Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM08058080-.1280 a' . --------====-Au_gust-5, 1980-=-==___-------- PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT M. HESS -PETITION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 19-10 AND/OR 19.-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE FOR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE .HOME ON AP 40-46-15 BOR'35B~NTMSHEW STAGE CHICO AREA. ZONINGd "FR-S°t The public hearing on Robert M. Hess petition for variance to Sections 13-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home an AP 40-46-15, Box 35B Nimshew Stage, Chico area, zoning: "FR-5" was held as advertised. Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, set out the background of the petition. It is in order. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Winston and carried, the petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 40-46-15, Box 35B Nimshew Stage, Chico area, zoning: "FR-5" for Robert M. Hess was approved for a period of one year. 1281 PUBLIC HEARING: MARION C. AND FRANK G. BENNETT - CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT EiR AND PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF LAND CONSERVATTON ACT AGREEMENT The public hearing on Marion C. and Frank G. Bennett consideration of draft EIR and petition for cancellation of Land Conservation Act Agreement was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the petition. The Board has received copies of the Land Conservation Act Committee's report and recommendations. Other information has been provided. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the EIR. This project is being processed pursuant to the Chico Airport Environs EIR. There are two items of concern: the ultimate accomplishment of drainage and the compatibility with the adjoining agricultural lands. This property is not really prime agricul- tural land. It does border some orchard. This is an island of Williamson Act land that is totally designated residential. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Frank Bennett. Dr. Bennett stated that he purchased the land in 1973 and put it into the Williamson Act with the intention to raise cattle. There is no way to keep this property going in agriculture. This is marginal land. This is a long way from prime agricultural land. He had to put 1,000 feet of drainge through this property for the homes on Keefer Road. There is a 30 foot easement from Public Works. In the process of putting in the 30-foot easement they broke a 40-foot pipeline. The coat for repair~.ng this will run $15,000 to $30,000. They are trying to maintain cattle in the middle of an urban area. This does not work. They have problems with people and dogs. The property is not suitable for orchard purposes. He has submitted a letter requesting that the contract be canceled. This takes ten years to effect. The letter was submitted almost one and one-half years agQ. There is a tremendous cost for irrigation of this property. We11 water must be used for the property. They have abandoned one well on the property. A total of 40 acres of pasture land is being dried up. There are 55 homes within 200 feet of the field. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. Discussion of whether Supervisor Wheeler would have a conflict of interest on this matter because"Dr. Bennett is her appointment to Page 122. August 5, 1980 80- b August 5, 1980 _ _ the Planning Commission held-at this Jtime. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated there iaould be no conflict of interest. SUPERVISOR WHEELER PRESENT. AT THIS TIME Supervisor Wheeler stated she had been listening to the hearing. She supported the withdrawal of the land from the Land Conservation Act. Dr. Bennett has presented a letter to the Board setting out his reasons for wanting the land withdrawn. Discussion of findings necessary to allow withdrawal from--the Williamson Act held at this time. Mr. Blackstock understood that the committee had recommended that the property not be withdrawn. Supervisor Winston stated that the committee was unable to make the findings necessary for withdrawal. The Board could overrule the committee if they were able to make the necessary findings. The Board cannot consider economic characteristics which are not sufficient reason for cancellation o€ the agreement. The Board has heard Dr. Bennett regarding• the difficulty with the cost of irrigating on the parcel. In looking at the soil map there is a small portion of ulna loam on the property. The major portion of the property does not have a reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put. Mr. Blackstock advised that he had not read the committee's report. He gathered that the committee had determined there were other agricultural uses that could be put to the land. The present agricultural use, according to the owner, is not feasible. If the Board makes the finding there are other agricultural uses the land can be used for, they may not cancel the agreement. If the land could not be used for growing food or fiber there would be sufficient reason to cancel the agreement. Ms. Blair stated the committee had not recommended removal and could not make the necessary findings. They discussed the loss of prime agricultural land and the pollution problems that generate as a result of residential uses. The committee looked at a recent aerial that shows existing orchard contiguous or in the immediate vicinity of the property. The committee felt that the checklist regarding environmental concerns should be changed on Section G, page 1 should be yes and page 48B should be yes. They did not discuss alternative types of agricultural uses for the. property. Mr. Nelson stated that his office had checked maybe on the checklist and this was sufficient to require an EIR. An EIR has been used for this project. The change on the checklist would be a judgment factor. If the Board should decide that the property should be withdrawn from the Williamson Act, they would have to make the environmental findings and acknowledge the certified EIR is applicable. It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler that finding there are no alternative uses and agriculture 3s no longer possible, the withdrawal from the Williamao~t Act property of Marion C. and Frank G. Bennett be approved; finding that the cancellation of the Land Conservation Act agreement is not inconsistent with the purposes of the change and it is in the public interest. Discussion of the General Plan designation for this property held at this time. The property is in the agricultural-residential designation. Motion withdrawn. Page 123. August 5, 1980 SO-. b ___-____-_= August 5, 1980 __________________ - Dr. Bennett commented on the taxes paid for this property. The :axes paid on this progerty were for a valuation of $24,100':'until. he iecided to withdraw from the Land Conservation Agreement. Shortly after :he committee acted on this matter, he received a re-evaluation form from :he Assessor. The taxes will naw be based on $66,904 valuation which is an increase of 270%. He questioned the Assessor that in his mind a contract Ls an agreement between two people to the end. He asked the Assessor why the property had been brought back to market value and was told that as >oon as a person wants to withdraw from the contract the value 3s changed to market value. The county has abrogated this contract instead of it running the ten-year period. It was his understanding there would be a period of ten years to bring the property up to market value. Mr. Blackstock felt that there was a misunderstanding on this matter. He referred Dr. Bennett to the Assessment Appeals Board for consideration of the value change. There is a formula used over the ten-year period during the notice of non-renewal. Counsel was instructed to report back to the Board on this matter. The hearing was continued to August 12, 1980. ** 12a2 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2128: PUBLIC HEARING: GARY MAT2TONE - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION`S DENIAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARAT~N AND REZONE FROM "TM-5" (TIMBER MOUNTAIN - 5 ACRE PARCELS} TO "TM-1" (TIMBER MOUNTAIN - ONE ACRE PARCELS) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF HIGHWAY 32 AND APPROX. 300 FEET NORTHEAST OF NOPEL AVENUE IDENTIFIED AS AP 63-11-24 25 26 & 27 FOREST RANCH The public hearing on Gary Martone appeal of Planning Commission's denial of negative declaration and rezone from "TICS" (timber mountain - five acre parcels) to "TM-1" (timber mountain - one acre parcels) for property located northwest of Highway 32 and approximately 300 feet northeast of Nopel Avenue, identified as AP 63-11-24, 25, 26 and 27, Forest Ranch was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the appeal. She understood that the Board had received a letter from Claude Willis after the Planning Commission hearing. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. The concerns are on the ground water quality and the effects of septics on the area. The lots have been revised to 17 lots which reduce the concerns to some degree. He recommended a negative declaration. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: i. Gary Martone. Mr. Martone presented a letter from J. C. Plummer. He submitted the letter at this time. Mr. Martone read and submitted a letter from himself at this time. He quoted some of the people involved in the project. He set out the tests that were made regarding the wells. He has met with the people in the community on this matter. He asked that the project be approved. 2. Wes Paulsen, geological engneer. Mr. Paulsen stated he had personaly walked over the Chico Creek Cattyon which is below Forest Ranch. He has measured the beds foot by foot. There were test pits of nine to ten feet dug on this progerty. 'There were two wells dug on the property. Everything checked out and was approved by the county. It was better than anticipated. There is not one shred of solid evidence in the letter from Claude Willis. The projected water flow can be Page 124. August 5, 1980 80- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -August 5,_ 1980 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ be predicted by the curve used when the tests are made. The water can be projected for a draught. The curves and tests are 95% to 99% ~°reliable. These wells are deeper than most of the wells in the area. The wells are dexived from a totally different strata. He also evaluated the septic runoff. The soil is good for septic tank purposes. 3. Claude Willis. Mr. Willis read a letter to the Board at this time. He is a licensed well driller. He has drilled many of the wells in Forest Ranch. He set out the type of soil on the area. He explained the wells that have been dug in the area. He was opposed~to the project. He was concerned for the wells already in the area. The people opposed to the project stood at this time. The people who were in support of the project stood at this time. G. Jim Crane. Mr. Crane spoke in favor of.the project. Mr. Willis had indicated he is against subdivisions. He dug the wells for the subdivisions in the area. 5. Jim Namith. Mr. Namith concurred with Mr. Willis. He felt that Mr. Crane as a real estate person had an interest in this matter. He had talked with Mr. Willis regarding subdivisions. Mr. Willis is not opposed to subdivision. Mr. Namith was concerned that any new homes in the area did not jeopardize the existing homes. He was concerned about possible contamination of the wells existing in the area at the present time. SUPERVISOR WINSTON ABSENT AT THIS TIME 6. Mr. Meehan. Mr. Meehan was concerned that the septic tanks were uphill from the water supply. There are shallow wells to .provide water for the homes and the restaurant. There are no testing procedures available to examine and discover possible contamination of the water before the septic tanks are done. 7. W. R. Kerman. Mr. Kerman was opposed to the project. He had just visited Yreka. The Campbell track is a tract of wells and septic tanks. All of the wells are polluted with a high degree of nitrates. 8. Bill Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that Mr. Willis had drilled five wells for his property. He wanted to know why the wells were not up to standard. The wells were put in up to standard at the time they were dug. He felt that five acre parcels were sufficient in this area. 9. Noel Williams. Mr. Williams spoke in favor of the project. He asked c~,uestions regarding the designation on the General Plan. SUPERVISOR WINSTON PRESENT AT THIS TIME Ms. Blair stated that the map in 1975 was the map from the old Land Use Element map of the General Plan. The new General Plan designation is low density residential. Mr. Williams referred to a letter he had written to the Board regarding the project. 10. Ed McRae, president of North Woods Mutual Water Company. Mr. McRae stated he was representing fifteen people. Of the fifteen, fourteen of those are ag~st the project. He was concerned with fire protection. The map shows a cul-de-sac. There is no cul-de-sac in the area. Page 125, August 5, 1980 80- a _ __ ----_ August5~ 1980_-___T=-=___~~____~ -11. Gary Martone. Mr. Martone was them to-answer any question .he Board might have.' 12. Wes Paulsen. Mr. Paulsen stated that the comments by people about the fractures are not true. The Fracture is along the bend. This is three miles west of the property. 13. Claude Willis. Mr. Willis stated that the committee worked up the zoning for the Forest Ranch area. They recommended "TM-5" zoning and the property to the south and east of Forest Ranch could be developed "TM-2-1/2" if water was proven. The Board chose to establish "TM-5" zoning for the area. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. 1283 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, finding the progosed project could not have a significant effect on the environment a negative declaration was accepted. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, finding the progosed project is in keeping with the Butte County General Plan and finding that the project will not be detrimental to the welfare of the people in the community the appeal of Gary Martone was upheld; the rezone From "TM-5" (timber mountain - five acre parcels) to "TM-1" (timber mountain - one acre parcels) for property located north- west of Highway 32 and approximately 300 feet northeastr>of Nopel Avenue, identified as AP 63-11-24, 25, 26 and 27, Forest Ranch was approved; Ordinance 2128 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board recessed at 11:55 a.m. to hold an executive session regarding litigation. RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 1:39 p.m. following an executive session regarding litigation and the lunch break. ADOPT ORDINANCE 2129: PUBLIC HEARING: BOARD OF SUPERVTSORS - REZONE FROM '~R-5" (FOOTHILL RECREATIONAL -- FIVE ACRE PARCELS) TO "G-2" (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF LUMPKIN ROAD, 0.6 MILE NORTHEAST OF THE CRAICrRECREATION AREA ACCESS ROAD, OWNED BY KEN BROWN, 3DENTIFIED AS AP 71-15-18 & 19 EAST OF OROVTLLE The gublic hearing on the Board of Supervisors rezone from "FR-5" (foothill recreational - five acre parcels) to "C-2" (general commercial) located on both sides of Lumpkin Road, 0.6 mile northeast of the Craig- Recreation Area Access Road, owned by Ken Brown, identified as AP 71-15-18 and 19, east of Oroville (item on which a previously certified EIR was supplemented with site-specific data) was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning dixector, set out the background of the rezone. The Planning Commission recommendation was for "H-C" (highway commercial) zoning for this area instead of the "C-2" (general commercial) applied for. There was also a physical reduction in the area to be rezoned. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the environmental concerns. The checklist was originally prepared for "C-2" zoning. The concerns were reduced with the "H-C" zoning and the reduction in the size of the proposal. This would be considered with the Craig Mooretown Ridge EIR. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Ken Brown. Mr. Brown spoke in favor of the rezone. He felt that perhaps "C-1" zoning would have been better than the "C-2" zoning. He felt that Page 126. August 5, 1980 80- August 5, 1980 the "H-C" zoning could be a problem because of the requirement for a use permit in many instances. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. 1284 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, accepting the recommendations of the Planning Commission and finding the Craig Mooretown Ridge Rezone EIR approved March 4, 1980 is applicable to this project. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, finding the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission would have no significant effect because of the requirement of Planning under the "H-C" zoning that would provide an opportunity for mitigation of impacts and finding the project is 3n conformity with all elements of the General Plan. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan,.: seconded by Supervisor Dolan, the rezone from "FR-5" (foothill recreational - five acre parcels} to "H-C" (highway commercial) for property owned by Ken Brown, identified as AP 71-15-18 and 19, east of Oroville as recommended by the Planning Commission was approved; Ordinance 2129 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. PUBLIC HEARING:_SPECIAL DISTRICT AUGMENTATION FUND DISTRIBUTION The•publc hearing on the special district augmentation fund distribution was held as advertised. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Jerry Hughes, CARD, spoke in favor of the recommendations. Jim Johansen, auditor, stated that this 3s only an estimate at this time. If the amount is an increase the additional funds will be distributed on the same percentage. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, the recommendations of the 1980-81 special district augmentation fund committee were accepted and the following distxibution was made: Basic Supplemental CSA ~~31 Biggs Swim $ 3.,748 CSA ~~34 Gridley Swim 3,120 CSA X153 Eire Protection 6,278 Lime`Saddle CSD 540 Bangor Cemetery 98 Kimshew Cemetery 2,265 Gridley-Biggs Cemetery 16,297 Paradise Cemetery 11,782 Pine Creek Cemetery 42$ Thompson Flat Cemetery 98 Oroville Cemetery 35,917 Wyandotte Cemetery 128 Butte Mosquito Abatement ~. 60,960 Durham Mosquito Abatement 1,695 Oroville Mosquito Abatement 2,640 CARD 105,037 Paradise Rec & Park 33,592 Durham Rec & Park 10,297 $39,000 E1 Medio Fire 9,060 Page 127. August 5, 1980 80- 1285 August 5, 1980 Feather River Rec & Park Drainage X11 Drainge ~d2 Arainge ~i100 Maintenance Area ~~5 Maintenance Area 413 County Library County Fire Protection Unapportioned balance Basic $ 60,742 1,380 645 5,063 6,375 4,545 128,415 240,855 SuSu- l~emental $11,000 PUBLIC HEARING: 1980-81 BUDGET AND REVENUE SHARING FTNAL USE HEARING The public hearing on the 1980-81 budget and revenue sharing final use hearing was held as continued. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: William Burch. Mr. Burch asked that the Board consider an appropriation of from $13,000 to $14,000 for a used pumping truck equipment for the Forest Ranch Volunteer Fire Department. They would provide backup to the two existing engines. The engines they have at this time do not carry an adequate amount of water. This would be a backup. The equipment would be maintained by the people in the volunteer fire department. This engine could also be called out to assist the county fire department. The hearing was continued to later in the meeting. 1286 PUBLTC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL), "P-Q" (PUBLIC-QUASI PUBLIC) AND "S-H" (SCENIC HIGHWAY) TO "A-5" (AGRICULTURAL - 5 ACRE PARCELS) AND "A-40" (AGRICULTURAL - 40 ACRE PARCELS) FOR COUNTY DUMP SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA LOCATED ALONG BOTH SIDES OF CLARK ROAD (HWY 191) FROM TOWN OF PARADISE LIMITS SOUTH APPROX. ONE MILE PARADISE - CONTINUED TO AUGUST 12 1980 The public hearing on the Butte County Planning Commission proposed negative declaration and rezone from "A-21° (general), "P-Q" (public-quasi public) and "S-H" (scenic highway) to "A-5" (agricultural - five acre parcels) and "A-40" (agricultural - 40 acre parcels) for county dump site and surrounding area located along both sides of Clark Road (Highway 191) from Town of Paradise limits south approximately one mile, Paradise was held as continued. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, reported on the meeting held with Mr. 3ohnson. Mr. Johnson has a number of parcels adjacent to the county parcels. The rezone would affect his property. The Planning Director was quite correct regarding certain statements regarding Mr. Johnson's property. The property is under a desist and refrain order. The county has recorded notices of violation on the property. He felt this was not the time to discuss what should be done with the property other than the rezone. It is up to Mr. Johnson, if he wishes to comply with a certificate of compliance or to file a subdivision map. If the rezone were done for his property and the parcels were found not to be legal it would be impossible for him to divide his property. Letter from Paradise Rim Ranch dated July 22, 1980 acknowledged at this time. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Cecil Johnson. Mr. Johnson stated he was representing 200 acres of the 600 acres being consid- ered for rezoning. He presented a contour map at this time. He referred back to a letter directed to the Board on October 10, 1978. Mr. Castleberry wrote a letter to him. He read the letter at this time. He felt that Page 128. August 5, 1980 80- August 5, 1980____-_-_-_-_________=__ the rezone was moot on the basis of the letter from Mr. Castleberry. This property has the capability for percolation on every parcel. He is not in ;violation of the Subdivision Map Act but in violation of the Subdivid'd Land Act. The state has agreed they would issue a public report on the property as soon as he obtained a certificate of compliance from the county. He has shown counsel notices of violation recorded against the property. He has not applied for a certificate of compliance as yet. He has not appealed any notice of violation. He had not contemplated selling any of the five acre parcels at that time. He asked that the Board x. llow him to resolve the problem with the property. He would like to obtain certificates of compliance at a later date from the staff level. Mr. Blackstock stated that the question of whether he has one or twenty parcels is critical as to how the rezone will affect this property. Mr. Johnson did not object to the rezoning of the balance of the property. He did not west to see his property rezoned at this time. He would not be able to attend another meeting next week. If his rights would not be diminished by not attending the meeting that would be fine. He would be against the rezoning of the property to "A-40" zoning next week if he were not present. The hearing was continued to August 12, 1980 at 11:00 a.m. 1287 PUBLIC HEARING: CHARLES AND ALEHA DEDEKER, ET AL - APPEAL OF DRAFT EIR AND ADVISORX AGENCY'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SWEDES FLAT SUBDIVISION (ROBERT DRAPER), 44 LOTS, AP 72-29--26, AP 72-31-19, 4 & 5 WEST OF BLACK BART ROAD IN SWEDES FLAT AREA EAST OF•'OROVILLE The public hearing on Charles and Aleha Redeker, et al appeal of draft environmental impact report and Advisory Agency`s decision to approve the tentative subdivision map, for Swedes Flat Subdivision (Robert Draper), 44 lots, AP 72-29-26, AP 72-31-19, 4 and 5, west of Black Bart Road in Swedes Flat area, east of Oroville was held as advertised. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the EIR. The project went through a public hearing and the Board passed a motion of intent. They became aware of an unresolved conflict regarding wildlife. It was felt that more information was needed. Dr. Kee went out on the property and made a report that says there are no major concerns because this is low elevation and the migration would be every three to five years. The reservoir cut off the migration. The wild turkey 3s not . a problem because of the surrounding residences. Dr. Kee used the term that there would be major detrimental effects on the wildlife that inhabit the property. All are widespread and none on the endangered list. The decision is up to the Board. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Aloha Dedeker. There was a letter sent to the Board on the lack of Sheriff's protection and fire protection and the concern for potable water. Her biggest concern was the disposal of sanitary waste and contamination of their wells. There is a creek that goes through their property. On their property the seepage from the leachlines hits the surface. Those parcels were already an illegal subdiufsion. The people on the hill are running into problems. She tried to get a test run on the water in the area and was unable to do so. She wanted to get a soil sample. 2. Paul Wayman. Mr. Wayman agreed with Mrs. Dedeker. He did not know how the Board could approve this subdivision when Mr. Draper had another illegal subdivision and was required to bring it up to standard. The road is still not up to standard. Page 129. August 5, 1980 August 5, 1980 80- Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that if Mr. Wayman was 3 talking about a subdivision that in order to be approved the work must be done. One of two things occurred. There has been a continuance on filing the final map or the final map was filed and covered by a sufficient bond that the county will come in and do the work. If the condition is required as apart of the approval of the subdivision the work will be done. 3. Mrs . Santa FisicYe . Mrs . Fisiic~: agreed with Mrs . Dedeker and Mr. Wayman.about the water. There has not been anyone working on the road. RECESS: 2:38 p.m. RECONVENE: 2:44 p.m. 4. Elaine Pontious. Ms. Pontious asked if the EIR says there will be wildlife destroyed and asked for 20 acres and the gentleman from the Department of Fish and Game says this is the last remaining area for the deer how can the Board make the findings and approve the project. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, stated that the Board is required to make findings pursuant to the Subdivision Map .Act. If there is a substantial impact on wildlife the Board must deny the project. The Board has to make findings pursuant to the CEQA. They must make Findings if there are significant adverse effects. If this is so, they must consider mitigation measures or alternatives. On a regional basis the wildlife will not be effected. 5. Bill Geddis. Mr. Geddis stated that his office had prepared the EIR. The conditions of approval state that the developer must meet the requirements of the Health Department and be in compliance with the Water Quality Control Board. Without meeting those conditions there is not approval. The property has had percolation tests done. They will have to select suitable sites and provide soil tests to satisfy the Health Department on disposal. This will not result in a problem as far as pollution of the creek. They will have to prove adequate domestic water. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. Supervisor Winston stated he was not a game management expert. He has spent considerable amount of time up in that area. He was amazed there are any deer in that area. There are certain areas of Oroville in the foothills that have deer every year. They come into the residential areas. The lake destroyed the migration of the deer. The first year the dam was built many of the deer drown. He felt the mitigation measures covered the concerns about sewage and water. Public Works is requiring that the road be paved. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, finding that comments and recommendations from the public have been attached to the draft environmental impact report, that written responses to significant environmental points raised by the comments have been prepared and attached to the draft environmental impact report and that a list of the persons, organizations and public agencies who commented has been attached to the draft environmental impact report, acknowledging that Elaine Pontious has spoken at this hearing and her comments have been taken into consideration, the final environmental impact report was certified as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Environmental Review Guidelines and the Butte County Environmental review Guidelines; and Page 130. August 5, 1980 80- b August S, 1980 laving reviewed and considered the final environmental impact the following Findings were made: 1• Development which occurs pursuant to '-project approval when viewed in connection with other probable future projects, may result in significant cumulative effects on the environment in the areas of loss of wildlife. habitat, change in character of the area, increased demand for public services, and energy consumption by additional commuter traffic. A11 other impacts listed are either insiga3ficant or will be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as conditions of project approval. 2. Mitigation measures to reduce and in some cases eliminate potential significant environmental effects will be included in the conditions of project approval. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts in the areas of traffic safety and traffic flow, surface drainage accommodation, historical and archaeological site preservation, aesthetics, wildlife, erosion, and soil stability. Although these measures will reduce environmental problems, as noted above, significant environmental effects will remain 3n the areas listed in item (1) above. 3. Although this project will represent another incremental loss in wildlife habitat which warrants a finding of significant adverse effect when viewed cumulatively with other projects, it in itself will not have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife habitat, when available habitat is viewed from a regional perspective. ~. Project alternatives are being rejected in favor of the original proposal for the following reasons: a. The "No project" alternative is being rejected because it does not accomplish the project objectives, and the density ~andards of the General Plan and zoning do not preclude a project of this density at this location. (Refer to the "overriding considerations" below for additional reasons why this alternative is being rejected). b. Division by parcel map is being rejected because it could only occur through consecutive actions of a number of independent developers, minimizing the likelihood of coordinated planning for necessary road and drainage improvements. c. The larger lot size and reduction in number of lots alternatives are being rejected because with. fewer lots, the cost of required urban improvements (roads, utilities, drainage, etc.) would increase the cost per lot to th~oint where fewer persons would be able to afford them, contributing to t e difficulties experiences by low and middle income families in finding parcels within their price range. Economics of scale due to higher density would be diminished by density reductions. These alternatives would also not accomplish the project objectives and would not satisfy the concerns expressed in the overriding considerations. 5. Although there may be significant adverse environmental effects resulting from the approval of this project, there are overriding considerations which justify project approval. These overriding considerations include: a. The property is zoned for development. b. The General Plan allows the development. c. Denial of the project would not preclude further subdivision of the property on a-parcel map basis which would have the same ultimate effect on wildlife as would this project. Page 131. August 5, 1980 80- =_____--===W=August 5, 1980 __________________ - d. The probable continued subdivision of the progerty on a parcel map basis probably would result in fewer total site improvements and provisions for erosion control. e. Development in this area will help relieve .pressure far development of areas with prime agricultural soil. f. The Butte County General Plan projects continuing growth at between 2% and 3% per year, and development of residential homesites is necessary to insure a continuing adequate supply of homesites at reasonable cost to meet this need. The General Plan further expresses a need for a reasonable surplus of available development sites to avoid constriction of the market supply and unnecessarily high land prices. g. Rural homesites on large parcels offer residents the opportunity to offset .food and energy resource demand by becoming partially self-sufficient through producing on the premises a partion of their food and energy needs. 6. The subdivision is in conformance with al1•elements of the Butte County General Plan. having made the above findings, the project was approved subject to the following conditions and mitigation measures so long as there is no conflict between the mitigation measures and the conditions: 'Mitigation Measures_ '_1. Erosion control measures shall be implemented at the time of construction. These measures shall include: a. Revegetation-.of all exposed soil-surfaces or usa of other soil stabilization techniques. b. Proper development of roadside drainages. c. Storm water runoff channels shall be stabliized with installation of culverts, riprap rock lining, energy-dissipating structures, etc. d. Earthwork shall be conducted during the dry season only. No exposed soil surfaces shall be left unprotected during the winter rain~•-season. 2. Properly sized and installed culverts shall be placed in any drainage courses crossed by roads or driveways. 3. Driveway locations shall conform to the terrain, following contours as much as possible and avoiding steep embankment cuts. Road grades shall not exceed 15%. 4. Grading permits shall be obtained where required as per the 1976 Uniform Building Code. 5. Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for sewage disposal systems and domestic water supply must be met. 6. Natural vegetation shall be retained where possible. 7. Grant an easement deed to the Society for California .Archaeology for the areas covered by the archaeological sites designated as CA-BUT-69b and 697. Arrange for qualified archaeologist to map, measure and Page 132. August 5, 1980 80-. •_______-====August 5, 1980 __________________ photograph CA-BUT-698 gybed rock mortar site) prior to construction activities on parcels. 8. Perimeter fencing along lot lines not over four feet in height shall be constructed which would create a barrier to the normal movement of wildlife. 9. Provide protection from trespassers in the form of a wire fence of an acceptable height to the Oak Grove Cemetery Board. Conditions as included by Public Works, Health and__Planning Departments_ 10. Show a 100-ft. leachfield setback from the high water mark of the stream on Parcels 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 25, 24, 23, 22 and 21. 11. Prove that the required quantities of domestic water are available to each. parcel within the subdivision. 12. Provide the required useable sewage disposal area on each lot and show on the map the required useable sewage disposal area. 13. Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works for approval and install the required facilities. 14. Provide 20--ft. radius property line returns at all street inter- sections. 15. Indicate a 50-ft. building setback line from the centerline of all roads. 16. Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street intersections per County requirements. (Submit five alternate street names for each street to the County address coordinator for approval of street names.) 17. Deed 30 feet from the centerline of Hurieton Swedes Flat Road and Black Bart Road to the County of Butte. 18. Construct full street section on Hurieton Swedes Flat Road and one-half section on Black Bart Road to RS-3A geometric standard. Minimum structural section to be 2" AC and 8" AB, SC 250 prime and fog seal and 95% relative compaction. Submit design to County Department of Public Works for approval. "R" value determinations and other data may be required to support section design, All interior roads to be RS-7. 19. Provide monumentation as required by the Department of Public Works in accordance with accepted standards. 20. Street grades and other features shall comply with the Butte County Ordinances, design resolution, and other accepted engineering standards. 21. Provide permanent solution for drainage. 22. All easements of record to be shown on the final map. 23. Meet requirements of Butte County Fire Department or other responsible agency. 24. Pay off assessments. Pane a 133. August 5, 1980 80- $' 1288 1289 1290 1291 ______-__--- August 5, 1980-====--_____--_____- 25. Meet requirements of PG&E and Pacific Telephone Company. 26. Provide road maintenance agreement. 27. Provide access to the front gate and parking at the front gate of the existing cemetery. 28. Apply for zoning that is compatible with the 5-acre existing zone as stated ix~the Planning Director's Report dated May 27, 1980. 11 AYES: Supervisors Wheeler, Winston and Vice Chairman Moseley NOES: Supervisor Dolan ABSENT: Chairman Lemke CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 14-50 TO THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE REGULATING OVERNIGHT PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND ADOI~TTNG ORDINANCE - CONTINUED TO AUGUST 12, 1980 Consideration of waiving of second reading and adoption of ordinance adding Sectio~4-50 to the Butte County Code regulating overnight parking of commercial ve icles continued to August 12, 1980. CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING .CHAPTERS 20 & 24 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE REGARDING REGULATIONS AND CONTROL OF SUBDIVTSIONS AND TO ZONING RE UIREMENTS CONTTNUED''TO AUGUST 12 1980 Consideration of waiving second reading and adoption of ordinance ',amending Chagters 20 and 24 of the Butte County Code regarding regulations land control of subdivisions and to zoning requirements continued to (August 12, 1980. WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO STREET NAMING IN MOBILE HOME PARKS On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Winston and carried, the first reading of the ordinance relative to street naming in mobile home parks was waived. APPOINT STUDY COMMITTEE TO STUDY LAND AEVELOPMENT PROCESS Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, set out the background of the land development process study. The Administrative Office was asked to do a survey of people interested in land development as to whether a study was needed. All of the responses they received except one indicated a study should be done: a On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, a committee to study the land development process was established, with the members to be appointed by each Board member. Supervisor Winston appointed Lee Colby to the study committee. Supervisor Wheeler appointed Mary Andrews to the study committee. 1292 Appointments by Supervisors Dolan, Moseley and Chairman Lemke continued to August 12, 1980. AUTHORIZE FORMATION OF SOCIAL SERVICES CLEARING HOUSE COMMTTTEE Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, reported on the duplication of social service programs. He recommended that a committee be formed. Formation of the Social Service Clearing House Committee with the following members was authorized: Page 134. August 5, 1980 80- **** 1293 August 5, 1980 Welfare ,Dep~xtment Probation Department Public Health Department Mental. Health Department Sheriff's Department Community Action Agency AUTHORIZE UPGRADE OF DATA PROCESSING 90/30: AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION FOR UNIVAC SYSTEMS 80 ACQUISITION Discussion of the report on the interim upgrade of the 90/30 and the consideration to negotiate for Univac Systems 80 in the Data Processing center held at this tame. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, advised that he was,°recommendi~g ghe-purchasa• of th-~,._;.., - equipment. The Systems 80 is what Univac is dedicated to fox at least five to seven years. The executive committee might want to suggest a lease. Supervisor Wheeler stated they were asking to be able to proceed with updating the 90/30 and authorization for the committee to negotiate a purchase or lease of the equipment with Univac. Mr. Nickelson asked that the Board authorize immediate order of the 90/30 update. The System 80 is an on-line oriented piece of equipment. They need to start the change from the batch mode to an on- line configuration. Vice Chairman Moseley stated she was very disillusioned with dtat processing. She thought the problems would be completely solved when SCT was hired by the county. She did not think the changes would solve anything. Mr. Nickelson did not feel that the county should have gone to the 90/30 when they did. This would be an on-line processing and there would "not be the need for programmer intervention to change things. Jim Johansen, auditor, stated that the decision about computers were to important to leave up to data processing personnel. He was not sure that leaving the equipment as it was, was the answer. Consideration of lease versus purchase is still in doubt. If there is a lease, as the county now has with Univac, there~is a problem with the changes in the industry and being stuck with a lease agreement. The hardware being suggested has a decrease in cost for an increase in capability. There has been some success with programs for his department. There were improvements as far as the effectiveness with the property taxes and the AB 8 program was successful. He was looking forward to as a result of the study and the on-line capability of implementing a financial system. He hoped there would be a reduction in the cost of the hardware sufficient to allow them in monies to accomplish some of the programs they have been asking for~for several years. If the system stayed the same, the county would continue with a lease cost for the existing system for seven years and there would be no capability for the criminal justice information system and no capability for the financial management system. Discussion of whether there would be a ~aaeings to the county held at this time. There will be very little conversion cost between the 90/30 and the System 80. The costs would be from going to on-line as opposed to batch. Mr. Nickelson stated there would be no increase in staff at the data processing center. They county might have to hire an operator at the department. Page 135. August 5, 1980 80- 1294 -____--=====A_upus_t 5, 1_980_____________ _____ Supervisor Wheeler stated she has worked on this project since. she was elected. The Board has adopted the study done on data processing. There will be a cost on the part of the county. She felt it was a cost affective method of doing the work. In time, the county will reap the Benefits. She felt the county had to go forward with this tyge of system. Hal Brooks, district attorney's office, felt the warrant system aas a very cumbersome procedure. This type program would help to alleviate the possibility of lawsuits. There would not be the need for additional personnel to operate the on-line system in the criminal ,justice program. It will require re-training of the personnel already working. The CJIS grant will help bring i~noney to help bring the county system up. It will help pay for part of the equipment. Ed Brown, assessor, stated he was against a central process. If the entire department were eliminated there would be floor space with a rental of $70,000 per year on the fair rental rate he has computed. The better way for departments to get services with less people is not to continue down the road to the central department. He felt the best way to go at less cost would be for the individual department heads to assume the responsibility within their own departments. He felt they could get a higher level of sexvice with less manpower needed. He felt that by staying with a centralized operation it would be ineffective and more costly. He is not getting satisfactory work from the center as it is now. There is no more documentation in his office. Shasta County basically does not do much processing with computers other than the tax cycle. He did not feel that Shasta County`s tax cycle was nearly as shtisfactory as Butte County. Shasta County`s programs could not be adopted for Butte County's use. He did not feel it would be legal to integrate all the county files in one central location. Tt would be desirable to integrate certain files in the county. He felt it could be an incxease in efficiency if this were done with the tax cycle. Supervisor Wheeler stated that Mr. Brown had been invited to attend the committee meeting. He was asked to come and assist the committee. He did not attend the meeting. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, upgrade of the 90/30 was authorized; and negotiation of the systems 80 acquisition was authorized pursuant to memo dated July 31, 1980 referring to Phase I and Phase II. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Wheeler and Winston. NOES: Vice Chairman Maseley. ABSENT: Chairman lemke PUBLIC HEARING: 1980-81 BUDGET AND REVENUE SHARING FINAL USE HEARING The public hearing on the 1980-81 budget and revenue sharing final use hearing was held as continued. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Nora ?Wiley, representing Gridley Library. Dick Puelicher, auditor's office, submitted a schedule of some minor changes and policy considerations for the Board. There are twg types o£ changes, most have been approved. The second part is the policy considerations. There are some questions not in the schedule, salary increases and the Sheriff's Department augmentation. Revenue sharing is not included. The total decrease from the reserve with the consideration of the policy matters and the routine changes is $2,300,000. Discussion of the cost for construction of the jail and dorms held at this time. The total cost for construction in addition to the dorms would be $850,000. These are included in the $2.3 million. Page 136. August 5, 1980 August 5, 1980 80- _ Administrative Office to provide an update on the revenue ~' sharing requests for the next meeting. The hearing was continued to August 13, 1980. at 9:00 a.m. 1295 COMMUNICATIONS Sacramento Avenue Assessment District. Letters in opposition to the proposed assessment district have been received from Elaine Minasian and United California Bank on behalf of Edward and Myrl Stammerjohan (deceased). Information; no action taken. Mrs. and Mrs. Ronald G. Hollenbeck, Magalia. Mr. and Mrs. Hollenbeck write requesting the county to gravel a portion of Lovelock Road in the Magalia area. Referred to Public Works Director. Law Offices of Lynn Hubbard, III. The attorney, on behalf of Daniel Olsen, files a claim in the amount of $190,000 as a result of an incident occurring in Paradise. See motion following communications. Law Offices of Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan, Sacramento. The attorneys, on behalf of Southern Pacific Transportation Company, et al, file a claim in the amount of $500,000 as a result of alleged damages arising out of the county's April 29, 1980 decision to abate the claimant's railroad car cleaning facility on Anita Road.,; To be considered October 7, 1980. Chief G1erk of the Assembly. The Chief Clerk forwards Assembly Joint Resolution 454 relating to recreational boating. Information; no action taken. State Office of Emergency Services. The department writes forwarding information concerning hazard mitigation and damage assessment relative to disasters and requests that the county identify a hazard mitigation coordinator. See motion following communications. U. S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor forwards a telegram urging the county to take action to insure that disadvantaged persons are served who can benefit from the CETA Program. Referred to the Personnel Director. Senator S. I. Hayakawa. Senator Hayakawa forwards information relative to installation of a chair lift at the Lassen Volcanic National Park ski area. Information; no action taken. 1296 COUNTY COUNSEL TO WRITE ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF DANIEL OLSEN, ASKING HIM TO REVIEW THE CLAIM AND ADVISE THAT THE BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION AS SOON AS THEY HAVE MORE TNFORMATiON On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and Carried, counsel is to contact the attorney, on behalf of Daniel Olsen, advising the Board is unable to make a determination on the facts presented and the attorney might want to review the claim. 1297 TOM STRUTHERS DESIGNATED HAZARD MITIGATION COORDINATOR On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, Tom. Struthers was designated the county's hazard mitigation coordinator. 1298 ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Moseley questioned whether the changes in address would effect the sample ballots being mailed out. Page 137. August 5, 1980 August 5, 1980 g0-' T Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that the post office 3 has both the old and new addresses. The sample ballots will be mailed out. RECESS: The Board recessed at 4:17 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, August 12, 1980 at 9:00 a.m. Page 138. August 5, 1980