HomeMy WebLinkAboutM081881August 18, 19.81
2245
' 2246
2247
2248
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
} SS.
COUNTY OF BUTTE )
The Board of .Supervisors met~at 9;0.0 a.m, pursuant to recess.
Present; Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheeler and .Chairman Moseley. Clif
Nickelson, administrative officer: Del Siemsen, acting county counsel; and
Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
Absent: Supervisor Lemke
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Supervisor Saraceni
APPROVAL OF MLNUTES
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, secaxided by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the minutes of July 29, 1981 and August 11, 1981 were approved
as mailed with the following correcti-otxs:
July 29, 1981 minutes, minute order 81-2164, page 91, first
sentence to reflect Mr. Penn should have advised the Board areas where
cuts should be made and the type of effect it would have in his department.
August 11, 1981 minutes, minute order 81-2220, to reflect that
the public hearing date for consideration of Peter Giamaoli proposed
negative declaration and rezone on the northwesterly corner of Joshua
Tree Road and Posada Way, Chico was set for September 15, 1981 at 10:30 a.m.
instead of September 1, 1981 at 10:15 a.m.
The minutes of August 3 and 4, 19$1 were continued to August 25, 1981.
APPROVAL OF ADDITTONAL AGENDA ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT
THE END OF THE DAY
Supervisor Wheeler stated that the District Attorney has asked
to speak to the Board at 11:00 a.m. on the victim initiative that will
be placed on the ballot next June. She would also be speaking about the
Med fly situation.
.ADOPT ORDINANCE 2241: WAIVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING COUNTY
CODE AS IT RELATES TO HOURS COUNTY OFFICES ARE TO BE OPEN
On motion of Sugervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the second reading of the ordinance amending the Butte~ounty
I' Code as it relates to the hours county offices are to be open fox t e
transaction of public business was waived; Ordinance 2241 was adopted and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-187: PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET: APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE,.NICNTAL HEARTH AND PUBLIC HEALTH ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Approved the letter agreement with Slower, Roster &
Lotspeich, certified public accountants, for the conduct of an audit and
special report on SB 325 state transportation funds to be conducted for
an amount no'C to exceed $2,225 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
2. Approved the deposit of $1,608.13 for taxes or special
assessments which are a lien, not yet payable, for-the Richfield Gardens
Planned Unit Development within the City of Chico.
3. Approved the deposit of $1,671.90 for taxes or special
assessments which are a lien, not yet payable, for the Little Grand
Canyon Estates Unit No. 2 within the Town of Paradise.
Page 149.
August 18, 1981
8]
..August 18, 1481
4. Approved and denied the ,~gllowing penalty abatement requests,
change. of ownership reports:
a. Approved-$he:iequest>.~or.penalty abatement for Mr. and
Mrs. Cary A. Phillips., AP 028-17-0-0.44-Q
b. Approved the request £or penalty abatement for Mr. Ronald J.
Laffins, AP OAS-26-4-001--0
c. Approved the request for penalty abatement for Mr. and
Mrs. Timothy W. Cusick, AP 051-01-0-119 and 122
d. Denied the request for penalty abatement for lmad Bustami
for AP 043-34-0-059-0
5. Adopted Resolution 81-187 approving the property-tax
exchange agreement with North Burbank Public Utility District waiving
their rights to property taxes for three current annexation proposals
(Clan Silvara, Wattles/Van De Erve, and John C. Jones) and the Chairman
authorized to sign. '
6. Approved the following budget transfers:
1980-81 transfer
B-353 - Estimated Revenue Transfer - Proposition 4. This is a
cleanup transfer appropriating $3,046,968.08 in over-realized 1980-81
revenue in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 4. The over-
realization is due exclusively to the initiation of accrual accounting
procedures during the fiscal year. The transfer recognizes increases in
revenues totalling $3,841,.432.15 and decreases of $294;464':07 for an overall
over-realization of $3,046,968.08. This represents a year end closing
bookkeeping entry and has already been recognized as apart of the year
end fund balance.
1981-82 transfer
8-LO - Community Action Program. Within the 1981 grant year senior
nutrition project, transfers $900 from consumable supplies and $514-.from
other costs; with $977 going to salaries and wages, $137 to travel and
$300 to consumable supplies. Within the home delivery senior nutrition
program, transfers $850 from consumable supplies and $443 from other costs;
with $b52 going to salaries and wages, $91 to fringe benefits, $100 to
consultant services and $450 to travel. The total amount of this transfer
is $2,707, .and represents budgetary adjustments approved by the Area Agency
on Aging on August 13,-1981.
7. Approved contract amendment and renewal with Community
Living Centers (Creekside) for operation of a supervised residential care
facility in Paradise for 1981-82 in the amount of $87,188 (actual cost
agreement with a contract maximum, $79,720 and a provision for payment for
under utilized beds, $7468) and the Chairman authorized to sign.
8. A public hearing date of September 15, 1981 at 10:00 a. m.
was set fox consideration of Charles Emmett petition for variance to
Sections 19-10. and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code far placement of
a mobile home on AP 30-11-77, 1549 14th Street, Thermalito area. Zoning.:
"A-2" .
9. Approved Robert E. Adams renewal of variance to Sections 19-10
and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code .£or placement of a mobile home on
AP 27-15-18, 3565 Grubbs Road, Oroville area. Zoning: "A-5"
Page 150.
August 18, 1481
August 18, 1981
3
10. Approyed'Robert Hess renewal of variance to .Sections 19-10
and/or 19-12 of the Butte Count-y Code for placement of a mobile home on
AP 40-46--15, 88 Honey Run. Road, Chico area. Zoning; "I'R-5"
11.. ~lpgroved James Kent renewal of variance to Sections 19-10
and/or 19 12 of the Butte County-Code for placement of.a mobile home on
AP 44-28--02 Q, Nord. Road, Chico area. Zoning; "A-2"
12. Approved William L. Laughlin renewal of variance to Sections
14-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County-Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 27--24-07, 7666 Citrus AVenue, Palermo area. Zoning: "A-5"
2249 CLOSED HEARING: THERESA GEORGE APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S CONDITION 4
(PROVIDE PERMANENT SOLUTION FOR DRAINAGE) ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP,
AP 42-14-74, TWO LOTS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORD AVENUE
AT THE INTERSECTION OF OAK WAY CHICO AREA
The closed public hearing on Theresa George appeal of Advisory
Agency`s condition 4 (provide permanent solution for drainage) on tentative
parcel map, AP 42-14-74, two lots, property located on the south side of
Nord Avenue at the intersection of Oak Way, Chico area was held at this
time.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the continued hearing. The Board received information from the Land
)evelopment,; Cpmmittee who suggested an answer to the problem. Their
suggestion was to commission a drainage study. He has indicated it
is unlikely in view of the budget restraints. The alternatives for the
Board is to make the decision to waive the cash bond and approve the map;
approve the map with the condition there be no development until the
facilities are provided; or the Board ean say they will not worry about it
until there is another Sacramento Avenue Assessment District. The
next door neighbor came to the Board for a rezone. Oae of the conditions
the neighbors brought up was the requirement for drainage.
Supervisor Dolan stated that if the map is approved and if
the Board continues allowing divisions the drainage problems on the
area will be the same as was discussed weeks ago. It is not fair in this
instance to say no to the spliting of the parcel map. It is allowable
in the General Plan. It would also contribute to the drainage problems.
Something has to be done. Down the road there-will be flooding or unsafe
conditions or an assessment district. She could not support a study at this
time.
Mr. Castleberry stated he had talked to the engineer for the
applicant for ideas. He wished he had more faith in the covenants.
If the Board used the acreage fee of Sacramento Avenue Assessment
District for a bond he would be happy. The Board could approve the
map and put a note on the map that there be no development of any kind
until there is solution for drainage.
The matter -was continued to August 25, 1981.
2250
APPROVE VISTA DEL CERRO UNTT N0. 3 FINAL SUBDIVISION-MAP
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the deposit by the developer for taxes or special assessments
which are a lien, but-not yet payable for Vista Del Cerro Unit No. 3 final
subdivision map ,~61 lots, AP 36-21-various, property located on Vista
Del Cerro and Autrey Lane, Oroville area;was approved;.easements as
described as A and B of the owner`s certificate as offered for dedication
were accepted; grant in fee rigfit-of-way for Vista Del Cerro, Autrey Lane,
Via Canela, and Via Laton were accepted; the Chairman authorized to sign
the subdivision agreement and t#ie;?fublic Works Director was authorized
to hold recording of the map-until the bond has been received.
Page 151.
August 18, 1481
SIB 2251
b'
2252..
2253
August. l8, 19.81
ADOPT RESOLUTTON 81-188 SETTING PUBLIC HEA;RING.DATE.-FOR THAD.WAKEMAN
ABANDONMENT Ok'FORTION OF GRAND..AyENUE'AND FORTI,QN pk'. 16TH,STREET THERMALITO
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni,_seconded`-hy,..Supervisor Dolan
and carried, Resolution 81-188 .setting a public hearing date of September 29,
1981 at 10-: 0.0 a.m. for consideration of-Thad Wakeman abandonment of a portion
of Grand Avenue and a portion of loth Street, Ther~alito was adopted and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC'HEARTNG DATE SET
The following public-hearing dates were set:
1. A public hearing date of September 15, 1983 at T0:30 a.m.
was set for consideration of Casa De Flores Mobile Home Park proposed
negative declaration and rezone from "R=4".(maximum density residential -
restricted service) to "MHP" (mobile home park) property located on the
south side of Lassen Avenue, at Norseman Avenue, identified as AP 44-21-29,
Chico.
2. A public hearing date of September 15, 1981 at 10:15 a.m. was
set fox consideration of Butte County Board of Supervisors proposed negative
declaration and rezone from "A-5" (.general), "A-SR" {agricultural - suburban -
residential) and "C-1" (light commercial) to "R-'3" (medium density residential)
for various properties located on both sides of West Sacramento Avenue,
west of and within 2,000 feet of State Highway 32, identified as AP 43-26-6,
14, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39; AP 43-28-8, 10, 11 and 12; and
AP 43-29-71, Chico.
APPOINTMENTS - CONTINUED TO AUGUST 25 1981
The following appointments were continued to 'August 25, 1981:
1. Appointment to the Housing Element Task Force, District 4.
2254
2254
2. Appointment to the Overall~Economic Development Program
Committee, District 1
ADDITT'ONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Saraceni stated the Board had not received any
informational reports on the Overall Economic Development Committee.
He was looking forward to receiving reports on what has been happening.
COMMUNICATIONS
Lippincott Surveying, Paradise. The surveyors, on behalf of Sohn Franklin,
write appealing condition 5 and b to the Troy Estates Subdivision,
AP 64-31-3, 4 and 7, 32 lots, property located on the south side
of Colter Way, east of Carnegie Road, Paradise Pines area.
Set for hearing September 15, 1981 at 11:15 a.m.
Robert. L. Brown, Chico. Mr. Brown writes appealing the Planning Commission's
denial of his rezone, AP 48-01-17, 20, 21, 22 and 23, property
located on the northeast corner of Cohasset Road and Thorntree
Drive, Chico. Set for hearing September 15, 1981 at 10:45 a.m.
Dan Hays, Jr., Chico. Mr. Hays writes requesting that the Board set a
date and time on a future agenda in order to discuss his intent
to provide a cable television system for properties in Little
Chico Creek Canyon and Doe Pull Midge, the formation of which
must be approved by the Board. Referred to Counsel.
Diamond International, Red Bluff. The firm writes requesting that
AP 56-07-050. (14D.42 acres) and AP 5b-Q7-Ob6 (240..01 acres)
which are presently under Williamson Act contracts, be
Page 152.
August l8, 1981
81-
~''
-______-====Au=gust 18~1R81__________________
cancelled with the intent that they-he .placed in a timber
preserve zone. Referred to Planning.
Ruth and Ray Murphy, Chico: Mr. and Mrs. Murphy write in opposition to
the appeal of a denied rezone for Gary Smith.. To be considered
later in the meeting.
Cliff Johnsen, Chico. Mr. Johnsen writes requesting that-the Board authorize
advance guidance to a condominium project he is proposing in the
Chico area. Referred to Public Works Director with a copy to
go to the Laud Development Commission.
Charles G. Allen, Oroville. Mr. Allen writes indiciating his opposition
to proposed drainage plans for the Thermalito area. Referred to
Public Works.
Gary Martone, Forest Ranch. Mr. Martone writes forwarding suggestions
with regard to the county's building department program.
Referred to Public Works Director for response with a copy
to go to the Land Development Commission. '
Dan. Hays, Sr. and Dan Hays, Jr., Chico. A letter has been received expressing
appreciation for allowing the presentation of a traffic
generation plan for the Pentz Road and Highway 99 pxoject at an
earlier Board meeting. Information; no action taken.
Rod Sandretto, Chico. Mr. Sandretto forwards his resignation as a member
of the Butte County Comprehensive Employment and Training
Advisory Council (CETAC), effective August 31, 1981. Administrative
Office to post vacancy.
Butte County Council of Senior Citizens. The organization writes sending
notice of vacancy to the council. Referred to Administrative
Office to check on the rules and report back to the Board.
County of San Bernardino Health Care Services Agency - Collections Division.
Stephen G. Sutherland, chief of the division, writes requesting
that further consideration be given to allow a member of the
Butte County Collections Department to attend a conference.
Referred to the Tax Collector-Treasurer.
City of Biggs. The city writes forwarding its opposition to the
consolidation of the Biggs and Gridley Judicial Districts.
To be considered on August 25, 1981 at the time of hearing.
City of Biggs. The city writes forwarding its opposition to the decision
to construct new library facilities in Gridley and Chico.
Lnformation; no action taken.
Veterans Memorial Halls. Letters of opposition to reductions in the
memorial halls budget have been received from the Disabled American
Veterans Department of California, Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States, and the Durham Checkerboard Squares. To
be considered at budget time on August 26, 1981.
County budget. Letters have been received suggesting the budgetary
priorities and suggestions on the budget from Roy Stripe of
Chico, Fred T. Huntington of Oroville, and William Mazurek of
Oroville. To be considered at budget time on August 26, 1981.
Page 153.
August- 18, 1981
August 18, 1981
81~ Catherine A. Drake, Paradise. Mrs. Drake'~orwards a claim in the amount
~ of $25,455.75 as a result of injuries-incurred-in an accident
in Paradise on 2~Eay 7, 1981. See i~yotion following.communications.
Lynn Hvlit~ard III, attorney at law. The attorney, on behalf of Curt
Johnson, files a claim in tfie amount of $1,000-,0-00 as a result
of not issuing the necessary permits and approvals to enable
the claimant to complete a development project in the area of
Nelson. Continued to August 25, 19.81.
Lynn Hubbard III, attorney at law. The attorney, on behalf of Gary William
Warner, files a claim for damages in the amount of $4,000 as a
result of an alleged €alse arrest occuring July l7, 1981. See
motion following communications.
Tndependent Cities Association of Los Angeles County. The association writes
requesting the Board to adopt a resolution opposing Assembly
Bill 1743 which will prohibit counties from charging contract
cities for any portion of those costs which are attributable
to services made available to all portions of the county. Referred
to the Administrative Office for a report back_to the Board.
City of Daly City. The city writes requesting that the Board support an
t. investigation and analysis of the investment policies of the
California Public Employees Retirement System in an effort to
increase the rate of return. Referred to Administrative Office
for report back to the Board.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department writes
advising that the county is required to comply with the provisions
of Section 504 of the Rehabilitiation Act of 1973 as part of the
financial assistance being .received from the department.
Information from Mr. Ehmbe taken under consideration at this
time; no action taken.
2255 (REJECT CLAIM CATHERINE A. DRAKE
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraneni
and carried, the claim of Catherine A. Drake in the amount of $25,455.75
as a result of injuries incurred in an accident in Paradise on May 7, 1981
was rejected and referred to Counsel and Risk Management Coordinator.
225b REJECT CLAIM - GARY WILLIAM WARNER
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the claim of Gary William Warner in the amount of $4,000 for
damages as a result of an alleged false arrest occurring July 17, 1981
was rejected and referred to Counsel and Risk Management Coordinator.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board recessed at 9:32 a.m. to hold an executive
session regarding meet and confer.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 10:11 a.m. following an executive
session regarding meet and confer. No announcements made
at this time.
2257 ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 81-.189.& 81-190: PUBLIC HEARINGS: MC CAIN & A550CTATES
ABANDONMENT Ok'1~ PORTION OF ALLEYWAY, GOODSPEED STREET AND BROWN`;STREET,
IN DURHAM AND WILLIAM R, PEACOCK ABANDONMENT OF"PUBLIC UTILITIES AND
RECREATIONAL EASEMENTS; UNIT 10. O_F'PARADTSE'PTNES; LOT 79
The public hearing on the following was held as advertised:
1. McCain & Associates abandonment of a portion of alleyway,
Goodspeed Street and Brown Stre~t, in Durham.
age 154.
August 18, 1981
81-
V''
;___-__=====TAugust 18' 1981__________________
2. William R. Peacock abandonment of :public utilities and
recreational easementst Uriit 10. of Paradise Pines, Lot 79.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of
the ahandonmentst They-are in order.
Hearings open to the pub lie. Appeariri.g; No one.
Hearings closed to the public and confined to the Board.
2258
2259
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor 5araceni
and carried, the following abandonments were approved; resolutions were
adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign:
1. Resolution 81-189 abandonment of a portion of alleyway
Goodspeed Street and Brown Street, in Durham for McCain & Associates.
2. Resolution 81-190 abandonment of public utilities and
recreational easements, Unit 10 of Paradise Pines, Lot 79 for William R.
Peacock.
The report to the Board for Ronald and Marianne Dreisbach
denied rezone (without prejudice) (item determined to be categorically
exempt from environmental review) from "A-2" (.general) and "TNI--160"
(timber mountain - 160 acre parcels) to "TPZ-160" (timber preserve zone -
160 acre parcels), property in three locations: one on the north side
of Field Ridge Road, approximately three miles south of Feather Falls,
identified as AP 71-23-07; another on the north side of LaPorte Road,
approximately one mile north of Clipper Mills, identified as AP 73-21-34
and 35; and the other on the south side of LaPorte Road, at Clipper Mills,
identified as AP 73-21-27 was accepted for information.
REPORT TO THE BOARD: RONALD AND MARIANNE DREISBACH-'DENIED REZONE
STATUS REPORT REGARDING DOE MLLL RIDGE STUDY AREA
Bettye Blair, planning director, presented-the status report
to the Board regarding the Doe Mill Ridge study area. This report was
stimulated by the fact they had apglications to further subdivide parcels
on Doe Mill Ridge. They propose to use the map for the study area. The
property in Section 7 and 8 that is under consideration-for a parcel
map is also included. She was bringing the report 5orward to the Board
for direction. She did have concerns about development on the ridge
where there is no zoning. They have had one meeting with interested
people in the area and are planning to call one in September for discussion.
The continued erosion of the ridge by four and three parceling dilutes
the effect. Should they pursue the plan and take a firm position of
no divisions without specific zoning?
Chairman Moseley stated she had talked with people in that
area and they all agreed that the study should continue. Some of the
people have started EIRs in this area. She was afraid that if the Board
agreed to the position of no divisions, there would be a moritorium
for one year to eighteen months.
Ms. Blair advised they had solicited the input and support
of the property owners. There was some participation at the first meeting
and the reason for the second meeting is to obtain more information.
There is one application in the area of l,lOd acres for a "PA C" zone.
They know what is planned for that project. The problem with the "A-2"
zoning is that anything goes.
Discussion open to the public. Appearing:
Page 155.
August 18, 1981
_ - - - August 18 _ 1_481 _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
Bl~ 1. Jere Bolster, representing Dan Drake and Howard Isom. Mr.
'~' Bolster stated they'are preparing development .plans for their property.
This includes Sections 14 and a little of Section 13 .on .the lower southwest
', portion of the map. He would want to be certain-because of the plans in
process that an interims zoning would not keep them from proceeding with
their project. He would be willing to coordinate the planning with the
', ridge area. This project will be single family detached units and the
c irculation system will be more than adequate for what might occur on
the ridge. Not all the property owners were present at the first meeting
', held by the Planning staff.
Ms.'Blaix advised that a specific zone fox a specific property
would lift an interim from that property.- The major concern in that
area is the "A-2" zoning. It is the bulk of the ridge. If the county
is going to achieve any study, the county needs some guarantee that it
will not be taken out from under the county. She will be bringing back
a propsal after the next meeting with the property owners. She was
asking for direction on the parcel map that was being considered at the
Advisory Agency level.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
that the parcel map discussed earlier be; continued for two or three weeks.
2. Dan Hays, Jr. Mr. Hays stated that the parcel map being
considered is broken into five acre parcels and lies adjacent to seventeen
five acre parcels. The Board granted the land use element for that area
as "A--R", which is one to forty acre parcels. He felt that by stopping
the processing of the map it would be setting a priority that would stop
any further maps. There is an adjacent 13.3 acre parcel that has had
tentative approval. The three five acre par o:1s being asked for is
not an erosion of the current property up there. There have been people
in that area working for the past three or four years on master planning
for proper road design and proper density. He does not own this property.
He completed two EIRs on their projects which were passed around and
used by others in the area. He did not think it was just to slow down
a parcel map for three weeks when there are 30 parcels adjacent and
abutting the parcels that are the same or smaller.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the issues of existing parcels
are brought up each time. This is a large area of "A-2" zoning. This
means the county is looking at the ridge on a project by project basis.
Vote on the motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke
Motion carried.
2260
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2242; PUBLIC HEARING; JAY M. GARNER PROPOSED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A SR'.' (AGRICULTURAL - SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL)
TO "PA-C" (PLAI3NED AREA-CLUSTER, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
'SYCAMORE DRI'TTE, BETWEEN STATE HWY 99 AND MUD CREEK, IDENTIFIED AS AP 44-01-37
& AP 44-02-43, CHI CO
The public hearing on Jay 24. Garner proposed negative declaration
and rezone from "A-SR" (agricultural - suburban residential to "PA-C"
(planned area-cluster, property 1o¢ated on the north side of Sycamore
Drive, between State Highway 9.4 and Mud Creek, identified as AP 44-01-37
and AP 44-02-43, Chico was held as advertised.
Page 156.
August 18, 1981
81'-
$,
August 18, 1983
Bettye Blair, planning director, set-:out the background of the
rezone.
Healing open to the public. Appearing: Mark Risso, McCain
and Associates, representing Mr. Garner. Mr. Risso advised he was present
to answer-any questions.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On anotion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, tfie requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
have been completed, and that the environmental documents have been
considered in making this decision and recommending a conditional negative
declaration be adopted; and finding that the project conforms to the Butte
County General Plan; Ordinance 2242 was adopted rezoning the property
identified as AP 44-01-37 and AP 44-02-42, Chico to a "PA-C" (planned
area cluster) zoning district, subject to the following mitigations
measures and conditions and the Chairman authorized to sign:
Mitigation measures
1. Grade the land to direct surface water runoff from the streets and
other impervious surfaces to the open space areas. Minimize grading
of existing topsoils;, especially oh the southern portion of the site,
to enhance the sewage disposal capabilities.
2. Provide 40 foot wide buffer strip along Highway 99 and construct and
maintain a 7 foot high cedar board fence on top of a 4 foot high earth
berm as per the submitted plan. Coordinate location of the sound and
visual barrier with Caltrans.
Conditions
3. Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works for
approval and install the required facilities.
4. Provide 20 ft. radius property line returns at all street intersections.
5. Provide rightWof-way for standard No. 5-5 at all street intersections.
6. Indicate a 50 ft. building setback line from the centerline of Sycamore
Lane.
7. Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street intersections
per County requirements. (Submit 5 alternate street names for each
street to the County Address Coordinator for approval of street names.)
8. Deed 30 ft. from the centerline of Sycamore Lane to the County of Butte.
9. Along property frontage construct 1/2 street section plus 12 ft. on
Sycamore Zane to RS-2-B road standard with vertical curb, gutter, and
sidewalk and 2" AC, 8" AB, SC 250 prime, fog seal and 95% relative
compaction. Construct full street section on interior streets to
pavement widths shown on site plan. Structural section to be 2" AC
and 8" AB with fog seal and 95% relative compaction. Submit design
to County Department of Public Works for approval. "R" value determina-
tions and other data may be required to support section design.
10. Construct full street section on Sycamore Lane from east property line
to Hicks Lane to a 24 ft. paved width with 2" AC, 8"AB, SC 250 prime,
fog seal and 95% relative compaction.
Page 157.
August 18, 1981
a-~
~''
2261
August i8, 1481
11. Provide 14onumentation as required by the Department of Public Works
in accordance .with accepted standards.
12. Street grades and other Features shall comply with the Butte County
Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted engineering standards.
13. Provide permanent solution for drainage.
14. All easements of record to be shown on the final map.
15. Meet requirements of Butte County Tire Department or other
responsible agency.
16. Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte County
requirements, accepted design criteria, and recommendations of
PG&E
17. Pay off all assessments.
1S. Meet the requirements of the utility companies, (i.e., PG&E, Pacific
Telephone, water, sewer.)
19. Pay any delinquent taxes.
20. File a tentative and final subdivision map and pay appropriate fees.
21. Contribute pro rata share toward traffic signals at intersection of
Hicks Lane and Eaton Road.
22. Construct standard cul-de-sac at the west end of Sycamore Lane--or
partial cul-de-sac, if approved by the Department of Public Works.
23. Provide a sewage disposal design and installation in compliance with
Butte County Health Department. Regulations and the sewage disposal
ordinance and the California State Regional Water Quality Control
Board requirements.
24. Provide a letter or other documentation from the California Waters:
Service stating that they are willing and able to supply domestic
water to the project.
25. Provide a homeowners association or other legal entity reviewed by
the Butte County Health Dept. and the California State Regional Water
Quality Control Board adequate to insure the maintenance, repair or
replacement of the sewage disposal system.
26. Install 9 fire hydrants as shown on Exhibit D. Hydrants to be Clow
Rich 950 Models or Long Beach Iron Works 614 Models installed according
to Dept. of Public Works Standard S ~~27. Fire flow to be 2000 GPM
sustained for a period of at least 2 hours.
27. Applicant must also comply with. all other applicable State and local
statutes, ordinances and regulations.
PUBLIC HEARING: WALTER E. WILLERT - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERNfLT TO ALLOW A THIRD
DWELLING UNIT ON ONE PARCEL IN THE "TM-5" (_TIMBEIZ MOUNTAIN-5 ACRE PARCEL)
ZONE LOCATED 3/4 MILE NORTH OF STEIFFER ROAD, ALONG PARADISE LAKE IDENTIFIED
AS AP 65-05-28 MAGALIA
The public hearing on Walter E. Willett proposed negative
declaration and appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a use permit
Page 158.
August 18, 1981
August 18, 1981
81
to allow a third dwelling unit on one parcel in-the "TM-5" (timber mountain -
5 acre parcelZ zone located 3/4 mile north of Steiffer Road, along Paradise
Lake, identified as AP .65-05 28, Magalia was .held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set .out the background of the
appeal of the use permit.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Scott Erickson, representing Mr. Willert. Mr. Erickson
stated he resided in the area of the use permit. This would be a~third unit
on 28 acres which is an average of nine acres per-unit. All of the parcels
are generally five to ten acres. The present zoning is for five acre pare215
and the property would permit five units. The General Plan amendment
changes this property to A-R which would permit zoning down to even one
acre parcels. A11 departments reviewed the project and had no comment or
no objections to the project. Environmental Review proposed a negative
declaration. All the factors add up to support for this application.
The Planning Commission's problems with the application was that they
would prefer to have the applicant subdivide-the property into five acre
parcels. He went and talked with County Counsel and asked if there was
any reason why the use permit procedure was inappropriate and was advised
there was no reason why he could not use the use permit procedure. He
felt that all the factors on the application should be considered
favorably for the use permit.
2. Walter Willert. Mr. Willert stated he was only asking for
permission to place a third home on a 20 acre parcel that would allow five
homes. He felt it was unfair to deny him the reasonable use of his property.
It would be a considerable hardship since he has sold his home and bought
another home that is in storage until this matter is resolved.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, noting the environmental documents have been reviewed and
that the California Environmental Quality Act's requirements have been met
and a negative declaration is adopted; finding the proposed uses of the
property will not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which
the land lies and that the use would not be unreasonably incompatible with,
or injurious to surrounding properties or detrimental to the health and
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
or to the general health, welfare and safety of the County; the use permit
to allow a third dwelling on AP 65-05-28 for Walter E. Willer was approved
subject to the following conditions:
Sewage disposal system and well shall be installed under permit and
inspection of the Butte County Department of Public Health.
Sewage disposal shall be at least 200 feet from lake high water line
and 100 feet from stream channel and well.
Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local'
statutes, ordinances and regulations.
SS: 10:42a.m.
NVENE: 10:53 a.m.
Page 154..
August 18, 1981
812262
~'
August 18,_1981
PUBLIC HEARING;.LEE R. HAI~IEtE APPEAL OF NE.GATI.VE DECLARATION AND DENTAL OF
TENTATZyE PARCEL .MAP, AP 47-32=18, TWp LOTS, PROPERTY LQCATED ON.THE SOUTH
SIDE OF KEEPER ROAD APPROX. ONE-HALF FILE EAST OF STATE HWY 99 CHICO AREA
The public hearing on Lee R.'Hamre appeal of proposed negative
declaration and denial of tentative parcel map, AP 47-32-18, two lots,
prpperty located on the south side of Keefer Road, approximately one-half
mile east of State Highway 99, Chico area was held as advertised.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health. director, set out-the reason
or denial of the map by the Advisory Agency. This was for nonconformance
f the sewage area available. This property was first submitted for
evelopment in 19.78. At that time, an investigation was done and they
ound a considerably high water table. During periods of high rainfall,
t does flood out. He has had complaints from people in the area that
he systems operate relatively sluggishly. The lower parcel does meet the
equirements but the upper parcel does not.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Lee Hamre. Mr. Hamre
stated that he is attempting to split 1.66 acres of thefront of the
property on the Keefer Road side. He was not the owner of the property
during the groundwater tests done in 1978. The tests that were taken
in February of 1978 are different that the tests taken in May of 1981.
The last test shows one hole of over nine feet and one seven feet deep
with no water present. The holes were dug in April and looked at in
May of this year. There was no water in either of the holes. He irrigates
his pasture three hours every day. He asked the Health Department what
they considered winter and was told February, March and April. The
neighbors on both sides of his property do ;not object to the parcel map.
He set out the parcels of his neighbors: on the west 1.2 acres and 1.2 acres
and on the east 1.1 acres and 1.1 acres. He did not feel it was unreasonable
to~ask for a 1.66 acre division.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that the property was in her district
d she had not had an opportunity to review the application except for
e paperwork. She would like to take a look at the area. She would like
delay of one week in order to view the property and discuss the matter
th staff.
The hearing was continued to August 25, 1981 at 10:45 a.m.
2263
IlISCUSSION: VICTIMS BILL'OF RIGHTS•INITIAT~YE -
Wi11 Mattly, district attorney, asked the Board on behalf of the
citizens committee to stop crime, the peoples advocate committee, to
support and endorse the initiative which is know as the victims bill of
rights. This would assist prosecutors in attempting to get their job done,
that was suggose to be done and not being hamstrung by technical rules
of evidence established by appeals courts. Mr. Gann and Bob Malone went
over the proposed bill of rights. The biggest item as far as a prosecutor
is concerned is doing away with the exclusionary rule and the diminished
capacity. There are three areas of criteria that lets the people know the
criteria to be used.
Supervisor Wheeler stated the Board had received a letter from
Quentin Kopp, San Francisco County Supervisors, asking for support for
this initiative. He was appointed as the chairman of the campaign.
Orrin Stratton ;.stated he had some information that would simplify
the initiative somewhat. He would like to reinforce the District Attorney`s
words relative to the initiative. The national committee that is studying
crime is coming out with almost identicial recommendations. The Governor
of Tllinois was on television yesterday talking about something that
closely parallels this recommends€ioir: He urged support of-this measure.
Page 160.
August 18, 1981
~1
~,.~
~. ;i'
,~
', August 18, 1981
81- ~ The matter was continued to August •25,_1981 at 11:00 a.m.
b
!2264 APPEARANCEe'OR&IN STRATTON
Mr. Stratton stated he was at the Board meeting last week soliciting
support fox the removal of Governor Brown. Between last week and this week
the situation has not improved. As of tomorrow California will ship no mere
roduce to Japan. With his program on the MedFly sitation, he is endangering
the food supply and health and welfare of-the people of California and
the United ,States., Mr. Stratton read a portion of an article from the
Sacramento Bee relative to possible impeachment proceedings.
'2265 APPEARANCE: LEE COLBY
', Mr. Colby thanked the Board for their stance on the budget cuts.
He knew it was a difficult position to be in. This has to be done. It
came before the Board in 1978, which is the time the ground work should
have been layed.
2266
2267
2268
APPEARANCE: MARTTN DETRICK
Mr. Detrick stated he represented the disabled rights organization.
He was here because of a problem he had personally. He i•s disabled. He
read a letter setting out his difficulties obtaining a handicapped license.
He supported Mr. Ehmke with regard to discrimination and accessibility for
handicapped persons. It is not being complied with in Chico.
GRANT PERMISSION FOR BOY SCOUTS TO ENTER THE CHINESE CEMETERY FOR PURPOSES
OF CLEANING THE CEMETERY UP
Henry McCall stated that on July 31, 1981 the Board had received
a letter from Heng Chan Lee in regard to the Chinese Cemetery. He showed
to Board pictures of the cemetery. The cemetery is located in the city
limits of Oroville and the county has control over the cemetery. There
are three boys who would like to clean the cemetery for their Eagle Scout
project. He was asking permission from the Board for this project.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated he has spoken
with Counsel regarding this matter. If this is allowed, the Health and
Public Works Departments should be contacted also.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would be more than happy to
get together with Mr. McCall and bring the matter back to the Board.
He would like for them to meet with the Public Works Director also.
Mr. McCall stated that he was asking for permission to go
on the property to do work. Some of the graves are sunken and they
would be filling these in. There might be some state funds for the
restoration of a historical site.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, permission for the Scouts to go to the Chinese Cemetery for
cleanup work was granted with it to be coordinated with the Health Director
and Public Works Director.
APPEARANCE: MRS. ARTHWORTH FORD
Mrs. Ford stated that she was speaking for Mr. Charles Allen.
She would like to add a few comments. There was a meeting in Mr.
Castleberry's office. The meeting was a waste of time and their questions
were not answered. She was concerned about the requirement to pay $1,800
per acre for a parcel split for drainage deposit.
Chairman Moseley felt that the county tried to answer Mrs.
Ford's questions at that meeting.
Page 161.
August 18, 1981
81-
~!:
August 18, 1981
Supervisor Saraceni stated he was also at the meeting. He
felt that the county tried to answer everything possible. They tried to
answer the cost of $1,800. He was sure there would be more meetings
relative to the drainage situation in Thermalito.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated he had indicated
in one conversation that sometimes a person might not have to pay the
drainage. fee if they put in the facilities. There were about fifteen
different ideas on how to accomplish drainage in the Thermalito area.
Chairman Moseley did not concur with the idea of having people
donate easements. She felt it was proper:., to pay for the easements.
She felt they would have to have money enough to put up for the easement
of Ruddy Creek. They are trying to get the fees worked out. The
developer is required to provide permanent solution for drainage.
Mrs. Ford felt it should .be fair for everyone in the area.
2269
Mr. Castleberry did not feel an assessment district was necessary
n this area but a maintenance district was. He felt that people should
ay their fair share as the property is developed. Any changes to the
lan that the Board adopted would require public hearings.
APPEARANCE: CATHERINE LAZENSKI
Ms. Lazenski understood there was a population of about 140,000
in the county. She spoke with Mrs. Terry relative to the number of card
holders for the Library in Butte County on August 8, 1981 and was advised
the number was 45,871. She felt this was a small degree of card holders
when the Board supports new libraries that are causing dissention among
the citizens of Oroville. She did not know why people had to have free
library systems. She suggested that a minimum of $1 per year be levied
for each card holder. She has been to the library at different times
taking a survey and many times there are more workers than users. She
read that someone wanted to put on a tax for the Sheriff's Office.
She felt a project like the library should have been presented to the
people for a vote. She felt that people should be taken off welfare
and .required to .work, There are other counties doing this.
Chairman Moseley advised Ms. Lazenski that in 1975 a new
library was built for Oroville. The new library cost was about $650,000 and
the paint was not dry when the county bought the Safeway building for
$150,000. The county then refurbished the Safeway building at a cost of
$47,000 for black top. No one talked about Oroville getting a big library
except the Oroville paper. In the Gridley area the library is 75 years old.
A person must either go up or down stairs. The cost of the Oroville
Library was a little over $1 million which is no more than what is being
used now. She felt that many of the letters in the paper were maybe
people who were disgruntled people who have been feeding off the public
trough.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she had had staff pull statistics
as to the per capita ratio cost to the libraries. The people in the
greater urban area of Chico are subsidizing the library in the other
area by $10. They are helping to offset the cost.
Ms. Lazenski did not feel that she should pay an extra tax
to support the Sheriff's Office because they had to be cut because of
the two new libraries.
Supervisor Wheeler stated the Sheriff was not cut because of
the two new libraries. A11 reports show a decrease in crimes in the county.
Page 162.
August 18, 1981
August 18, 14.81
Mke Pyeatt, assistant administrative officer, advised no bids
had been received. He suggested that since there were no written bids,
that the Board open the bidding at five percent above the highest bid.
The minimum bid for the proposal is $55,000 cash.
No one appearing with an oral bid.
2272
2273
2274
APPEARANCE: .70HN;NQPEL
Mr. Nopel stated he was president of the Butte County .Library
Corporation. He wanted to take a few minutes to bring to the Board the
support for the two library projects. These two projects were planned
by the Board many years ago. The few letters that appear in the newspapers
of the county do not speak for all the people in the county. There is
strong support for the libraries.
APPEARANCE: LARRY SCHURHART
Mr. .Schurhar£ quoted the figures. from the radio station in
Oroville that was taken in a survey done by the station between 7a.m.
and 5 p.m. They asked two questions. Did you favor the Supervisor authorizing
construction of the two libraries and did-you Favor the Supervisors
cutting $800,000 in Sheriff's Department funding?
APPEARANCE: DAVE LANTIS
Mr. Lands stated he did not recall letters opposing the libraries
in J?aradise and Oroville.
Supervisor Saraceni asked Mr. Lantis if he was aware of Proposition I3.
Proposition 13 had not taken place when those two libraries were built.
APPEARANCE: MONA FLYNN
Ms. Flynn stated she has been interested in the library in Chico
and Gridley for the last five to six years and has been coming to the
budget sessions for that period of time. She expressed her appreciation
for the honest and very hard working concerns that the Supervisors have
showy this time.
APPEARANCE: NORA WILEY
Ms. Wiley stated she was the treasurer of the Butte County
Library Corporation and was in San Francisco the day that Mr. Nopel signed and
the bonds were sold. She has personally been involved in the planning
for a new library for Gridley for eight years. They can only use the top
floor of the building they are now in for the library. The location of
the library was well researched by the people of Gridley. The Gridley
Library had full publicity.
2275 APPEARANCE: ARTHUR DEWITT
Mr. Dewitt commended Supervisor Saraceni for his opposition to
the library. When Chairman Moseley stated there was no opposition to
the libraries in 1975 there were different climates than there is today.
2276 (PUBLIC HEARING: BID OPENING - SALE OF OLD CLARK ROAD DUMP SITE (PORTION)
The bid opening for sale of the old Clark Road dump site (portion}
was held as advertised.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer,: suggested that the
d instruct the Administrative Office to go out-to bid again with
figures.
Mr. Pyeatt advised that there have keen three appraisals on
the property. The figure per acre price is considerably less than the
actual sales in June through October, 1480. .This price is $3,400 per acre.
Page 163.
August 18, 1981
81~
3'
i
2277
_ _ _ August 18, 1981
A gentleman not giving his natRe spoke.Yegarding the bid on
the property. They had planned on bidding for the property if it was in
the value that the property owners felt they could afford. This property
would then b.e an extension, of their;'property. He set out the comparisons
they used to get the figure they were willing to offer.
Supervisor Saraceni felt the Board might want to consider
have the property sold in two or three payments instead of a cash basis.
The county might be able to achieve the value of the property in this way.
Supervisor Dolan stated the property was. of no use to the
county. It was no use to be in the business of providing for mortgages.
She wondered if the county could get the highest amount of money they
wanted.
The matter was referred back to the Administrative Office
to go, over it again, and report back to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING: GARY SMITH PROPOSED NEGATIVE. DECLARATION AND DENIED REZONE
FROM "S-R" (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO "R-3" (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL),
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OAK WAY, APPROX. 500 FEET WEST OF
STATE HWY 32 IDENTIFIED AS AP 42-14-113 CHICO
The public hearing on Gary Smith proposed negative declaration
and denied rezone from "S-R" (suburban residential) to "R-3" (medium
density residential), property located on the north side of Oak Way,
approximately 500 feet west of State Highway 32, identified as AP 42-14-113,
Chico was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of
the appeal.
Supervisor Dolan stated she had received a letter from Peter
Panek who was asking for denial of the project.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Gary Smith. Mr. Smith stated he was here to defend the
rezone. He read the letters presented by the neighbors and there were
three items of concern: Traffic, He did not feel that 12 units would
create any traffic problems. He agreed the curves were a hazard. He
volunteered his service to help correct that problem. Drainage. He
is working with the engineers to address the drainage problems. Part
of the drainage problem will be eliminated. They are devising a storm
drainage system capable of solving the on-site drainage. By installing
this system they will be eliminating part of the neighbors problems as
well. Integrity. This accusation is totally prejudice. He wondered
if the new neighbors could turn out to be good neighbors and not bad
neighbors. The general plan allows up to eight units for "R-3" zoning.
The density of the project is 6.1 units per acre. The General Plan
and zoning are mandated by the state and federal laws. He requested
that the Board approve the rezone for medium density based on compliance
with the General Plan.
2. Tim Braden. Mr. Braden stated he would personally like
to live in that type of neighborhood. He is with GWS:for the project.
The project will be done in good taste. If the rezone is not allowed then
their rights have been denied. The Government Code requires a General
Plan followed with consistency. This property was represented to them
as land that could be developed.- The General Plan shows medium density
residential of one to eight units per acre. They plan to have 6.1 units.
The present "S-R" zoning of one unit per 5,125 square feet allows ten units.
Page 164.
August 18, 1981
81-
$''
_ _ _ August 18, 1981 _ _ _
When he called the Planning Department, they could not see problems becau•s.e
it complied with the General Plan. The staff findings of-July 15, 1981
recommended that tbe.rezone be approved. The neighbors complained about
traffic, drainage problems. and not conforming to the neighborhood. He
went out and visited-the area. There was hardly a car going by every
one minute. The neighbors complained- about the development down the
road. In that respect their complaint is with Drake Homes and Webb
Homes. If there are problems, they did not create those problems.
The problems relating to the road should be addressed by Public Works
and we should work with them. Mr. Reynolds sold ~ them the property and
is now compliaining thinking this will be another Safeway. Safeway could
have solved their problems with dry wells. They do not plan to cover
the property with asphalt. It will be enhanced with landscaping. This conforms
to the General Plan and requested the Board approve "R-3" zoning.
3. Orrin B. Stratton. Mr. Stratton stated he lived about three
blocks from the subject subdivision. He had no specific complaints about
the subdivision. He was afraid that the county, if they approved this,
would be building themselves another Sacramento Avenue Assessment District.
He was concerned about the possibility of dry wells being placed,on the
property. They have pollution problems in their water supply at this time.
This problem is between Highway 32 and the railroad tracks. This project
would have to go on septic tanks and they would not-have a barrier between
the sepficsystem and the water table. This soil is all loam. His
concern was that unless the density is held down in this area they are
begging for trouble until the sewers go in. He would hate to see the
density go to less than one-half acre.
4. Bob Roth. Mr. Roth stated that the project is about three
doors down from his property. He was frustrated to see Mr. Braden say
he had parked and observed the traffic for one day and-was an expert on
traffic. Mr. Roth advised that they do not let their children ride
bikes on the road. During the hulling season for almonds this is a
busy street. The "R-3" zoning does not mean building the number of
units they are going to build. The "R-3" zoning allows more units than
they say they are developing. There is an impact on the undeveloped land
if this is rezoned. This will affect how the land on the sides will be
developed. The homes that Drake and Webb are building will also have
an impact on the traffic. The General Plan was made before the drainage
problems became apparent on Oak Way. He felt that would be taken into
consideration at this time. It is not their problem until the density
is increased. When Mr. Reynold sold the property he was told that they
would build three or four houses. He did not feel the Board was obligated
to help the developer make money. They property can be developed under
the zoning now present.
5. Martha E. Smith. Ms. Smith stated she had seven plus acres
that were recently planted in kiwis. This development will change the
whole area because it will be the first step in a domino arrangement.
The entire area is impacted by the noise from the apartments down the way.
She urged the Board to uphold the Planning Commission and deny the rezone.
6. Ruth Murphy. Ms. Murphy stated she would be effected by the
rezone. She has a shallow iot adjoining the property. The county has
her letter in the files. Mr. Drake-and Webb are building the same type
of homes that are already there. She would like to keep this a rural area.
She accepted the fact that other people wanted to live in the-area. She
asked that the project be denied.
7. Pete Panek. Mr. Panek stated he lived next to Mrs. Murphy.
He read his letter of opposition to the project.
Page 165.
August 18, 1981
81-
~''
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =August 18t 19$.1._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8. Cal Bachman. l~r. Bachman stated:that in every document regarding
this project comes down to there will bean increase of something. If
12 units is a significant effect then.certainly 38 units-must be more
significant. The questions they are asking for is the "R 3" zoning.
The project has been submitted for over a year. It is for twelve units.
The plans are drawn and the whole project is in conformance with the
Land Use Element and density. He has heard the statement that if this is
approved there will be a drainage problem like Sacramento Avenue.-Assessment
District. The drainage problems on Sacramento Avenue have been there for
at least ten years and zoning and general. plan densities were after that
time. The question that the Board should not consider is the question
that has been brought up about the developer will make more money. The Board
is asked to see if the plan is within the conformance of the legal plan not
if the developer is going to make money. The area now is not totally
zoned "SR-1" zoning. There was a recent rezone to "R-3" zoning. That
.property is adjacent to one corner of this property. At no time did
they .propose to put in dry wells. There is a leaching system proposed that
is similar to the leaching for septic tanks. It has been approved by the
Health Department for use in other locations.
9. Jim Braden. Mr. Braden stated that when he mentioned dry
wells it was in connection with Safeway. He was no traffic expert. It
does not seem to be heavy traffic but it is apparent that there 'is a_problem.
He was trying to point out that they were not the problem but the road is
the problem. He pointed out the road should be taken care of.
Supervisor Dolan advised Mr. Braden that Safeway had dry wells
and it didn't help.
10. Matthew Deitz. Mr. Deitz could not add-much to what the
neighbors had said. The traffic is heavy on Oak Way-and increasing.
ll. Lauretta Panek. Ms. Panek stated that the recent rezone
to "lt 3" zoning is not on the corner of the Smith's property. It is
down from it with a piece of property down from it. That property
fronts on Highway 32 in two places. Mr. Smith's property does not.
Ske asked that the rezone be denied.
12. Suzanne Roth. Ms. Roth asked that the Board not rezone
the property. There are alternatives. There is a treacherous turn on that
road. She felt that the major point was that there was a great deal of
land surrounding this property and once this property is rezone the
county will be encouraging similar density all the way around it.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan stated that people have brought out points
and problems that could occur if the density pattern of "S-R" is changed
to a greater density. All the concerns were brought up. The neighbors
were right and the zone that exists is appropriate. The zoning pattern
has been set. Mr. Panek's letter brings out many things in the county's
general plan.
On motion of Snpervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the appeal of Gary Smith was denied as the density is
inappropriate for the area and the Planning Commission's recommendations
were supported.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that he had gone out and viewed the
property. He did not think there was any question about the General
Plan. He felt there was the question of consistency in that area and
therefore supported the denialpage 166.
August 18, 1981
August 18, 1981
Chairman Moseley stated she had-also looked at the property.
She agreed with.Superirisor Saraceni.
Gary Smith stated he was overwhelmed and was not aware that
the neighbors had this much objection to the project. He has asked that
the engineer redesign this for single family residenC•ia1 and cut down
the density. Ne will b-e resubmitting the proposal under the "S-R"
zoning as single family residential.
2278 UBLIC HEARING DATE SET
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
nd carried, a public hearing date of August 25, 1481 at IO:OO a. m. was
et for consideration of request for apprppriations of revenues received
'n excess of anticipated amounts for the 1980-81 fiscal year relative
o budget transfer B-353.
8]
a
LOSER SESSION: The Board recessed at 1:08 p.m. to hold a closed session
on litigation.
ECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 2:20 p.m. following a closed session
regarding litigation. No announcements to be'made at this time.
ECESS: The Board recessed at 2:21 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, August 25,
1981 at 9:00 a.m.
Page 167.
August'18, 1981