be continued for 30 days.
Discussion open to the public. Appearing:
1. Evelyn Reader, Nelson Avenue. Mrs. Reader had tried to
ontact Mr. Castleberry relative to Exhibit A. She has gone through the
SA 26 files with Mr. Castleberry. There was a committee appointed to try
o solve this matter. On July 1, 1982 when this matter was before LAFCo,
11 parties were instructed to come up with a drainage settlement. She
anted to see a binding legal agreement that. would protect all parties
evolved and they need at least a 40-day extension. She wanted to see
he cost figures on what developments would be annexing into the city
nd what the city would pay into the Ruddy Creek Basin.
2. Thad Wakeman, Thermalito. Mr. Wakeman was not a member of
e committee but has been interested in this matter for some time. He
s concerned about the vagueness of the agreement. Item 2 says the county
Fage 205.
July 2'0, 1982
_ July 20, 1982________________ ___
82-' shall maintain the drainage to the public right-of-way. Ninety percent of
~/ the drainage maintenance is on private property and not on the public rights-
', of-way. There is nothing in this.agreement to say that any money collected
will go to maintain tfie main drainage. ckiannel. As far as he could see any
maintenance of the. Ruddy Creek Basin channel did not amount to a great deal
in dollars and cents. He:felt that now was. ,the time-when-the city wanted to
annwx property-into the city tfie figures should be firmed up on this matter.
There should b.e a lump sum based on the area upstream that will be in the
city and come up with. an estimate and proportionate share of what the city
or development should pay now. He felt that the only maintenance area would
b e the main channel.
3. Floyd Matlock, 1342 Tehama Avenue. Mr. Matlock stated that
as a concerned property owner and member of the TID study committee $e was
very concerned about the drainage problem. The committee was appointed on
June I5, 1982 and have held three meetings. They have no engineer or attorney
on their committee. They are trying to make a fair study and come up with
a solution that will be to the benefit of ttie people in Thermalito. In the
letter from Mr. Spruance dated~May 4, 1982 regarding the statement as to
what the city would take care of in the way of maintenanoe, the opinion was
,that the agreement provides for drainage maintenan-e only on public rights-
of-way. Public rights-of-way take in a very small percentage of what will
be in the Ruddy Creek drainage. He felt the committee needed more time.
4. Howard Gold, 176 Gold Avenue, Oroville. Mr. Gold felt that
if the district were formed it would affect many people who are retired
and cannot afford any assessments. The area should be maintained by the
county or TID not only on public rights-of-way but on private property. He
had this problem within the City of Oroville where there was a ditch that
ran through his property. The deed reflected an irrigation easement for
TTD and he asked them if they would maintain the ditch. He was advised they
had no jurisdiction and would not do anything about the ditch. He went to
the City of Oroville and they refused to clean the ditch. He had to make
bulkheads to keep the ditch from flooding his property and had to clean it
out. The city realigned the ditch and he had to donate his property.
5. Del Ellis, Ruddy Creek Basin property owner. .Ms. Ellis was
concerned with what would develop from this. She aske for an extension of
time for study purposes.
Supervisor Moseley asked that the matter be continued for 30 days
so that there could be ameeting between the city, Public Works and the TID
Committee.
The matter was continued for 30 days to August 24, 1982.
RECESS: 10:01 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:22 a.m.
1152 PUBLIC HEARING: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INTERIM "A--160" (AGRICULTURAL - 160 ACRE
PARCELS) SECTIONS 4 THROITGH 9 WOOKEY ROAD AREA OFF 'MERIDIAN MUNJAR,
The public Yiearing-on the Board of Supervisors extension of interim
"A 160" (agricultural - 160 acre parcels)-, Sections-4 through 9 of T23N
R1E MDB&M located in the Wookey Road area off Meridian rfunjar was held as
advertised.
Bettye Kircher, planning director, set out the background of the
extension of the interim. The property is now zoned "A-40" with the exception
of Munjar Acres which are "A--10" zoning. There has. been a map prepared show-
int the underlying subdivisions. The Planning Commission would be discussing
the matter on July 29, 1982.
Fage 206.
July '20, 1982
a 2-
July zo, 1~s2
Del Siemsen, county counsel, spoke-regarding the underlying
subdivisions. The interim "A-160" zoning world fi ave no affect on the legal
subdivisions. These underlying subdivisions are considered to be legal
divisions of land when the federal government filed their record of survey.
If the parcels were designated a'40 acre parcels they could be sold as a
40-acre parcel but could not be divided down.
Chairman Wheeler advised that this matter was brought before the
Board in the beginning by cattle owners who were concerned about the underlying
subdivisions-and the parceling of the large grazing areas.
John Mendonsa, public works department, pointed out the underlying
subdivisions on the mpp at this time. Most of the area is along the township
line and the existing parcels are approximately 40 acres in size, with some
being 41 and some being 38 acres. These underlying subdivisions exist
all over the rest of the county. They are located along township and range
lines. These parcels were created by government survey.
Mr. Siemsen advised that the merger of the underlying subdivisions
would require the consent of the people who own the land•to begin with.
There are provisions which are very restrictive for merger of the parcels.
Chairman Wheeler advised that she had met with the Tehama County
staff. They have an existing ordinance that does merge old lots. It has
never been tested. She understood there was an attempt to merge subdivisions
in the southern Bart of the state which was not successful. The Board is
only considering the extension of the interim at this time so that the
Planning Department and Commission can continue to research this matter.
She hoped that if this occurred, they could recognize the total county as
far as the federal lots are concerned.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Don Blake, representing Mr. Waldo Beck. Mr. Blake asked County
Counsel if under the "A-40" zoning could the parcels be four-parceled?
Mr. Siemsen advised they could not be.
Mx. Blake felt the interim was inappropriate. This is land which
is zoned "A 40" zoning which would allow for the diving of 40 acres for
agricultural purposes. By interim zoning, this prohibits a person from
dividing property consistent with the existing zoning. He understood the
concern about dividing into 10 acre parcels. Mr. Beck's property is
over 315 acres located approximately in the north one-fourth of Section 7.
It is located north of Munjar Acres. On the western boundary are two
approximate 40 acre government lots. This leaves the balance of the 315
acres or some 230 acres to one parcel. Their position was that this entire
question was not just related to one section of government lots. The
mechanics dealing with zoning of such areas is that there is a process
through Planning to investigate so that all the property owners can have
input without prior restriction by an interim since the emergency is not
really an emergency in this area. :Untinl the Planning Commission comes
up with their conclusions, he did not feel the rights of the owners should
be restricted for eight months. Tlie interim was initiated at the request
of one or two owners in the area. He felt the procedure that should be
used is the regular zoning process and not the interim process. Mr.
Beck`s property is the largest acreage in Section 7 and all the others.
are 10, 20 and 40 acres in size. If the interim is extended, he asked
that this: property be excluded.
Page 2p~,
July ~20, 1482
S
3
~_______====_Ju_ly 20, 1982--===____________-_
2. Richard. Bradley, Wookey Road. 3Ir::Bradley advised there were
township lots on two sides of every township line. It was his understanding
these lots were for correction purposes only due to the curvature of the earth.
Chic problem is-all over tfie world. He disagreed-with-County Counsel that
the U.S. survey had designs for smaller lots. These lots are already in
Larger assessor parcels. He wondered what they were doing elsewhere. In
talking about 40 acres, he did not believe they were economical for farming
units for legal crops.
3. Howard W.urlitzer. Mr. Wur1i•tzer was in favor of the extension
~f the interim. He felt there was an emergency when 2Sr. Reimers and four
of his associates are involved in 515.72 acres. They are bypassing the
system. The soil capability is Class 7 soil with the use limited to pasture
range. There was an add in the Chico paper on march 18, 1982 that there
were parcels for sale with vino loam of five to ten acres. An investigator
said they did not find a public report before the offering of property for
sale. He has talked with people in the Munjar Acres Subdivision and the
majority are strongly in favor of upgrading the zoning. They are very
concerned that someone wanted to split tfie property into 2-1/2 acre parcels.
He felt this was a problem for another leapfrog subdivision unplanned with
no services.
4. David Halim. Mr. Halam advised that he owned parcel 45 which
was purchased two years ago. He would like to see the zoning stay in the
permanent "A 40" zoning.
S. Ken Reimers, 1929 Garden Road, Durham. PLr. Reimers advised
he had interest in AP 47-20-1, 4 and 5. There are eight lots on the county
line. He was in agreement with what Mr. Blake had said. He did not under-
stand the reason for the interim zoning. The 40 acre zoning would prevent
them from doing anything that the 160 acre zoning would do. The property
across the road could be split into 40 acres at this time. If the Board is
truely interested in not developing this area-why are they not looking at
the entire area. The first time he was aware of the interim was when he
read the Chico newspaper account where one person,Bmiiy Roney,_said the
owners of more than 50 percent of the land favored the zoning. The statement
that Mrs. Roney was- representing more than one-half of the property owners
is not a true statement. Why didn't they-ask to have their property zoned
160 acres. He has talked to several people in the area and they are not
in favor of the interim. -The people who-have spoken before the Board today
are not in favor of the interim. He felt that before an interim was placed
on anyone's property there should be at least the couresty of a telephone
call. The permanent zoning of 40 acre minimum, was set in 1978 after hearings.
People as property owners do not look kindly on a situation that enables
a neighbor who does not like the fact that a person will sell a 40 acre parcel
and calls their supervisor and finds .that the property can be zoned interim
160 acres. As far as lots across township lines, that is a wide spread problem.
Chairman Wheeler understood and sympathized with Mr. Reimers'
comments. There was no intent to single any one individual out. She recognized
there were serious problems of preserving agricultural lands, not just row
crops and trees but cattle grazing also. The intent of the interim was to
look at and analyze the entire situation in the county as it pertains to
old underlying subdivisions. This would keep 40 acre parcels from being
split into smaller parcels.
Mr. Reimers advised they could not split a 40-acre parcel wash
the permanent zoning and the Board was- concerned about the property owners
making 10 acre parcels: out of the parcels.. If there is a 40 acre minimum
and someone owns a 40 acre parcels that is recognized by the county, by
putting this into 160 acre zoning has no meaning because the person can still
Page 208.
3uly 20, 1982
_.' ~
July 20, 1982
8
a
**
sell the 40 acre parcel. He felt they were being singled out by interim
zoning only those six sections: Mr. Beck.cpuld-go in today and split up
his entire property into 40 acre parcels.
6. Emily Roney, Highway 99.. 'Mrs. Roney was sorry that Mr. Reimers
did not call her. Shemight have been able to explain the- intent of what
she had said. Tf the Board wanted to extend tfie boundaries of the interim
across. the highway sfie was in favor of that. 'When she spoke to the Boaxd
previously she was representing Nate Thomason and the Bakalas, which re-
presented one-half of the land, not one:half of the people. She was in favor
of extending the interim and of extending the boundaries to include the
other properties around it.
7. George Safco, 'Munjar. Road. T~Ir. Safco advised that the comment
was made that a person could not grow anything out there. He wondered if
they were trying to preserve a legend or preserve 40 acre zones. Government
placed the "A-40" zoning on this property. He has an almond and kiwi orchard.
He was in favor of the 40 acre zoning.
8. Ken Reimers. Mr. Reimers stated he had talked to Evelyne Post
who represents Thomassen estate. He felt Mrs. Roney's statements were
still untrue.
9. Emma Roney. Mrs. Roney stated she had talked to Eve.Iyne
Post last night. She had previously been talking about her discussions
with Nate Thomassen.
10. Richard Bradley. Mr. Bradley urged the Board to look into
how these subdivision lots were handled in other areas. He was in favor
of the interim zoning.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan felt that with the testimony provided at the
hearing because of the disagreement in the area about what the zone should
be argues for the extension of the interim becuase it puts the property
into a holding pattern.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
that the interim "A-160" be extended; that ordinance fie adopted and the
Chairman be authorized to sign.
Supervisor Saraceni wondered why this was-not heard before
the Planning Commission to let the property owners get together and discuss
the area. There is a 40 acre zoning on the property now. If there is some
discussion to make changes then he felt this should be brought before the
Planning Commission in hearings. He felt there was a holding pattern with
the "A-40" zoning.
Supervisor xIoseley agreed with Supervisor Saraceni on this matter.
She felt the Board was tying the people into something they might not want.
Chairman Wheeler felt the concern of :many people was what happened
in the Meridian=Munjar area. T#iere was a great deal of illegal subdividing
taking place out there. She knew~of many tiaues people. in that area had come
to the county for a certificate of compliance to be able to sell their
property. Many people think there is the possibility of that happening
again.
Supervisor Dolan stated that an interim did not eliminate the
right of the people to be heard but it puts: the area into a holding pattern
so there is not a conflict betw~eY1''tahat is done hefore and after the zoning.
Page 209.
July 20, 1982
._~_____=====JulY2oii9a2___________________
82= Vote on motion:
AYESp S'npervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saracena
Motion failed.
', Chairman Wheeler gave instruction to staff to study and analyze
all the underlying subdivisions in the county, particularly in that area,
and for the Board to be notified if there are any applications made for
any divisions of property in that area.
RECESS; 11:11 a.m.
RECONVENE: 11:13 a.m.
'1153 FUBLIC•HEARING: DICK CHAPPELL APPEAL OF CONDITIONS ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
The public hearing on the Dick Chappell appeal of conditions on
tentative parcel map (conditions 12, 13 and 14) on property located on
AP 41-01-141, Hummer Road, approximately 1,000 feet west of Doe Mill Road,
Forest Ranch area was held as continued.
', Bettye Kircher, planning director, set out the background of
the appeal. The consultant has not been in contact with their office. She
set out the map at this time. Everything within the blue line should be open
space and one dwelling per parcel for the Fish and Game Department. The
recommendations are for area 2 and 4 as cluster development with area 5 and
', 6 for retaining as open. These recommendations are based on the deer habitat.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Russ Croninger, Rangel
and Associates, representing Mr. Chappell. He had two conversations with
staff from the Planning Department. One. was to obtain the map and also one
to ask how to cluster if the Fish and Game were saying one unit per parcel.
He went to the area to look at the line and it does not fit if there is
discussion about deer migration and foilage because of the draw. He also
has another project with the Jacob's property just above this and the input
he received from the Planning Department says they must ether extend or
make a cul-de-sac shorter or group the houses to allow for a deer corridor.
He was concerned about the consistency in this area. He was trying to find
out if this was what Planning was going to recommend and what of the backup
material from the March and September meetings with the City of Chico. He
wanted to know what they were going to do with the specific plan.
Ms. Kircher advised that their department gried to interpret the
comments from the Fash and Game as close as they could. She recognized that
they have had two or three parcel maps approved in the Hummer Subdivision.
It seemed a little unfair to eliminate the potential for the rest of the 20-
acre parcels. They have taken the position that the Fish and Game would
', accept clustering and have tried to work with the applicants to approve maps
on this basis. It is difficult for staff to tell the applicant to cluster.
Mr. Croninger would go back and revise the map in a cluster
development and submit the new map.
Ms. Karcher felt that they could work with. the applicant. The
roads are existing at thi: time..
Mr. Croninger felt that on the two points of access for circulation
he would rather the condition say just circulation instead of via two points.
He would have a problem with all areas of the county if there was the requare-
ment for via two points of access. He felt this should be left up to Public
Works to deal with.
', Page 210.
July 20, 1952
8 2-
July 20, 1982
Ms. Kircher felt they were .back into the;s.ame discussion of whether
the General Plan is an effective policy statement of .the county. The plan
provides for certain things to occur. In this particular instance; she was
a little confused by the concern ti_ecause there axe two obvious access roads
today located on the.ground. Other-maps come forward with. the same condition.
the gave the Board a memo in June trying to answer the concerns. The roads
are a necessary part of any development. There cannot be a private road.
Road maintenance agreements are great but they do not tell who will take care
of the roads. The Board should ire looking forward not just at this subject
property but if the area intended for development, they should look a little
further than this development.
Mr. Croninger stated that for many years he has heard about precedent
setting conditions. He pointed to Neal Road with 13,000 in Paradise Pines.
There was the requirement to develop some type of circulation. Who provides
the circulation and when 'did it get done. He felt that this was a precedent
aettix~g condition. The other item is water and he would not worry about that
item because they did have availability of water.
The applicant still does not understand why he .must be removed from
the specific plan. The Planning Department and Counsel have advised that he
has to come out of the specific plan to proceed but if the lots are the same
as the plan, he can be placed back in the plan. He wanted to be in the
specific plan because in March and September when the Planning Department
'geld meetings, they made the recommendation that a specific plan be done
and he thought that was a good idea. When he made application that was fine.
~dhen the application for the draft specific plan came in, that superceded
his application.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that when there was a proposal
fox specific plan, that had it own hearings and plans. If the parcel map
is not removed from the plan, what there is, is a parcel map application
dictating a specific plan. The fact that the application will be removed
if he wishes to proceed does not guarantee that this parcel would come under
the specific plan because the details might preclude the tentative parcel
nap. It was his opinion that if this map was within the specific plan then
that has to take precedence and anything done within the area has to be
considered with that plan.. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the
parcel map based on the present configuration, he would have to be removed
from the specific plan consideration and whether he is brought back in would
3epend on the Board's decision.
Mr. Crons:nger stated that in looking~at the specific plan, all it
says is "SR-3" for that area and shows 20 acre lots. The specific plan
gays there are all kinds of lots set out. Four lots are five to six acre
Lots.-
Mr. Siemsen advised that there was nothing in the law that talks
about the avdlity of a property owner to apply for specific plan for the
area. Since the original property is part of the specific plan area, his
opinion was until the applicant makes request or submits a formal withdrawal
the property should b.e considered cinder the. original specific plan finding
and the Board is' not in a position to approve the parcel map.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler that the Board deny the appeal
of conditions 12,.13 and 14 and primarily 14 based on the timing element and
direct that the map be submitted as proposed by the Department of Fish and
Game for clustering in the area with the requirement that the applicant with-
draw from the specific plan.
Page 211.
July 20, 1982
i
S 2-
1154
;~______====J=u1~203 19,$2 ___________________
Motion withdrawn.
The matter was continued until later in the meeting.
PiFBLIC HEARING: PAT GATES APPEAL dF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONDITION: HARRY
KOENIG APPEAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL [~tAP CONDITION.
The public hearing on the following was held as continued:
1. Pat Gates appeal of Condition 15 and 16 on tentative parcel map,
AP 63-12-12, dividing twenty-three acres more or less tb create four parcels,
two at 6.5 acres and two at 5 acres, more or less, on the northwest corner of
A~:J Stohr Road and Forest Ranch Road, Forest Ranch area.
2. Harry Koenig appeal of Condition 11 and 17 on a tentative
parcel map, AP 63-12-04 (portion), dividing 21.7 acres to create four parcels
on 6.6 acres and three more or less five acres located on the southwest corner
of A-J Stohr Road and Forest Ranch Road, Forest Ranch area.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, set out the background
of the appeal on these two items. One point of contention that was brought
out two or three weeks ago was conflict between a general plan and regulations
as far as proof of water. The other contention was the acceptance of avail-
ability of water. He has provided the Board with a report of the Department
of Water Resources on the Forest Ranch area and a copy of the analysis of
the existing well. This information substantiates the position that the
Environmental Health Department took., He set out the diagram on page 4,
Figure 2, of the Department of C+)ater Resources report at this time. During
various times of the year water may be available on the slopes or it may
not be available. Water is not available every year. He has been trying
to follow the Board's direction to the passage of the general plan, that
in order for them to issue sewage disposal and building permits there has
to be acceptable sources of water. The conflict is between the general plan
and regulations which allows that a 5 acre minimum parcel can have a statement
that that there is no evidence of domestic water placed on the map. Counsel
has assured their office that the general plan takes precedence.
The Pat Gates project has been approved. The Koenig map was
recorded. Ms Wri.nkel's auestion dealt with the conflict between the general
plan and our interpretation of the ordinances.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Tom Wrinkel, Hamby Surveying. Mr. Wrinkel stated that their
problem was with the Health Department asking for proof of water, not evidence
that water has generally been found in the area when creating parcels in
outlying areas where no wells are located for miles and miles. They are
talking about the area of Forest Ranch where there is more than enough water
where it has been found that we have met this Condition. One of the problems
he has seen is that any time someone tries to provide a parcel map in the area
that is not on a water system it is discretionary with the Health Department
to require you to drill a well on every parcel. In this instance he provided
the Health Department with a map showing seventeen wells within one mile of
the two parcels and he felt that this was evidence that water was available.
The Health Department advised him that this was not evidence that water was
found in the area, although conceding that four wells were in as well.
They did not know that much about the other wells. He felt that they had
met this Condition. The Health Department is wanting them to provide ease-
ments on the Koenig parcel map.
Mr. Vanhart stated that Mr. Wrinkel had supplied their office of
seventeen wells. Several of the wells do not produce an adequate supply of
water. Some of wells he was not familiar about. There are four wells that
are less than one-half gallon per minute, while the requirement is three
gallons per minute from January to June and one and one-half gallons per
Page 212.
July 20,1982
8 2-
3
July 20,1982
nute from June to December.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan felt that both tentative parcel maps had been
spproved and therefore the appeals were moot. The question of whether or
not to retain the policy is a concern of the Planning Department and the
Environmental Health Department agreeing on the wording for Conditions.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that with the map that had
been recorded the appeal would be moot. On the other appeal if the Health
Department has said that the Condition is met he did not understand the
appeal unless it was for clarification of the criteria of proof of water.
This is a matter of whether the Board wishes to change the policy and the
general plan. As far as approval criteria, the general plan has to supercede
the other regulations because approval. of a tentative parcel map is based on
a decision on the consistency with that general plan. There is only a con-
flict where the policy of the general plan applies to parcels under twenty
acres in size.
The matter was taken under submission at this time and at another time the
Board will give direction staff'to bring back the proposal~to the Board.
LIC HEARING: FRED GERST APPEAL OF JAGVANT SINGH BAINS PROPOSED NEGATIVE
LARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 25-21-22, 205 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
The public hearing on Fred Gerst appeal of Jawant Singh Bains progosed
ative declaration and tentative parcel map, AP 25-21-22, 205, acres more
less, was held as continued.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Fred Gerst, Gridley. Mr. Gerst had a few concerns about division
the parcel of land. He felt that dividing this property into smaller par-
ls was in conflict with the land that was adjoining it. The land to the
st, north and south, axe large parcels. He realized this was in the "A-2"
ning. To the west across the river is "A-40" zoning that has just been
complished. Point in question is that this property is located in flood
ain and there is no drainage district at the present time. There is natural
ainage to the east that runs north and south. He felt that dividing the
nd into twenty acre parcels would create further drainage problems. He
It that if this were allowed to divide into smaller parcels a drainage
sessment district should be required to be set up. The natural drainage
blocked to the south because of poor agricultural practices and would
ve to be open to get adequate drainage.
2. Bill Geddis, representing Mr. Bains. Mr. Geddis stated that
is is prime agricultural land. There would be no impact on drainage above
five acre parcel. This land is such that it percolates nicely. It is
ep vino loam. Tt is in a flood plain which restricts building in the area.
is not the intent of the applicant to utilize the parcels for anything
her than agriculture. The purpose of the division is the bring the property
wn to the point inhere it could be economically purchased by a kiwi grower.
the Board were to feel comfortable, they would be happy to go with twenty
re zoning on the property. The Board adopted a policy that five acre parcels
re viable agricultural land in the Gridley area. He asked that the appeal
denied.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
unanimously carried, the appeal of Fred Gerst was denied.
Page 213.
July 20,1982
82-
July 20, 1982
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORM AN ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE COUNCIL.
The public hearing on the notice of intent to form an Adult Day
Health Care Council for the puroose of investigating the possible develop-
ment of an Adult Day Health Care Center was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Harlan Adams, Chico, on behalf of the Butte County Council of
Senior Citizens, set out the background of what an Adult Day Health Council
would do. It would be comprised of a thirteen member board of directors, with
six appointed by the Board, six by the Butte county Council of Senior Citizens,
and one, a past president. The purpose of this Council would be to try and
keep seniors in the homes as long as possible. There have been fifteen
representatives in the designated area who have expressed their willingness
to serve on this Council. He asked that~the Board form the council and make
the appointments as recommended.
2. Peg Taylor, chairman of Long-term Care Committee, Msc Taylor
emphasized all the work that was done by the volunteers. The Council work
will be done by volunteers at no cost to the county.
3. Anita Bell, Butte County Health Planning Commission. Ms.
Bell stated that their commission welcomed and recommended the formation
of the council.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, formation of an Adult Day Health Care Council for
the purpose of investigating the possible development of an Adult Day
Health Care Center was approved.
Supervisor Dolan asked that the appointment of the members of
the council be a separate matter at this time. There are others who might.
want to come forward and nominate themselves.
APPEARANCE: ROD WEYAND, BCEA.
Mr. Weyand spoke regarding the 11:00 o`clock open time slot"on
the agenda. There are people in the audience who had planned to speak today
at eleven and would not be able to do so unless the Board allowed them to
speak at this time. He had brought up in the past that if the Board held
an evening meeting there would not be this problem.
57
APPEARANCE: MRS. LORD. •
Mrs. Lord read a letter from Mr. Larry Lord at this time. There
is an item that was not in the minutes of June 8 that was very significant
when Saraceni asked a question of Richard Boothe and Joe Bandy when they
were talking about bolted. He felt that bolting the bulk plant changed
that from personal property to real property and subject to a building
permit. It seems that the plant operator only obtained one building
permit and is now in violation of the law. Now is the time for the Board
to take action to rezone this area. They have waited a Long time for action
by the Board.
Supervisor Dolan understood Mrs. Lord's frustration of wanting
something to be done, but she could not do anything today. In her mind it
was not zoning but a discussion of the interpretation of what was allowed in
,agricultural zones.
i
Mrs. Lord stated that according to the permit he would be allowed
Tito put in more bulk containers. There were three proposals that were made,
Page 214.
July 20, 1982
~~
8 2-
b
59
July 20, 1982 _ _ _
and the operator turned those down. He is in no mood to agree to anything.
DISCUSS20N OF BUTTE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS..ASSOCIATTON REQUEST TO
PLACE AN INITIATIVE ON THE NOVEMB$R BALLOT .RELATIVE TO STAFFING.
Ken Kla ~sen and Paul Walters, from the Butte County Law Enforcement
Officers Association, were present to discuss the request to place an initia-
tive on the November ballot relative to staffing. Mr. Klaussen asked that
the Board take action to either approve or deny their request.
Chairman Wheeler had not had an opportunity to consider the
proposal. She asked that she be allowed to review and take the matter
under submission. She would want to study this matter and had not had
an opportunity to do so. Her primary concern would be the financial mechan-
ism and if it would be tied into the ballot measure.
Mr. Klaussen advised that this was a measure to deal with staffing
levels and they were not involved in the funding mechanism. That has nothing
to do with the Board's ability to place this matter on the ballot. If they
voted to put it on the ballot it would stop the initiative process. If the
Board placed a financing mechanism on the ballot measure they would circulate
the petitions for an initiative.
Supervisor Fulton felt that in fairness to the association the
Board should take action on the request for the ballot measure as it stands.
If the Board amended it it would not be what they wanted and they would have
to go through the initiative process. He did not favor putting it on the
ballot without the funding mechanism.
Mr. Klaussen made the suggestion that the Board could add an
additional ballot measure dealing with the funding mechanism. He was not
asking for the Board to support the ballot measure. It is just a matter
of time until a citizen or a police officer is hurt.
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and
unanimously carried, decision to not place this measure on the ballot as
currently written was made.
r*
1161
APPEARANCE: EILEEN BOONE
Ms. Boone stated that she was a taxpayer and county employee.
She had fifty-six signed statements in support of the employee's positions.
These were signed by non-employee persons.. She felt that the county was
being unfair as far as what they were asking the employees to give up.
In the fifteen years she has spent with the county she has always heard that
there was no money available. She was sorry but she did not believe that.
It seems as if every year the employees are the last consideration of the
Board during budget sessions. The Board was able to build libraries.
Supervisor Moseley stated that they always ran into the question
of libraries. She never saw anyone concerned about the Oroville and Para-
dise libraries.
APPEARANCE: LEROY SMITH, GRIDLEY
Mr. Smith was employee and taxpayer of the county and has worked
for the Public Works Department for the past twenty-one years. He felt that
his time and knowledge and expertise in the field of road maintenance were
to the advantage of the county and the citizens. He would like to see the
board consider night meetings so that the general citizens of the county
would be available to attend. This would only have to be two or three times
a year. During the twenty-one years that he has been an employee of the
county he has seen the employees concede each year consistently. The consumer
price index states that since 1967 the cost of living has gone up 292$, The
Page 215.
"' July 20,1982
~7
8 2-
employees have only stayed at about 1500 in salaries and benefits. With
benefits and wages the number 1 cost item in the budget he proposed that
the Board consider discussing this item first during their budget time.
.162 APPEARANCE: DONNA RICHARDS, THERMALITO
Ms. Richards stated that while the work loads have increased 10 -
60g, and now the Board is telling the employees that the value of their
time has deteriorated from 6'~ or up to 1.2~. Since 1971, the employee pay
raises have remained below the rate of increase for the welfare recipients.
This year, based on the projected increase for all programs, they have
projected a minimum of G;~ increase which means that the county employees
will lose 13~. There has been a net loss of 32 3/4g from what~the welfare
recipients receive. The reason she was so upset over the current library
construction was that voters were circumvented, their wishes were not con-
sidered, Proposition 13 was ignored, while the Board was aware of fiscal
impacts resulting from Proposition 13 and other legislation. The membership
voted to reject the county's last pay offer to cut the employees 6a to 12~
or more.
Supervisor Saraceni could understand how many of the workers were
very unhappy where it looks like they can make more money by not working
than by coming to work everyday. He was opposed to the expenditure of money
for the library system. There are problems with the financing for the
county which are more than just the funds for the library construction.
They are doing everything possible to meet the needs of the income that they
do have. He had not heard too much from the employees about the cost of
the health benefits that were going up, which went up 28g last year and
will be going up 30% this year.
1163IAPPEARANCE: MIKE MILLER
Mr. Miller stated that the key issue was a non-money issue which
was SAL.
~.~6G APPEARANCE: LINDA PEEL
Ms. Peel stated that there are many employees who have been
willing to work hard for the county. They worked many hours overtime
without pay because they believed that they were doing a job well and this
was necessary. These people now feel outraged and insulted because under
the conditions that they are working it is harder than ever due to the lay-
offs and those remaining having to do two or three jobs. By increasing the
working hours without increasing the pay takes away the benefits,
1165 APPEARANCE: SUE O'HANLEY
Ms. O`Hanley was afraid what was going to happen was that the
good employees would be leaving and that the employees that will be working
are those who do not care or who no longer care. She understood that they
could not get a raise, but felt that the SAL days should remain. To work
hours with increased work loads make the SAL days very valuable.
1166 APPEARANCE: FRED GLANDER, PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Glander stated that he had been with the county for nineteen
years and that SCEA had many times tried to help the Board in saving money
in different situations. They have tried to set up a program that if an
employee makes a suggestion which saves the county money that the county
oay that individual a very small percentage of the savings. He knew of
one instance in another area where a woman made a suggestion that saved
the company $1,000,000 per year and they paid her 1~ of that amount. Why
would the Board want to turn down a program like this when they have
everything to gain and nothing to lose.
1167 APPEARANCE: GARY BRUCE, CHICO
Mr. Bruce submitted additional signatures from non-employees.
Page 216.
-~ f .7uly 20,1982
~5
B 2-
a
81
1169
1170
1171
_ J=1y 20, 1982 __~~_~_
With the passage of Proposition 13 sales tax and a sagging economy the county
has been placed in a positon o€ lowering their reserves. During .that time
the Board has compounded this problem by increasing numerous construction
projects and not laying a foundation.. In order to bolster the reserves the
employees are being asked to give up their SAL days. The Board has appeared
to provide services when the quality has been drastically reduced. With a
i0g reduction and 10~ increase in demand of services the employees are required
to absorb the workload.at the current level and forced to accept a lower level
of pay.
Supervisor Saraceni asked if Mr. Bruce was aware or the annexation
that just took place with the city where the county has lost $100,000 in sales
tax. Was he also aware of their loss of $800,000 in sales tax alone.
APPEARANCE: ROD WEYAND, BCEA
Mr. Weyand was aware of the proposed annexation that would take
money out of the county coffers, but the county is not cutting back on
services. He wondered why the county should build. libraries and not jails.
When the other libraries were built there was the money to build those
libraries. The Board wants everyone to continue on at the same level and
wants the employees to do more work and now they want to take away some of
their benefits. He wondered what the problem was with cutting back on
services.
APPEARANCE: LISA KROPLA~ BUTTE COUNTY WELFARE
Ms. Kropla stated that many of the items she was going to speak on
had already been said. If she is required to work forty hours per week and
she is not paid any more for that time then she is getting paid less per
hour. She felt that maybe the employees were being punished because the
Board voluntarily took a wage cut. She understood the budget balances,
the understanding was that SAL would be bought out and then they would
go back to a forty hour work week. The Board is not fulfilling the contract
from last year.and now are saying that next year they will buy out the
retirement at 7~ increase.
APPEARANCE: LISA MORENO
Ms. Moreno was upset with what the Board was trying to do with
the employees. As a taxpayer of the county she did contact her supervisor
' to let them know before the libraries were voted on that she was against
building the two new libraries and felt like she was given the run-around,
RECESS: 1:00 P.M.
RECONVENE: 2:30 P.M.
APPEARANCE: MR. ATKINSON, CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY' AGENT
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that Caltrans was
in need of a right of entry to do maintenance work on Highway 32 to do repair
work on a slip out. The property owner is willing to give this right of
entry if Butte County agrees to a public road access to the freeway at that
point. The Board has liven this matter great scrutiny and has discussed
public access in several locations in several numbers and the affect it
would have on the community, that one or more or no access points will have
on the highway system itself. Caltrans has the ability to imminent domain
to acquire the right-of-way. He felt it would be necessary to make an
analysis before the Board should agree to another right of access.
Chairman Wheeler advised Mr. Atkinson that there was a meeting
with Caltrans on Thursday afternoon. Caltrans has submitted a letter that
does not say anything on public road access but that they will cooperate
with the county in issuing access points when a property owner has met
all the conditions.
Page 217.
y,
July 20, 1982
', July 20, 1982
82-'' Mr. Atkinson stated apparently there was cooperation between the
b county and the state to see what they would absolutely do and the problems
they have had for some time. He set out the problem they had run into along
Highway 32. He was looking for a way to get a right of entry to reconstruct
the highway this fall. If they have to go through imminent domain proceedings
it would probably not be until next year before they could proceed with the
reconstruction project on Highway 32. There is a thirty foot access this
time. Its just a matter of whether the county wants to allow this to be
a public road connection.
Chairman Wheeler advised that this matter should be considered
during the meeting with the other Caltrans officials on Thursday of this
week. No action was taken on the request at this time.
72'.PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN D. DRAKE AND HOWARD ISOM REZONE (ITEM ON WHICH AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED):
The Public Hearing on John D. Drake and Howard Ison rezone
(item on which an environmental 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
1/2 to 3 acres and a common open space with public facilities to be
maintained by a homeowner's association on approximately 1,050 acres
located on the east side of State Highway 32 and Humboldt Road,
approximately five miles northeast of Chico, identified as AP 46-71-
17, 46-71-18 (portion), 46-35-04 and 46-35-23 was held as continued.
Steve Streeter, planning department, set out the background
of the EIR. They received a letter from Tony Lantis of the City of
Chico, and comments from three state agencies as a result of the
recirculation on the EIR.. They did add one mitigation measure relative
to the set-back for the 100-year flood based on the Department of Fish
and Game comments. He had posted some exhibits on the wall which
consisted of Canyon Park Estates and the parcelling activity in the
area.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Margaret lteivus, resident of Stilson Canyon. She read a
letter from some of the residents of Canyon Stilson which was submitted
for the record at this time. She was also very concerned about the
sewage ponds that would be located almost on the creek. The children
play and fish in the creek. Many of the roads have been cut out and
there is a great deal of blasting going on. She hoped that in hearing
from other people today that she could obtain more information on
this matter.
Mr. Streeter responded to the water quality issue. There
was a letter submitted on May 28, 1982, from Jere Bolster that once
there is more information available he would submit a supplement to the
board for review.
2. Roger Cole, Butte Meadows. Mr. Cole spoke regarding
cumulative and mitigation measures suggested by Dr. Beck. He felt these
were superficial measures. He also wished to talk about the Bidwell
Heights project and there are some thirty projects contemplated which
makes these extremely large developments. There are roads under
construction at this point. There is one all weather xoad which has
been paved. The other projects are not included in the cumulative
effects and have not been addressed. What needs to be done is an
area-wide study and only then will the public and the county staff
have the information they will need.
Page 218.
July 20, 1982
r-
t ,
July 20, 1982
82
The area represents one of the county's great resources in that there
is watershed, wildlife habitat and a place for people to live. .The
carrying capacity to the land has to be honsidered. During the road
construction for an unimproved road there was siltation into Little..
Chico Creek. There are three miles of road that has been built by Mr.
Hays. This road connects Bidwell Heights with the Drake Project. Both
of these people have said they have no knowledge of what the others
are doing. Mr. Drake brought his machinery through the Hays road
to build his roads. When Mr. Bolster spoke to Chico 2000 he referred
to slash cuts in the project site and they wanted to prevent further
erosion. They built a thirty foot wide road and gravelled it. Their
equipment has chewed up a large meadow adjacent to the creek.- The
mitigation measures dated June 22, 1982, by Dr. Beck refers to Humboldt
Road. This would be putting a great deal of traffic on Humboldt Road.
The fiscal impact study says the county will pay for one-half of the
improvements at the intersection with the project estimated at
$60,000.00. One-half of that amount is $30,000.00 which is enough money
to pay for a Deputy Sheriff for one year. Dr. Beck was assuming that
a majority of the people would use Santos way access. There is no
guarantee on that access.
Mr. Cole presented photographs at this time showing a
tractor at work on the property with the side showing Peterson Company
Tractors. Chairman Wheeler must have known that her husband worked
on the property.
Chairman Wheeler advised that if Mr. Cole was trying to
infer there was a conflict of interest, her husband does not work for
Peterson Tractor.
Mr: Cole stated that at the point the agreement to do the
work by Peterson Tractor Company was negotiated her husband was
working for the company.
Chairman Wheeler advised that they did not do construction
work, they only repaired and sold equipment.
Mr. Cole felt that Chairman Wheeler shou~a Have disclosed
this information.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised he did not see any
conflict of interest.
3. Kelly Meagher, 98 Honey Run Road. Mr. Meagher stated
he wished to address the cumulative impacts and the work done by staff,
the applicant and the state agencies. He referred to a memo dated
July 4,1982, by planning department given to the Board of Supervisors
which included the listing of cumulative impacts. The first numbered
page would be additional discussion of cumulative effects. The
area he emphasized was No. 3 relative to a reasonable analysis of the
cumulative impacts of the relevant impacts under subsection C and the
requirement of ordinances or policies rather than on an individual
project. He was also concerned about another document from Drake
Homes on proposed mitigations that are brought forward from Dr. Beck,
Eco Analyst. There are a number of areas where Dr. Beck asked for
adoption of ordinances and policies by the county and Board to deal
with measure of cumulative impacts in this area. Are any of the
proposed ordinances or policies that Dr. Beck alluded to going to be
enacted before the Board takes action on this project? To his knowledge,
none have been implemented at this point.
Page 219.
July 20,1982
;%
July 20, 1982
Bettye Kircher, planning director, advised there is the
possibility of a grading ordinance and archeological preservation.
Mr. Meagher stated there were statements included throughout
suggested mitigations on wildlife., Were those going to take place?
Mrs; Kircher advised that the Board had not directed nor
had they brought forward a policy or ordinance relative to this
matter.
Mr. Meagher had another question relative to the agenda for
this item. It was his understanding that the environmental impact
report was to be certified.
Mr. Streeter advised that the EIR was previously certified
on April 13, 1982 for the specific plan. County Counsel advised that
they should recirculate the EIR and have a 15-day response time.
The action today may well be to certify the document noting the
supplemental information.
Mr. Siemsen advised that the board was considering a
supplement to the certified EIR.
Mr. Meagher was concerned that after his review of responses
from state agencies to the supplemental information there was nothing
touched on relative to the fire responses. He was concerned that
there were no comments about airports and whether the sewage ponds
were in the 100-year flood plain. There are no comments about the
cumulative effects.
Mr. Streeter stated that they sent the ,state agency a
revised plot plan. The Department of Fish and Game thought the
revised plot plan was much more acceptable. Their office did respond
to the comments. There were no further comments on the cumulative
effects. Three state agencies commented that. they did not have too
much to add other than the Fish and Game on the 100-year flood plain.
Mr. Meagher stated to his knowledge there has been no map
done on Kittle Chico Creek Canyon for the 100-year flood. He felt
it would be difficult for the applicant to put the pond in without the
work having been done on this map. He wished to also speak on a number
of cumulative effects. There are sewerage disposal concerns by the
neighbors. The response back was that they world do the work necessary.
Some of the work that has been done is acceptable but there needs
to be more work done on this matter. A letter dated May 28, 1982,
referred to the applicant providing supplemental information on the
sewerage disposal ponds. When does this come in? Can it come after
the Board acts on a supplement to the EIR? There are concerns
involving water cumulative effects on groundwater, not dust on this
particular development, but on all the other developments in the area.
What was attempted was to look at what was previously done and try to
include a little more. The black markings are the roads. Some of
the areas are not included in information on the cumulative impacts.
His concern was the property owned by Jeff Cussick which is the area
that runs up to boe Mill from Centerville Road. He felt that information
should have been included. The Garbis parcel split was not included
and he felt it should have been. The concerns on water are extremely
important and he did not know if an extensive study had been done.
There is no mutual water company an Doe Mill Ridge.
Page 220.
July 20, 1982
/~
82_
a
July 20, 1982
Another major concern is the wildlife. There are areas
in Bidwell Heights where the Department of Eish and Game have designated
one to four in sensitive deer areas. The total red area shows a
large amount of development.going on. Tf and when there is substantial
development in the area where would the-deer go and, how would they
get through. He felt this had not been adequately addressed.
He spoke regarding erosion. This involves water quality
and what has gone on with the building of the roads. He understood
the county did not have a levelling ordinance. With this project
and others there are roads that have been put in that are as good or
better that portions of Honey Run and Centerville; Roads. His concerns
were that the roads are already there with the developers hoping and
assuming they can get approval. He felt a better process might be
some time in the future for the board to implement a grading
ordinance. There has been substantial amounts of environmental
degradation, and the environmental document does not relate to this.
Mr. Siemsen advised that the county did have a grading
ordinance which was part of the building code ordinance.• When a
permit is issued, the applicant is required to also have a grading
permit to meet certain criteria set out in the ordinance.
Mr. Meagher advised to his knowledge there had been no
grading permit issued. He was also concerned about the requirement
for some public services. He was concerned about information in the
June fir, 1982, memo which involves the cumulative effects listed on
page 9, No. 4, paragraph 3, relative to the increased demand for
public services. To his knowledge the county service area for Canyon
Park is only .for sewage disposal. Before the Board took action he
hoped that some type of proposal would come forward for police and
fire. As the Board is aware there is an attempt and an investigation
being-made in this area dealing with what is going on in the area. He
hoped that the investigation would include whether the permits were
issued. for the road. He felt that from a planning standpoint it was
important for the county to look at the entire area. He was aware
that staff tried to deal with a specific plan for this area and the
major landowners did not want to participate. He thought it was the
duty and right of the county and Board to give direction to do a
specific plan and look at the entire foothill area. The county could
then come up with a policy that deals with all problems that may arise
from problems relative to wildlife, roads, water quality, public services
and all things.
Mr. Meagher stated that his final comments involve conflict
of interest. He knew that Chairman Wheeler had received substantial
campaign contributions fxom,both applicants, and urged that she
abstain from voting ~n this matter.
Supervisor Saraceni appreciated the information that Mr.
Meagher had presented on the impacts but did not appreciate the
implications on the Board.
Chairman Wheeler stated that the opponent had received
substantial money from people who lived in the Canyon. She did not
let politics enter into her decisions. Tf there was any conflict it
would be up to County Counsel to advise her.
4. John Luvaas,. resident of Chico. Mr. Luvaas was concerned
about the provisions of public services including police protection and
other services. He was concerned about the way this project had been
Page 221.
July 20, 1982
ad
.7uly 20, 1982
S'.
3
handled. The EIR was certified at the. time of the-specific plan, and
since that time the Board has admitted that the document was grossly
inadequate. The ETR was supplemented and became a hodgepodge of a
document not to speak of the compliance issue.What should have been
done was the document should have been written over again from scratch
as an informative document. The only way to make an informed decision
is to have all the necessary information in a comprehensive form.
Obviously, the board does not have this. This document fails to
disclose the impact on the enviroment of the project area adjoining
property areas and up and down the canyon. It fails to show the impact
of sewage use downstream and residential protection. All they have
heard is that they would be told sometime and yet all the time questions
and concerns remain. Tn terms of groundwater downstream, the public
deserves to know. The excuse has been used that there was no need to
know the effects of sewage until the subdivision map was under consid-
eration. The public wants to know the sewage treatment will be appro-
priate and effective. The Board does not know that. They want answers
before the area is rezoned. At the last hearing, response was made
there would be a controlled burning program to eliminate the chapparel.
The developer has refused to allow the Forest Service to•do a controlled
burn, and the chapparel is still there. The fire risks remain.
This is an extremely high risk area and nothing has been done to assure
the resinents and other people up and downstream. that there will be a
resolution of the fire problem. The fact that a road has been cut
through the project area before the county approval is phenomenal. Mr.
Bolster assured Chico 2000 that the roads would not be noticeable.
In looking from above the project into the meadow, there is a massive
slash that has been done and there is erosion. There is an archeolog-
ical site on the area where the road has been built. The site was
destroyed without any prior knowledge of the Board or an archeologist.
Evasion of the law is inexcusable. The project itself will have
tremendous impacts on the area, but he was more concerned about the
cumulative impacts. They have never effectively been addressed by
staff or the developer. The law reads that cumulative impacts must
be addressed in the EIR. It is reasonable to anticipate that in the
future the entire area marked in red will go forward, the areas in
white will fill as well. The law requires-that the impacts be assessed
over all the projects at the same time as the first project is
considered. He asked that the map be included in the record of the
hearing. When staff was asked to assess the cumulative impacts they came
back with a few pages listing the projects that are now proposed for
the area and the few effects each would have individually. There has
never been an analysis of the cumulative impacts. These have never
been addressed in the EIR, the supplement or the official responses.
The ETR is grossly inadequate. The cumulative items of impact mentioned
at the hearing have never been evaluated either, including the deer herd.
If the project is approved, it is virtually certain that the deer herd
would be decimated. The information needs to be developed and the
questions answered. The same is_ true for other wildlife in the area.
This is a natural habitat for wild turkeys also.
The effects on the creek have never been fully disscussed
in total. There is a possibility that the Chico groundwater might be
contaminated. The extreme fire hazard with the accumulation of all
the projects has never been addressed. The county will not be able
to provide fire protection., not only for that area, but for the entire
area and Stilson Canyon. This goes for other public services, such
as police protection,also. Since the EIR was prepared the Board has
cut the Shexiff`s deputy staff in half by reducing the budget. The
fact that police patrols are being eliminated has not been disscussed.
There is a question on the pextnits for the road that has been built that
Page 222.
3uly 20, 1982
,~/
July 20, 1982
covers both the Drake, Isom and Hays projects. He understood there had
been no permits issued for these roads. Is there, or not, a requirement
for the permits? Have the permits been issued?
Mrs: Kircher stated that whether a permit was issued through
Public Works she could not answer. As far as the road off Santos Drive
that goes to the subdivision, the road has tentative parcel map
approval and is tied into the subdivision.
Mr. Luvaas was concerned about the project area and whether
a permit could be issued.
Mr. Siemsen could not answer that because it depends upon
the circumstances. Public Works would have to determine whether a
permit was needed.
Mr. Luvaas had received indications there were no permits
issued for the road constructed before the county acted on the project.
Representatives of the project said there is no connection between
this project and other projects, although the road was built with the
same access.
Chairman Wheeler advised that staff would respond to these
if the matter were continued to July 21, 1982. Those tractors are
not owned by Peterson Company; therefore, the construction companies
own them. Peterson Tractor Company repair and sell equipment.
Mr. Luvaas stated that there is maintenance, sales and
lease of equipment, and in this case the equipment was leased. He
thought it was appropriate for the record to reflect whether there
was a conflict between Ron Wheeler as manager of the company and
the rental agreement of that company.
Chairman Wheeler advised that county counsel has stated
there is no conflict of interest. She would appreciate it if the
comments were directed to the project. Her husband is no longer
employed by the heavy duty caterpillar company that sells and services
equipment. There are other Peterson companies in the area.
Mr. Luvaas felt he had been addressing the project. This
is a result of the county's repeated failure to deal with these
different matters. They are dealing with projects one at a time. The
county's agricultural land has been destroyed and there has been beautiful
canyons lost, with the information based on a project by project
basis. People are being lured into buying lots without knowing about
the fire or water. In talking about property rights the only rights
discussed are those that propose to develop and never the property
rights of people living in the area having the possibility of fire
and/or burglaries. He was concerned about the potential buyer of
the property and the people living near this project. He was also
concerned about the cost to the county of refusing to plan for
the entire area and looking at this on a project basis. There has
been discussion about the cost of preparing an analysis of the fiscal
impacts. If they are so worried about how much it would cost, why
don't they pay for this analysis. Is it their job, or that of the
county officials to find out how much it will cost for the entire
area? The analysis done by the developer's representatives had no
facts, no financial figures and nothing but conclusions. The board
is entitled to better information. The county is going broke and
dismantling and cannot service these projects. If the county does
provide services to this area, it will dillute the services that are
Page 223.
July 20, 1982
.? _~
July 20, 1982
being provided to the other areas of the county at the present time.
He wanted to know how-much of an effect this would have on the resi-
dents in other areas of the county before action was taken on this
project. The cost of services should be paid for by the public.
There are some ocher costs to the county that should be considered.
For example, how much risk is the Board subjecting the county to in
the face of lawsuits, risk of fire, crime and water. Is the county
being subjected to liability of gross negligence and if so, how much
will this cost .the county for liability in the future? The county
has a substantial expense for County Counsel`s office, not only for
staff, but for the court awarded attorney's fees. He expected that if
the trend continued the court would be more; and more upset and there
would be no way that the cost would be less than $5,000 and may cost
$25,000 to $30,000 for attorney services. The actions of the county
on this project, in approving the specific plan with a grossly
inadequate EIR, is not representing the interests of the public.
The Board is setting the public up for father raids on the county
treasury for future services on the ridge. There are three members
of the Board pushing for approval of this project in spite of the
objections. It is obvious that the reason for the contributions
received by Board members, not just Chairman Wheeler but other
members of the .Board as well, is because the developers anticipated
supgort for their project and felt justified in spending millions
of dollars on the project because they knew it was going to be
approved before it went through the process. He was very concerned
that even though a member can legally accept a contribution they could
still vote on a project. With so much money spent on the project,
this raises suspicions in the minds of the public that there was an
understanding between public officials and the developer. Whether
there is a connection between Peterson Tractor and the Chairman
remains to be seen. It is unfortunate that a possible connection
was not raised before they were in the process of hearings. If,
a permit was required before the road was built and no permit was
issued and a member of the Board or staff was aware the road was
being built and failed to raise the issue in the context of the
hearings, he was concerned about a conflict of interest and breach of
confidence. The Board should reject the project on the basis that the
information available indicates there are extremely serious impacts
on the county government, enviroment and safety of the county. The
Board, before acting on the development for the Bidwell Heights or
any other project, should adopt a comprehensive plan for the entire
area. It would be appropriate that the Board assess the need for
future development and determine if there is the need for this much
development in the canyon area in terms of the overall good of the
people in the county. That need has never been assessed. The public
deserves to know how much the cumulative. development is going to
cost the county taxpayers before they proceed one step further.
There is a need for a fiscal and comprehensive cumulative analysis
assessment. If the developer in proposing the mitigation measures is
saying it is fine for the other developers but not for him, this is
favorable treatment not requested for the other developers. He
suggested that the Board adopt all policies, ordinances, resolutions
and county-wide foothill plan. That requires rejection of the project
now. Tf the Board finds after a study has been completed that
development should be considered in the area then the applicant
should be allowed to reapply.
RECESS: 3:52 P.M.
RECONVENE: 4:07 P.M.
Page 224.
July 20, 1982
~3
8
July 20, 1982
SUPERVISOR DOLAN AND 210SELEY ABSENT AT THIS TIME
Clay Castleberry, public works director, spoke regarding
the issuance of permits for the road. They did review the road and
approve it for development proposed at the time. It met county
standards.
SUPERVISOR DOLAN PRESENT AT THIS TIME
Mr. Castleberry sated that they were aware of the road.
There was bond guarantee of the construction on this road.
5. Kelly Meagher. Mr. Meagher advised there were two
roads in question. He was aware of the road that Mr. Castleberry
had addressed, but there was another road off Humboldt Road that
meets Highway 32 going into the Drake and Isom property.
Mr. Castleberry did not have personal knowledge of this
road. The road he spoke to he did have personal knowledge ot.
6. Chris Herrick, Butte County employee. Mr. Herrick was
concerned about the public issues that had been raised. He did not
know anything about the conflict of interest or the EIR. If the county
approves~a•~deuelopment and has to provide services, he was concerned
that the county had to provide those services when they are asking the
employees to make concessions.
7. Margaret Reivus. Ms. Reivus asked a question relative
to the map that was posted on the wall. Tn looking at the map earlier
there are sewage ponds shown and one or two of them are drawn on the
creek. She understood there were others to be moved and wondered
where they would be moved to. She was concerned about the 100-year
flood and would like to know the boundaries for this flood plain.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the engineers were working
with engineers from Department of Water Resources as to where the
sewage ponds would be and the location of the 100-year flood plain.
The sewage ponds would be located outside the 100-year flood plain
of Little Chico Creek. That is being resolved by the engineer,
Environmental Health and the State Water Quality Control Board. She
was certain there would be more than enough control and there would
be no problem created if this project is approved.
Ms. Reivus was concerned about the State Water Quality
Control Board in Sacramento. She lived in the canyon and had well
water. If the sewage ponds create an accident and contaminate the
well water supply, would the residents have any recourse?
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, advised that,
as far as a legal recourse on accidents, he could not answer that
question. The function of the State Water Quality Control Board is
to protect the grouudwater and the surface water supplies. They
have approved the concept of the sewage disposal system. The State
Water Quality Control Board requirements must be met or their
department will not issue permits. The Water Quality Control Board
will require certain kinds of monitoring be done on this project,
but he was not aware of what they would be.
Chairman Wheeler advised that there will be certain standards
sat for monitoring. The developers have formed a county service area
that is going to be part and parcel with the project to deal with the
Page 225.
July 20,1982
~l
July 20, 1982
8
sewage pond. All the property owners will pay a tax to support that
system. There is no burden on the county for the system.
Mr. Vanhart set out the way the monitoring would be done.
There will be periodic checks and there will be certain standards
required to be met. They may or may not advise the operator of the
time that they will show up. The operation of the treatment facility
will be done under the control of the county Health Department and
they will make periodic inspections as well as monitoring.
Mr. Siemsen stated that the county service area would
be responsible and the residents in the district would be charged a
service charge for maintaining whatever is necessary.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that the system would have to
meet the standards of the county. This would be an improvement over
what they might have now since there are several homes along the
area. Who monitors those systems? The people living there presently
do not know whether they are contaminating the creek or not.
Ms. Reivus advised that nine residents of the Stilson
Canyon area have had contaminated wells because of some unknown reason.
Water Quality Control has been in the area and done inspections. They
had to put purification systems on their water. She wanted to be sure
someone was monitoring and if her well was contaminated she wanted
to know who she could go to and who would be responsible. They have
their own system checked because they do not want their water con-
taminated.
8. Flo O'Patrny, Butte Creek Canyon. Ms.O'Patrny stated
that in talking with Priscilla Hanford of the California Water Quality
Control Board she was told that they were drawing up new plans based
on those from Wisconsin. This is a new concept for water control. If
California is considering a new concept of water control, she would
hate to see a new development approved that could continue to build
for the next twenty years.
9. John Luvaas. Mr. Luvaas stated that it was clear from
Public Works Department that the adjoining project had a permit
issued for the road. They were not talking about that road. Mr.
Castleberry has not heard of the road and does not know whether a
permit was issued for the road built on this particular project. He
felt they needed to know from the developer why they were. so
convinced they were going to get county approval that they built the
mad.
10. Jere Bolster. Mr. Bolster stated that he would like to
set out Canyon Park Estates in a factual manner. Mention has been
made about water quality. The Environmental Health Director has already
advised what will happen in that matter. The approval today does not
approve the project in its final form. They still have to go through
the subdivision map procedure and water quality control permits.
They are not degrading the water quality in the creek or on the ground.
As far as Mr. Cole's comments about the improvements on Humboldt Road
and that the county would be charged $30,000, the development will put
all of the road in. Humboldt Road will be rebuilt by the development
as a condition of approval. Several people have asked that the Board
postpone action until such time as studies and policies have been
completed for the other projects in the Doe Mill Ridge area. if the
project, as presented, had been checked, peaple would see that the
project does comply with all the mitigation measures.
Page 226.
July 20, 1982
7.~
S 2-
3
July 20, 1982 _ _ _ _
The information on the .100-year flood plain is not available, but will
be available before the waste discharge permit is issued. They have
not destroyed an archeological site on the project. He believed the
Department of Fish and Game had indicated by a recently received
letter and testmmony frpcg the Planning Director the deer herd would
not be decimated. The turkeys are from Texas and were planted on
the site by the Department of Fish and Game. This project will have
its own police system. The Sheriff, who responds to the Forest Ranch
area, would respond to any complaint. Fire protection was discussed.
They will take special precautions as to the type of construction
allowed. Fire retardants will be used and there will be fire
hydrants or fire water supply system as well as a volunteer fire system
for the project. There will be afire protection assessment district
through covenant. As far as the questions about the road through the
property are concerned, he believed that the District Attorney, as
well as the Grand Jury, was asked to look into some allegations that
they did the road work illegally. He did not believe that was the case.
Since its the subject of some investigation, he would rather not
comment on it at this time. He responded to Supervisor Fulton's
questions relative to the road permit issue. There is no road on
site, but there is a jeep trail for surveying. They did not want to
bring traffic from Bidwell Heights so they could have access to the
site. This will become the main access road but it is only a road
for access into the project at this time. .
11. Roger Cole. Mr. Cole was amazed that a jeep trail needs
to be thirty feet wide and gravelled.
12. Ellen Sanders. Ms. Sanders spoke in terms of the
cumulative impacts. There is a letter from the Department of Fish and
Game in response to the preliminary information on the Bidwell
Heights project. One of those statements refers to the cumulative
effects of this and other projects that might destroy the deer
habitat in the Doe Mill Ridge area.
13. Roger Cole. Mr. Cole advised he had attended the Chico
2000 meeting, when Mr. Bolster made his presentation. Mr. Bolster
invited anyone present to go up at any time to look at the project.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
1173
1174
The hearing was continued to July 22,1982, at 11:00 a.m.
to address all issues.
RECESS: 4:39 p.m.
RECONVENE: 4:50 p.m.
SUPERVISOR SARACENI ABSENT AT THTS TIME.
DISCUSSION OF SB 1920, JOHNSON LANDS: UNAUTHORIZEB ENTRY
Discussion of SB 1920, Johnson Lands relative to unauthorized
entry was continued to July 27,1982.
DISCUSSION OF UPLAND GAME BIRD HUNTING LAKE OROVILLE
Discussion of opening the West Branch and Potter's Ravine
area to upland game bird hunting on Lake Oroville was continued to
July 27,1982.
p~,~ 227.
July. 20, 1982
~i::
July 20, 1982
21175 I NOMINATTON OF SECRETARY TO FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
Nomination of secretary to the Butte County Fish and Game
Commission was continued to July 27,1982.
1176 APPOINTMENTS CONTINUED TO JULY 27, 1982.
The following appointments were continued to July 27,1982:
1. Appointment to the Butte County Council of Senior
Citizens.
2. Appointments to the Community Action Agency Board of
Directors.
..'''.1177 COMMUNICATIONS
', City of Chico. The City Clerk provides information regarding a joint
meeting July 28,1982, at 4:00 p.m. in the Conference Room
', 1, Chico Municipal Center. Continued to July '27, 1982.
D.R. Roper, engineer. On behalf of J.H. McKnight Ranch, the engineer
..appeals a waiver application on a tentative parcel map,
AP 38-21-12 and AP 38-22-03 and 09, three parcels, on
Gage-Shippee Road at Nelson Road, Nelson area. Set for
', hearing August 10,1982, at 10:15 a.m.
Archie & Ruth Paterson, Chico. The Patersons write providing
information on a use permit for Mr. Lugenbeel, AP 39-18-31,
allowing a studio foundry. Continued to July 27,1982.
Gladys H. Miller, Pacific Heights Mobile Home Park. The Millers write
', regarding fees to operate a commumity water system.
Continued to July 27, 1982.
', Department of Mental Health. Douglas G. Arnold, chief deputy director,
responds to the Board of Supervisors request for a hardship
', waiver for Short-Doyle funding match requirements.
', Continued to July 27,1982.
', Steven R. McNelis, Judge, Gridley Judicial-District. The Judge provides
information of consequences of budget actions affecting
the Gridley Justice Court. Continued to July 27, 1982.
Greater Chico Chamber of Commerce. Sally M. Liston, chairman
Transportation Committee, requests the Board of Supervisors
reexamine its priorities to focus on the traffic problems
at Rio Lindo and Cohasset. Continued to July 27, 1982.
', U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Elizabeth Tapscott,
', program manager, provides information on a monitoring
visit for August I2 and 13, 1982, to review tine Butte County
Community Development Block Grant Program in south Oroville.
', Continued to July 27, 1982.
Norman S. Waters, assemblyman, Seventh District. The Chairman of
the Water, Parks and Wildlife Assembly Committee requests
', the Board of Supervisors' thoughts on the concept of a
northern effort to protect water interests in order to
', begin working on legislation in that regard. Continued to
July 27,1982.
Page 228.
July 20, 1982
~ •~
8
78
3uly 20, 1982
Office of Ray Johnson, state senator. The Senator's staff provides
information on how SB 1326 {trailer bill) affects air.
pollution control districts. Continued to July 27, 1982.
PUBLIC HEARING: DICK CHAPPELL APPEAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONDITIONS
The public hearing on Dick Chappell appeal of conditions
to a tentative parcel map (conditions 12,13 and 14) on property
located on AP 41-OI-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 27, 1982.
1179
LETTER TO BE SENT TO U.S. FOREST SERVICE RE PROPOSED USE OF CHEMICALS
TN THE BUTTE P~ADOWS, FOREST RANCH AREA.
Joe Bandy, agricultural commissioner, made a report
proposed use of chemicals in the Butte Meadows, Forest Ranch area
by the U.S. Forest Service. The Board has a 45-daq period to make
comments, which will end this Friday. On June 7, 1982, a notice of
decision was signed by David Jay, district forest supervisor of the
Amador District, which started the 45-day appeal process. The U.S.
Forest Service must respond within 30 days. Comments must be in by
Friday, followed by a statement of teasons for justifying review of the
proposed decision. There are seven locations in Butte County slated
for treatment of 168 acres of aerial spraying of 2-4-D phenoxy
herbicide.
SUPERVISOR SARACENI PRESENT AT THIS TIME
The U.S. Forest Service is not required to seek a hazardous
permit.
Chairman Wheeler advised that she had met with one of the
members of the Forest Ranch Committee and they are very concerned
about this problem. She has also met with the representatives from
the U.S. Forest Service and they have advised that there are areas
where they will make aerial applications of the herbicide. Some
of the people in her. district are saying they want nothing done
in the area at ali, some are saying they could accept this, if there
was hand application which could increase the employment in the area.
The primary use for the herbicide is control of the undergrowth
that chokes the conifers. One of the plantations is 160 acres.
This area is located in the northeast corner of the county. There is
no local control on this spraying.
Joe Bandy advised that this was to release the young
conifers from the brush. If there is no brush or undergrowth there
would be no fires. The projections in Tehema and Colusa Counties'
documents is that this would be good for approximately five years.
If they found a certain level of desired control they would come
back one to five times. The courts in Mendocino, Siskyou and Trinity
Counties have determined that neither people by referendum nor the
Board has any control to conduct pesticide control as it pertains to
state law.
Supervisor Fulton advised that there was a high percentage
rate of unemployment within the county. Why couldn't these people
be put to work doing hand applications for this 160 some acres? 1t
is an expensive process to have chemicals, planes and pilots when you
could hire 15 people with axes to go out and take care of the job.
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor
Dolan and carried, a letter was authorized to be sent to the U.S.
Forest Service stating that the county is primarily interested in the
Page 229.
July 20, 1982
July 20, .1982
8:
3
possibility of hiring persons with tools to clean by hand without the
use of 2-~+-D Phenoxy Herbicide or similar Phenoxy herbicides, suggesting
that hand application be made if this first suggestion is not possible
to them and the Chairman authorized to sign.
Marcia Ackerman, chairman of the Forest Ranch Herbicide
Committee, thanked the Board for the action they had just taken
regarding application of the herbicide.
Bi11 Birch, Forest Ranch, advised that the Board was
appealing a decision that has been made to date by the U.S. Forest
Service. Since this is an appeal, under normal procedures there are a
number of days to respond with specific items. He wondered who
would be generating the additional items and responses.
Chairman Wheeler advised that she, Supervisor Fulton, and
County Counsel would he generating the response.
Mr. Birch stated that unemployment was one of the points
that would be brought up. This is the kind of approach the Board
should be talking about. He felt that potential contamination of
water with material in creating health problems when EPA says they
will not make a determination until 1983, should also be an item
in the response. The Forest Ranch Committee does have information
available for the Board's use.
RECESS: The Board recessed at 5:19 p.m. to reconvene on Wednesday,
July 21, 1982, at 10:00 a. m.
Page 230.
July 20,1982
29