HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101679October 16, 1979
OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
OF BUTTE )
79-
v.
1659
The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m, pursuant to adjournmento
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler and Chairman Lemkeo Clif
Mickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel, by
Jim Griffith, deputy county counsel; and Clark A. Nelson, county clerk,
by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board. Absent: Supervisor Winston
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Supervisor ,Moseley
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the minutes of October 9, 1979 were approved as mailed.
'.1640 REQUEST FOR FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA FOR LAKE CONCOW AREA FOR
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SEWER AND DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE REFERRED TO LAFCo
OR CONSIDERATION
On motion, of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the request and petition for formation of county service
area in the Lake Concow area for the purpose of providing sewer and domestic
ater services was referred to LAFCo for consideration.
'.1641 DOPT RESOLUTION 79-214 AUTHORIZING FILING OF CLAIMS WITH THE STATE
URSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION 987b AND THE BUDGET ACT OF 1966 FOR PUBLIC
EFENDER REIMBURSEMENTS AND APPOINTING AUDITOR AS AUTHORIZED AGENT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
nd carried, Resolution 79-214 authorizing the filing of claims with the
state pursuant to Penal Code Section 987b and the Budget Act of 1966 for
ublic defender reimbursements and appointing the Auditor as the authorized
gent was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
1642 (AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE FOR SIGNAGE - NORTH FORK AND_E,45T BRANCH FEATHER RIVER
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the purchase of building materials in the amount of $300 for
the construction of three signs along Highway 70 on the North Fork and East
Branch of the Feather River to inform the angling public of the two fish
regulations as part of a unique fisheries management program was authorized.
1643 APPROVE AGREEMENT - BIDWELL NATURE CENTER
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the agreement with the Bidwell Nature Center in the amount
of $1,000 for construction, supplies, medicine, publicity, miscellaneous
expenses and food for birds and animals at the center was approved and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
1644
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
carried, $1,400 was appropriated to be added to the architect's contract
services for the Chico Library project for a soil study from Laver L.
r & Associates, Inc. with the allocation to be appropriated from unallocated
nue sharing.
'1645 PPROVE SCHEDULE A FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACT WITH DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
nd carried, the Schedule A contract with Department of Forestry for
979-80 in the amount of $1,441,069 along with certificate of self-insurance
as approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
Page 237.
October 16, 1979
October 16, 1979
79,-1646 REPORT. TO BOARD ON DEVELOPMENT OF A REQUEST, FOR. PROPOSAL FOR DATA PROCESSING
b SYSTEMS AND HARD~tARE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 23. 1979
The report to the Board on development of a Request for Proposal
for Data Processing systems and hardware was continued to October 23, 1979.
1647 REPORT ON SPECIAL DISTRICT AUGMENTATION FUND AND SPECIAL NEEDS CONTINUED
T_0 OCTOBER 23, 1979
The report on special district augmentation fund and special
needs continued to October 23, 1979.
1548 APPROVE SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL HEAD START GRANT PROPOSAL
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the submission. of the annual Head Start grant proposal in the
amount of $476,738 (federal, $381,390 and local match (in-kind), $95,348)
with will reach 194 children and their families was approved and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
-1649 AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN LETTER OF INTENT - SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM
Discussion of the Letter of intent for the Senior Nutrition
Program held at this time. Chairman Lemke advised the Board had received
a letter from Roy Stripe. Mr. McNaughton to answer letter.
James McNaughton, executive director, Community Action Agency,
stated that the letter of intent was the initial step in getting authority
to speak for the other counties. He is going to be asking for authorization
to contact the other counties within the Triple A regarding this mattero
The Department of Aging has indicated the do want one operator for the five
counties.
Chairman Lemke stated he did not mind the sending out of the
letter of intent. He felt that the other counties should be contacted
before the letter of intent is mailed to the state.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the Chairman was authorized to sign the letter of intent
for the Senior Nutrition Program; submittal of the letter of intent to
the state was authorized upon completion by the Community Action Agency
contacting the other four counties regarding this matter.
1650 APPROVE CONSULTANT CONTRACT AMENDMENT ~kl - CONNERLY & ASSOCIATES (HCD)
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the consultant contract amendment ~~1 with. Connerly and
Associates to extend the term of the contract from December 31, 1979 to
June 30, 1980 and to reduce the contract amount by $7,500 was approved
and the Chairman authorized to signs AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley
and Wheeler. ABSTAINING: Chairman Lemke. ABSENT: Supervisor Winston
'1651
A public hearing date of November 6, 1979 at 10:00 a.m. was set
for consideration of Mr. and Mrs. Bert Berg getition for variance to Sections
19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 47-44-os, Rt. 4, Box 522A, Chico area, zoning: "A-2"
1652 APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWAL - LYNN. D. & VIRGINIA VAN LOAN
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the variance renewal of Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the
Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 44-36-27, 2611 Burnap
Avenue, Chico, zoning: "A-2" for Lynn D. & Virginia VanLoan was approved
for a period of one year.
Page 238.
October 16,.1979
October 16, 1979
79- 1653 APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWAL - GRACE M. TURNEY
~ On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the
Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 25-16-14, Rt. 2,
Box 2366, Oroville area, zoning: "A-2" for Grace M. Turney was approved
for a period of one year.
1654 AUTHORIZE PENALTY RELIEF
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the following requests for penalty relief were authorized:
1, Beata Nedry for AP 51-082-39
2. Russell L. Singleton for AP 53-15-0-157
1655 APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following Public Works items were approved:
1. Authorized Thermalito Irrigation District and North Burbank
Public Utility District to do the building sewer inspections (from the
street sewer to within two feet of the building or mobile home) for compliance
with Uniform Plumbing Code requirements.
2. Authorized Auditor to issue a warrant in the amount of
$5,000 and deposit it with Caltrans for materials testing for 1979-80 with
funding available in the professional services account of the Engineering
and Administration budget,
2. Authorized the use of county crews for SB 325 minor walkway
project to install an asphalt walkway on the north side of East Avenue
between White Avenue and the Sacramento Northern Railroad tracks and
approved $1,000 funding to come from the county allocation for bicycle. and
pedestrian ways.
1656 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INTERCITY SUS SYSTEM REVISED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WITH CITY OF CHICO REFERRED BACK TO PUBLIC WORKS AND COUNSEL TO WORK WITH
CITY OF CHICO~"
The public transportation intercity bus system revised cooperative
agreement with the City of Chico was referred back to Public Works and
Counsel to work with the City of Chico.
1657 APPROVE REVISED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM AND SETTING
UP A $220,000.RESERVE FOR BUS PURCHASES FOR ALL SYSTEMS IN CASE FEDERAL
MONEY DOES NOT ARRIVE TN A TIMELY MANNER
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
o€ the revised County Transportation Development Act claim and setting up
of a reserve for bus purchases. He felt a reserve of $220,000 of SB 325-
funds should be set up to cover the purchase of the county's half of the
buses should the federal grants not come in. The attorneys have recommended
that this be done. His department is proposing to go ahead with the right-
: of-way acquisition for the Clark Road project from Bille to Wagstaffo
He did not feel that the contract would be awarded for this project prsor
to July 1, 1980.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the revised County Transportation Development Act claim
was approved covering. the county's share of the Oroville Bus System
reserve and the purchase of two transit buses and includes the additi.'on
of the Skyway FAS project and East Park Avenue and Fair Street traffic
signal projects; and a $220,000 reserve was established for bus purchases
for all systems in case federal money does not arrive. in a timely manner.
Page 239.
October 16, 1979
October 16, 1979
79'- 1658 I PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
~: A public hearing date of November 6, 1979 at 11:15 a.m. was
set for consideration of John Se McGarth draft EIR and rezone from "A-5"
(agricultural - five acre parcels) to "A-10" (agricultural - ten acre parcels)
AP 28-20-5, 7, 14, 19, 28, 37, 57, 58 and 59, property located approximately
one mile northwest of Bangor on both sides of Oroville Bangor Highway,
Avocado Road and Orange Avenue, Oroville.
1659 ADOPT RESOLUTION 79-215 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR MR. & MRS.
JOHN KLOCKER ABANDONMENT OF UNNAMED STREET BETWEEN BLOCKS 28 AND 29,
THERMALITO
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, Resolution 79-215 setting a public hearing date of November 20,
1979 at 10:00 a.m. £or consideration of Mr. & Mrs. John Klocker abandonment
of unnamed street between blocks 28 and 29, Thermalito was adopted and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
1b60 WANE FIRST READING•OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF TIME BUTTE COUNTY
CODE RELATING TO LITTER CONTROL
On motion of Superiiior Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 15 of the
Butte County Code relating to litter control was waived.
1661 APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR CTTT2EN TENANT REPRESENTATIVE TO BUTTE COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY ~ CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 23, 1979
The appointment of the senior citizen tenant representative to
the Butte County Housing Authority was continued to October 23, 19790
1662 COMMUNICATIONS
Butte County Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau writes expressing their opposition
to the method of opening the "closed hearing" on the county
General Plan to the public. To be handled later in the meeting.
Butte County Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau writes in opposition to the
removal of the Mary Be11 Ranch (~k5 Greentree Estates/Midway
Orchards) from the Williamson Act.- To be considered during
the hearing on October 30, 1979.
Roy Stripe, Chico. Mr. Stripe writes urging the county to cancel the
Nutrition Project contract. Handled earlier in the meeting.
Referred to Community Action Agency for answering.
Do-It (Inco), Chico. The organization forwards information concerning
its activities this past summer. Information; no action taken.
Area TX National Joint Heavy and Highway Construction Committee, Salinas.
The organization writes opposing the method of funding state
highway construction grojects and requests input for proposed
projects in Butte County. Referred to Public Works for response
back to the Board.
Law Offices of R. Jay Engel, San Francisco, The attorney, on behalf of
Michael Cheney, forwards a claim in the amount of $100,000 as
a result of a traffic accident occurring July 3, 1979 on Olive
Highway at the intersection of Lower Wyandotte Avenue. See
motion following communications.
Latimer & Kenkel, attorneys at law. The attorneys, on behalf of Vivian
Long (a minor) by Mae Vierra (her guardian) file a claim for
personal injury in the amount of $1,015,000 as a result of an
automobile-pedestrian accident occuring July 10, 1979 on the
southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue to Stale Route 70. See
motion following communications=
Page 240, October 16, 1979
i
79-
3
1663
lbb4
1665
166b
October 16, 1979
California Rural Legal Assistance, Marysville. The attorneys, on behalf
of twelve claimants in the Honcut area, present a claim to
preserve their right to be free from damage caused by pesticides
near their town.. Referred to Counsel for report back on
October 23, 1979.
Supervisor Peter Fo Schabarum, Los Angeles County. Supervisor Schabarum
writes concerning the problem of increased workmen's compensation
costs and request Board involvement in the area of workmen`s
compensation benefit reform. Referred to Personnel and Risk
Management Coordinator for a report back October 23, 1979.
Dugald E. Ringel, Concow. Mr. Ringel submits a petition and information
requesting the Board institute proceedings to establish a county
service area in the Take Concow area for the purpose of providing
sewer and domestic water service. Handled earlier in the meeting.
MHM Engineering, Marysville. The engineers, on behalf of Quail Ranch,
appeal condition ~~3 on tentative parcel map, AP 28-OS-08 and
AP 28-10-09. Set for hearing November 13, 1979 at 10:00 a.m,
REJECT CLAIM - MICHAEL CHENEY
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the claim of Michael Cheney in the amount of $100,000 as a
result of a traffic accident occurring July 3, 1979 on Olive Highway at
the intersection of Lower Wyandotte Avenue was rejected and referred to
Counsel and Risk Management Coordinatoro
REJECT CLAIM - MP.E_VIERRA ON BEHALF OF VIVIe4N LONG (A MINOR
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the claim of Vivian Long, a minor, by Mae Vierra, her guardian
ad litem, for personal injury in the amount of $1,015,000 as a result of an
automobile - pedestrian accident occurring July 10, 1979 on the southbound
on-ramp from Grand Avenue to State Route 70 was rejected and referred to
Counsel and Risk Management Coordinator.
ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY SUPERVISOR MOSELEY
Supervisor Moseley asked Mr. Castleberry about the situation
on Middlehoff Lane.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that he had met
with the individual and TID, He felt there had been a compromise reached.
RECESS: 9:50 a.m,
RECONVENE: 10:02 a.m.
PUBLIC. HEARING: .CONSIDERATION OF CLOSURE OF ENTLER AVENUE AT END OF COUNTY
MAINTAINED ROAD ON THE EAST END
The public hearing on consideration of_the closure of Entler
Avenue at the end of the county maintained road on the east end was held
as continued,
Chairman Zemke advised the Board had received a memo from the
Planning Commission regarding the possible closure of Entler Avenue.
They have indicated that the road should not be closed but that consideration
be given to the prohibition of heavy truck traffic.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated the memo was self-
explanatory and the Board had minutes of the Planning Commission meeting.
Page 241.
October 16,,1979
October 16, 1979
79-
3
Hearing open to the public, Appearing: Earl Dunn. Mr. Dunn
handled the Board members a letter signed by 19 owners requesting that
the street not be closed. Closing the street would create additional
hazards at Midway and Hwy 99. It would create a 3,000 foot cul-de-sac.
An acceptable alternative would be the restricting of traffic by weight.
Another request is that the curved section which is owned by the county
be improved to eliminate the potholes.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
1667
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that there is
a bond that guarantees improvement of the road and was a condition of a
map approval, If the Board concurred with the Planning Commission, he
would schedule the work to be doneo The CHP would do the enforcement
for the load restriction on the road.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, Counsel was directed to prepare an ordinance according to
Vehicle Code Section 35712A limiting the weight on the road to 1,000"
pounds for specifically to Entler Avenue between Midway and the end where
the industrial area begins.
PUBLIC HEARING: NORRIS AND ALICE ROBISON AND MARY MAXINE LOOMIS APPEAL OF
ADVISORY AGENCY'S APPROVAL OF J. A. SIGFRID PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 36-22-166, FOUR LOTS, WEST AND SOUTH OF FOOTHILL
BLVD, APPROX. 1,200 FEET OFF OF FOOTHILL BLVD ON THE EXISTING EASEMENT
The public hearing on the Norris and Alice Robison and Mary
Maxine Loomis appeal of Advisory Agency's approval of the J. A. Sigfrid
proposed negative declaration and tentative parcel map, AP 36-22-166, four
lots, west and south of Foothill Boulevard, approximately 1,200 feet off
of Foothill Boulevard on the existing easement was held as advertised.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background
of the negative declaration. In view of the fact there are four large
lots on 80 acres, he did not see any environmental problems.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Norris Robison. Mr. Robison stated that there was an attempt
to develop this property five or six years ago. This was stopped because
there was not an easement through the property. The title company has
assured him that there is no easement through there. There is an easement
going through the Loomis propertye They have not provided any legal
access. He owns the property Mr. Sigfrid is trying to go through.
Ciay Castleberry, public works director, stated that one of the
conditions of the Advisory Agency was to prove that there is legal access
out of the property. Mr. Robison has indicated he would like a little
bit more assurance than that. He concurred with Mr. Robison that before
the map is filed the access should be verified from the title they would
have. He suggested that any overruling of his appeal be subject to
verification of title insur,anee that there is a right-of-way over the road
they are using to get into the property and make if the Board wants to,
further assurances that word from the title company be presented to Mr.
Robison and Ms. Loomis for consideration.
Mr. Robison stated that Mr. Sigfrid had other access to the
property. There is a 60-foot easement to the corner of their property.
20 Robert Huskey, representing Mr. Sigrid. Mr. Huskey stated
that the main point is that in order to file a final map they have to
Page 242.
October 16, 1979
79-
a
October 16, 1979
verify legal. access. Mr. Sigfrid's title company shows legal access.
He felt the two title companies should get together and see if there is
legal access. The other access is 32 feet wide and does not meet the
access requirements by county standards, He would like: to see the map proceed
and not be overturned and continue until they can verify that they have
legal access. '
3. Maxine Loomis. Ms. Loomis stated that they would have access
on the west side of her property, Where they do come through, it would be
in the middle of her property and her well would sink. When she bought
the property, there was nothing that said there was a right-of-way.
Mr. Castleberry asked if the matter could be continued so that
he could verify two things. One matter is whether the legal right-of-way
is there and he will also try to verify whether there is access in several
areas.
4. Dennis Turner. Mr, Turner stated that the access they are
now using has a blind spot in it. The one reason for wanting to come out
on the access in question is because it is safer.
5. Mr, Robison stated that he sympathized with Mr. Turner's
concern, He showed the-Board pictures of the access. Both of the access
have blind spots. They are very dangerous.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
166s
The closed hearing was continued to October 23, 1979 at
10:00 a,m, to be the first matter considered.
PUBLIC HEARING: RON EDMUNDSON - APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S DENTAL OF PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 26-24-2-04, FOUR LOTS,
BETWEEN ESPERANZA AVENUE AND PALERMO-HONCUT HIGHWAY, APPROX, 275 FEET EAST
OF LINCOLN BLVD, PALERMO AREA - CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 18, 1979 AT 10:00 A,M,
The public hearing on Ron Edmondson appeal of Advisory Agency's
denial of proposed negative declaration and tentative parcel map,
AP 26-24-2-04,-four lots, between Esperanza Avenue and Palermo-Honcut
Highway, approximately 275 feet east of Lincoln Boulevard, Palermo area
was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the appeal. The Health Department had concerns about leaching abilityo
Tom Reid, Health Department, stated there were several old
existing lotso Each one of the lots individually would not be developable.
There are three or more lots that could comply with the 50-foot setback
on water wells and sewer. In this case the applicant was required to file
a parcel map and must comply with the present subdivision standards which
require a 100-foot setback and a certain amount of usable area. He would
not object to the appeal provided the Board granted an exception to-the
50-foot setback and an exception to the sewage disposal area. The applicant
is improving a situation that is unacceptable,
Del Siemsen, deputy county counsel, advised the Board they did
not have the authority to approve an exception to the 100-foot requirement.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the
background of the proposed negative declaration, From an environmental
standpoint, other than sewage, there were not environmental problems.
The sewage matter was not great enough to trigger a requirement for an ETR,
Page 243..
'. October 16, 1979
79-
3
October 16, 1979
a r.. a a- a=-------- c c o a c c ~ .,.. ... a c c c a a c a n a c a
Hearing open to the public.. Appearing:
to Mike Evans, Ron Graves & Associates. Mr. Evans stated that
when the project was started, they asked the Health Department what the
setbacks would be. The first indication was that it would be 50 feet.
using a boundary line modification. They cannot now use this modification
process. They were advised they would need a parcel map and the requirement
would be 100-foot setbackso The old lot lines need to be destroyed.
Under a new parcel map this cannot happen because of the 100-foot setback.
Some of the lots do not fall within 50 feet. This would be a matter of
wiping out the existing lot lines but because of the standards for a parcel
map with the different setback requirements, they cannot accomplish thiso
They are trying to improve a situation that exists. This would be making
four parcels from twelve existing parcels and cannot be done.
Mr. Siemsen stated that County Counsel's Office has taken the
position that a boundary line modification does not apply to a person
who owns the two parcels being considered. They have taken the position
that a modification applies when there are two different property owners.
On that basis, they required that this go through a reversion to acreage
and a new parcel map.
Mr. Castleberry stated that his .department would not issue
building permits across lot lines. Another alternative the applicant
might want to consider is reversion to acreage. The county is faced with
a double standard with existing lots and for newly created lots. He felt
the applicant's idea was good if it would work.
2. Ron Edmund son. Mr. Edmund son stated that when he first
considered buying the property, he went to the Health Department and
asked if he could make four parcels out of the property. He was using OWID
cater. He was advised there was good percolation for four parcels. He
bought the property on this information. He was told that he could use
50-foot setbacks. Two days later he was informed that be creating new
lots he would be required to provide 100-foot setbacks but if the existing
lots were used the set back would be 50 feet. The property on each side
of his property is served by OWID water. The wells are over-ten feetfrom
bis property line.
Bettye Blair, planning director, asked that the Board strongly
consider one regulation for existing parcels and new parcels. When you are
talkiug about health and safety, there is no difference between new or
existing parcels. This way the developers would not be up against the
problems they now have. There is a dual standard.
Mr. Edmundson stated that the property to the west of his is
abandoned, Tt was a mobile home park but did not have the standards to
Become a mobile home park. The well to the east of his property is for
the Palermo Community Centero OWID water is available to both properties.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan did not feel that the Board could grant a
waiver of the requirements. She felt the standards should be considered
and make one standard for both old and new parcels.
Chairman T,emke stated that possibly they should continue the
natter until the Board has had time to consider a revised standard. The
3oard could possibly approve the map if the standards were changed. The
3oard at this time, has no legal authority to approve the map. If the 50-
'oot setback would decided on the=-map could be considered.
Page 244.
October 16, 1979
79-
October 16, 1979
Mr. Castleberry asked that the applicant be requested to waive
the statutory requirements for 60 days.
Mr. Edmund son stated he made his living buying and selling
real estate. He wondgred if he would deed four parcels of the existing
subdivision to other people and then request a boundary line modification.
He did not feel that the 50-foot setback requirement would be adopted at
the end of 60 days.
The hearing was continued to December 18, 1979 at 10:00 a.m.
1669
PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT BEEVER AND LEE FICKES - APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S
DENLAL OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECIARATTON AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP,
AP 30-38-04, 12 LOTS, EAST SIDE OF 16TH STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF PLUMAS
AVENUES THERMALITO
The public hearing. on Robert Beever and Lee Fickes appeal of
Advisory Agency's denial of proposed negative declaration and tentative
subdivision map, AP 30-38-04, 12 lots, east side of 16th Street at the
intersection of Plumas Avenue, Thermalito was held as advertised.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background
of the negative declaration. This area is not particularly sensitive from
an environmental standpoint and is shown for high density. Public services
are available. He recommended a negative declaration,
Hearing open to the public, Appearing:
1. Robert Huskey. Mr. Huskey stated the subdivision was denied
on the basis that Plumas Avenue forms double frontage lots on parcels 1 to 5.
This was recognized in the initial design. This was done due to the fact
that the lay of the land is a plateau. These parcels are one acre parcels.
There is a portion in the text that indicates while double frontage lots
are to be discouraged it would be possible to waive that when there is
a possibility of future land divisions that would alleviate the double
frontageo It is obvious that parcels 1 to 5 could be split again and
thereby eliminate the double frontage.
Mr. Iiuskey was also concerned with the street section requirements
by Public Works. Where the division of parcels is greater than one acre,
there is a street standard that requires paving but not curb, gutter and
sidewalk. He did not feel that the requirement for curb, gutter and
sidewalk applied to the one acre size of the parcels or the general
character of the area.
Mr. Huskey stated that the double frontage would be for parcels
1 to 5 out of the 12 parcels. 'There is drainage along the north portion<
Everything is on a slope.. The area in the center is very f1a~:
Chairman Lemke asked if there could be a one-foot strip down
Plumas Avenue subject to future development and avoid the double frontage.
Ciay Castleberry, public works director, felt that would be one
~aay to eliminate the double frontage. He would be able to resolve some of
the improvement requirementse The requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalk
could not be appropriate. If the lots were made smaller, the requirements
Eor curb, gutter and sidewalk should be required, Tt would be appropriate
to put street widening in on 16th Street and leave the curb, gutter and
sidewalk with a covenant.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated that this was an area
within an urban area. One of the points in the Planning Director's
• Page 245.
• October 16, 1979
79'-
October 16, 1979
report regarding land use planning referred to the design of one acre
plus subdivisions. From a planning standpoint, she would suggest that
intense developments be pointed into that area. This is premium property.
Discussion of when curbs, gutters and sidewalks would be required.
Mr. Castleberry suggested that a note could be placed on the map that if
any development takes place these improvements will be required.
Mr. Huskey stated that the owners of the property were willing
to place a covenant on the property to retain the size of the parcels.
The parcel size adheres to the Iow density requirement in the General Plan.
The developer would be willing to have a note on the map stating there will
be no further development of the property.
Mr. Castleberry stated he would be willing to draft up a motion
for next week.
Supervisor Dolan felt the Planning Director's report is an
analysis that needs to be supported. She felt the area was urban. She
had no objections to the one-foot strip. She supported the Planning
Director in the recommendation this map should be redesigned.
2. Bob Beever. Mr. Beever stated they were talking about the
potential of five lots being further developed and not the twelve lots.
It is not feasible for the topography to place homes on the downslopes.
This map is designed to give the maximum of the acreage. He had no
objections to having the map marked for no further development.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
1670
Supervisor Dolan felt that even if the note was placed on the
map a future buyer would look at the area and zoning and appeal the note
on the map to the Board. This is in the urban area. This is the area
the Board would like to see developed. She felt there should be a policy
standpoint of requiring a redesign of the map.
Chairman Zemke stated that when a person came in on the appeal
of the note on the map, the Board could make a decision on the matter at
that time. He felt that a person purchasing the property with a note
on the map would hesitate to try to change the requirements. He felt the
Board must make every effort to accommodate a person's property rights.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, on the basis. of the initial evaluation, finding the proposed
project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative
declaration was recommended.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the Board made a motion of intent to uphold the appeal and
approve the tentative parcel map, with the motion to be brought back next
week. AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler and Chairman Lemke. NOES: Supervisor
Dolan. ABSENT: Supervisor Winston
The closed hearing was continued to October 23, 1979.
PUBLIC HEARING: WAYNE R. BIgD - APPEAL OF CONDITION ~k14 RELATING TO A
PERMANENT SOLUTION TO DRAINAGE ON TEL~TATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 40-15-45, THREE
LOTS, NORTH SIDE OF DURHAM-OROVILLE HWY, APPROX. 500 FT EAST OF LOTT ROAD,
DURHAM
The public hearing on the Wayne R. Bird appeal of condition ~~14
relating to a permanent solution to drainage on a tentative parcel map,
AP 40-15-45, three lots, north-side of Durham-Oroville Highway, approximately
500 feet east of Lott.~Road, Durham was held at this time.
Page 246.
October 16, 1979
79:-
'8:
October Ib, 1979 _ _ _ _ _ _
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background of the
appeal . This is a simple land division creating three one-acre lots north .of the Durham
Oroville Highway. The entire east area of Durham has been subject to drainage problems.
There are not any permanent solutions to drainage o This is not practical for a small
property owner. The Board has authorized a drainage study. They are no longer allowed to
accept drainage deposits. This person cannot solve the east Durham drainage problem.
He felt the Board could either approve the appeal or say no more divisions. The
implementing of the plan is about five years away.
Supervisor Dolan felt the Board had no choice but to eliminate the
condition because there is na plan. The Board can accept a deposit if it is offered
but cannot require deposits.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
1672
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the appeal was upheld and the condition to provide a permanent solution
to drainage was deleted and this Board and Public Works will more than be willing to
accept a deposit for permanent drainage.
PUBLIC HEARING: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ABANDON THE DURHAM CEMETERY
AND DEDICATE IT AS A PIONEER MEMORIAL PARK
T e pu is hearing on t e notice of intention to abandon the Durham
Cemetery and dedicate it as a Pioneer Memorial Park was held as advertised.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, set out the background of the hearing.
This is a cemetery, from his own examination, that has had graves since 1871. There is
a question of whether or not the cemetery in terms of title already belongs to the county.
There are a number of factors the Board will want to [ook at. In order to dedicate this
as a Pioneer Memorial Park there cannot have been more than ten human bodies buried
there in the last•.five years. From his review of the cemetery, it appears it would
qualify. To abandon the cemetery means that it will no longer be open except for
relatives who have vested interests to be buried there. The Board will have to make
a determination of whether the health, safety and comfort of the community would be
adversely affected one way or the other. Comfort can refer to emotions. The people
who have relatives buried in the cemetery are going to want to make sure the cemetery
is not desecrated. In the event the Board were to declare this a memorial park, the
maintenance becomes a county responsibility. This would prohibit anyone from using
the cemtery as a dumping ground or for storage. The property would become the property
of the county. This is not the first such situation in the county. Mr. Blackstock set
out the other cemeteries that have been made into a Pioneer Memorial Park.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
I. Jan Holman. Ms. Holman asked that this be dedicated a Pioneer
Memorial Park. If this is not done she would like to see it protected in some way.
She presented a petition to the Board at this time. It was her understanding that
Durham Cemetery was declared in 1939. Durham feU within the designation of a
Pioneer Memorial Park at that time by the state. This is a memorial park already and
the cemetery should not have been allowed to be sold. Some of the people buried
in the cemetery were founders of California. She set out the different pioneers that
were buried in the cemetery. Page 247.
October Ib, 1979
79-
v
October ]6, 1979
Ms. Holman stated that her family goes past the cemetery and had noticed
red file in the back of it, The rock pillars that frame the cemetery have .been reduced to
rubbish. She noticed a large piece of concrete that resembled burial pads. A road had
been cleared on the east side of the road. All wooden markers in the cemtery were
destroyed. There are many unmarked graves in the cemetery. She understood that
money had been paid by people in the community to the burial-society. She also
understood that the people could request a refund of that money.. Mr, Attleman was
not notified of the safe of the property. The the has been removed and a picket fence
put up in the last two weeks.
Supervisor Dolan stated that Durham Cemerery is a Pioneer Memorial Park
because it existed prior to 1939. It was smaller than ten acres. This did not provide
for maintenance. The designation by the state is different that the one being considered
by the Board,
2. Hattie McEnespy. Ms. McEnespy stated that some of here people
were the first in the Durham area. She asked that this be declared a Pioneer Memorial
Park.
3, Brenda Brimhall . Ms. Brimhall~set out the people she had received
calls from regarding the cemetery, She stated that this has been used for a cemetery
since 1871 and has been used for such since that time,
4, Elizabeth Durham Joseph; Mrs. Joseph stated that her grandparents
and father are buried in the cemetery. She supported the cemetery being declared a
Pioneer Memorial Park, She has witnessed what has happened in the last year, The
cemetery has been damaged. She has been unable to find definite deeds designating
this as public land. This .place was selected in 1871 for her grandfather`s burial site,
It was her understanding that it was intended for public land.
5. Sidney Green. Mr, Green stated that he has family who are
buried in the cemetery, Their bodies are located abaut 25 feet from where the the was
piled. This was the first time he realized they did not own the land the bodies are
buried on, If there is any way he could be of assistance, he would be happy to help.
6. Esther Patrick. Ms. Patrick urged that this cemetery be declared
a Pioneer Memorial Park. She asked if the picket fence that has been put up surrounds
the burial sites and does not include access. She wondered whether the road that is
the entrance to the cemetery is included in the survey.
Mr. Blackstock advised that the hearing was being held on the
entire parcel. If the Board took action, the county would then file quiet title action
on the property. There would be access to the cemetery.
7. Helen Logan. Ms, Logan stated that she witnessed the desecration
of the graves. There was a truck run over the graves. Her husband has helped to dig
graves at the cemetery. It was their quest, there were graves all over the eastern portion
of the parcel, She asked that it be declared a Pioneer Memorial Park. She is also
a member of the burial society, She has a receipt from December 12, 1950, They were
assessed for deaths and this paid for the funeral and gravesite. They joined with the
understanding they would be buried in the cemetery. She did not know what had
happened to the burial society. They had been advised that anytime they paid the
back payments they would then be able to have all the benefits, Parrott Ranch
Page 248.
October 16, 1979
79-
Octob_er_16_, 1979
Company gave .the society some more land because the original area was full of graves.
She felt it was legal at the time of the transfer of the property.
The intent was to go west with the cemetery. Where those graves were, there was a road
made. The last time she had contact was 29 years ago. She has lived by the cemetery
for several years since 1945, There has been no problems with the cemetery up to this
time. She has no one buried in the cemetery. Ms, Logan stated that slabs were poured
over the graves. There have been at least two of them broken up. These are to cover
the graves, There have been at least two of the coverings removed and piled up. Quite
a few of the covers are still intact.
RECESS: 12:03 p,mo
RECONVENE: 12:16 p,m,
8, Curtis Hays, Mr, Mays stated he had heard very serious charges made,
On August 14, 1979 he received a letter from the county forwarding Resolution 79-164
of intention to dedicate this cemetery as a Pioneer Memorial Park. This resolution
said the cemetery is not being used for interring dead bodies, This statement is in error.
According to the tombstones there have been seven people buried in the cemetery since
1973, six of which have been since 1976, Further, there are a great number of unmarked
graves, Mr. Attleman has informed him that in the last 15 years there have been more
than 150 people interred in the cemetery, In the last 10 years there have been 100 people.
The burden of proof is on the accusers and it has not been done. To say that ten people
have not been interred in the last seven years is on the accusers, How this can be done
without tombstones he did not know, There were seven burials in the last five years
that have tombstones, People will continue to be buried in the cemetery; they have a
right to be buried there, He could state there has been ten people buried there in the
last five years. '
Supervisor Wheeler stated that this could be proven by staff, The Health
Department has the statistics on burials within the county,
Mr. Hays suggested that this should have been done before the hearing.
Often people go out there and bury people and do not even put concrete slabs on the
braves, He was at a loss as to what the health, safety and comfort of the community
means, Prior to the acquisition of the cemetery, it was in a bad state of disrepaira
This 'can be attributed to lack of interest. It was overgrown with poison oak. Since
his ownership, there has been an on-going effort to up grade the cemetery. This is
being done as a fmily project and is not moving rapidly. In the last three months,
there has been extensive work done on the cemeteryo Everyone he has talked to are
pleased with the general condition and upgrading of the cemetery, Tombstones previously
buried have been found and raised back up to the surface. The brush has been removed,
It seems strange that no one has seen fit to contact the owners of the propertyo There was
no effort made to contact them by the Board except for the notice of intention. He
has been happy to discuss what his intentions are for the old .cemetery with anyone who
contacted him. The missing tombstones is something that he cannot address, To say
that and to prove it are two different things. There was one concrete cap that was
damaged and this will be replaced. There are no markers that have been destroyed.
There are far more people here who have no interest in the old cemetery than those that
do,
Mr. Hays stated that since this is a private piece of property, it is'not their
job to track down people to advise them on what is being done. They are listed in the
Recorder's Office. They are. more than wilting to~talk to.anyone about the.cemetary.
Page 249,
October 16, 1979
October lb, 1979
79-
v
Mr. Hays stated that the articles in the paper have been very
frustrating to him and his family. They have no desire to alter the peaceful
nature of the cemetery. When plans for their property came before the
Planning Commission there~as a fenced cemetery in the architect's rendition.
There is no desire to deny access to the public. To deny access to the
public to visit deceased would be wrong. They encourage people to come out
and visit the cemetery. Their actions regarding the cemetery bear out
the fact they are trying to preserve the character of the cemetery. They
are willing to work ...with the community. It is hard to abandon a cemetery
when there are people that will continue to be buried in it. He requested
that the intention be dropped. There is no other access to the property
he would like to develop.
Mr. Blackstock stated that he personally went by the cemetery
and checked every tombstone there. There were four tombstones that reflected
burial since 1975.
Supervisor Wheeler felt Dr. 5vihus could forward the information
needed on the burials to the Board,
Supervisor Dolan felt what was important was the protection of the
cemetery. Supervisor Dolan questioned Mr. Hays regarding how he knew
which graves were were since there was a fire that destroyed the wooden
markers in the cemetery.
Mr. Hays stated that the road was not graded. The best source
he has for the location of the graves is Mr. Attleman. There is a line
of graves on the eastern edge of the property and were the last know graves.
He felt stongly there were no other graves in the area. If someone
else has been buried, he would like for someone to show him evidence of
this. There was never a plot map. There is nothing about burials that
took place 50 years ago. He has not heard anyone who spoke on this matter
be able to point out exactly where a grave is that is not located at this
time.
Mr. Hays stated that the roofing the was stored in error.
They have removed the tile. They have dug up the tombstone out of the ground,
He was under the false assumption there were no graves in that area.
The issue of the file is mute. They moved it as soon as they found there
was concern in the areao
Mr. Hays set out what happened to the burial society. It has
been allowed to lapse as far back as 1972, In 1974 it was suspended by
the state.
REGESS: The Board recessed at 12:43 p.m. for a lunch break and executive
session at 1:30 p.m.,regarding litigation.
REGONVENE: The Board reconvened at 1:52 p.m. following lunch break and
an executive session regarding litigation. No announcements to
be made at this time.
Mr. Hays stated that he found the society had lapsed by doing
research, He is connected with the burial society. Members of record
who have questions of the society are directed to him from the state.
They try to tidy up the loose ends. He is not a director of the society.
The burial society owned the property free and clear. When he bought the
property, he did research and made an offer to the society. The society
was represented by a board of directors which is on file at the State
Controller's Office, The membership and or presiding board of directors
had either died or just stopped paying their dues. The society was no
longer able to operate without money. The Board of Directors signed the
papers for selling the property,
Page 250.
• October 16, 1979
79-
b
October 16, 1979
Mr. Hays stated that the corporation no longer existso It was
a non endowment cemetery. An endowment cemetery is where you receive a
deed for a piece of land. The nonendowment cemetery has no such deed
and they can bury a person where they want to, They make every effort
to have relatives buried together. The changing of headstones would
depend on the owner of the cemetery. He felt they would have a right
to limit what type of headstone were placed in the cemetery. Baring
extremely bad taste, he did not see why anyone would complain about a
headstone. They are still looking for people who might know who is
buried in the different unmarked graves. They would allow burials in
the cemetery if a person was a member of-the Chico Christian Services
Society or if they have a husband or wife or other relativeo This is not
a public cemetery. They are not in the cemetery business. They do not
advertise. In the case of relatives, he doubted whether they would allow
burial if the relative was a second cousin,
Supervisor Wheeler questioned Mr. Hays on his correspondence
to two funeral directors.
Mr. Hays asked that the funeral homes notify h1m in the event
there is someone to be buried in the cemetery. This way they would be
able to locate the relative and find a location for the burial.. They have
not denied anyone from being buried in the cemeteryo The society is no
longer in existence. This property is private property. NIr. Hays stated
that in the interim since their map was turned down, he understood a
sewer line would be put in down the roado The reason the map was denied
was not suitable for septic. The land runs parallel to the Butte Creek
Country Club fairway. It is valuable land. Their intent has been to buildo
Their intent has been to maintain the integrity of the cemetery. He could
not say they will never contemplate building on the property. As it is
now, they have no plans for single family houses. The road that exists
now would be access.
Mr. Blackstock stated that the property being considered for
abandonment is the entire parcel.
Mr. Hays answered Supervisor Wheeler's question as to the
possibility of graves being in the portion of property being considered
for development. He has never encountered people saying there wrere graves
in that area. He did not know of graves in the northern portion of the
property, All the land from the eastern edge of the road out toward the
property is unusable fora cemetery.
Discussion of whether this property could be in private ownership
held at this time. Mr. Blackstock did. not believe where there is an
implied dedication on the old Durham estate someone should own the cemetery.
There was never anything of record. This is what would be called an
implied dedication if not an expressed dedication for use of the public.
If he was correct in that, Mr. Hays does not own the property no matter
what the Board does during the hearing. If he is incorrect and Mr. Hays
does .own the cemetery, then in that event, if the Board declares that
portion of land would be a cemetery that the resolution would be recorded
and he would file quiet title action and request the court to determine
what is and what is not private Lando
Mr. Hays took exception to that. They own the property. They
worked from the state level down to purchase the property, It does not
matter if they are selling graves or not. They have title insurance on
the property. The title search showed the society owned the property.
There were no restrictions. There was no implied dedication that it was
a cemetery. It transferred fr~~g~er251~to person over the years much the
same way.
October 16, 1979
79'-
a
October 16, 1979
Mr. Blackstock advised the Board that as far as title insurance
and thugs of record are immaterial. The purchase from a nonprofit
corporation would be out of the Board's realm.
Supervisor Wheeler felt the courts would decide this issue.
Mr. Blackstock stated that if the Board decides to adopt the
resolution and file quiet title action to resolve the question of title,
what they have is a historical situation and he did not know of anyone that
could have owned that cemetery. The Durham heirs allowed everyone to be
buried there. This was before the turn of the century. Lt was for the
benefit of the community.
Discussion of compensation paid to Mr. Hays held at this time.
Mr. Blackstock stated the Board is assuming that compensation has passed
hands. The Board is also assuming the title insurance would not cover
Mr. Hays. This is the case of here there is an implied dedication to the
public for cemetery propertyo Where a cemetery has just grown out of
nowhere that land is for all practical purposes intended for that use unless
the bodies are removed.
Mr. Blackstock stated that Llano Seco~,ought~he property in 1932
from a title company and the file company had the property conveyed by a
check. The the before the date is in a messo The Title Company has
advised him it would cost a great deal to go back and try to research this
nattero When there is an implied dedication, there is no deed. The Health
and Safety Code talks in terms of the fact that if a property is used as
a cemetery for five years it becomes public property, He read the section
at this time.
9o Mrs. Hays. Mrs. Hays stated that the people who spoke
regarding the cemetery have the same concerns they have for the piece of
grope rty. If the people had come to them originally, the concerns would
nave been delayed completely. She answered the resolution by letter>
Jo one stepped forward to discuss this matter with her. They have said.
'.here is the possibility of a cracked gravesite that can be repaired.
Che made a mistake with the tile. They did take down two unattractive
Hounds of rock at the entrance. They have never posted the property as
private property.
Mr. Hays stated that they would welcome people to come out
.o the property and see what the cemetery looks like. He felt a lot of
questions would be answered. He questioned the validity of raising doubts
=hat could have been answered prior to the hearing.
Chairman Lemke stated that the complaints placed by the people
~t the hearing wexe that great as far as Mr. Hays' actions versus their
actions. They were concerned with the preservation of the cemetery as
i Pioneer Memorial Park. Probably not enough contact was made with both
>arties. He has heard that it was not necessarily who owned the property
iut was a question of used It was being looked into. The legal questions
sere raised by the Board, The Board will put this matter off until
cnswers can be obtained regarding some of the questions. Chairman Lemke
ouggested that Mr. Hays bring in the information regarding title so that
tr. Blackstock has an opportunity to review themo
10, Hester Patricko Ms. Patrick stated there was a cable across
:he gate with a padlock. She wanted assurances that they would not be
trespassing if they were to enter the cemetery.
Page 252.
October 16, 1979
79-
a
October 16, 1979
- _ _ ~ Mr. Hays stated that there^was~a cable there because there is
file that is worth quite a bit of money. There are steps to the right
of the gate. No :one will be denied access.
lI. Brenda Bx¢nha11. Ms. Brimhall stated that she has talked
with Mr. Hays. She felt some effort has been made to talk to Mr. Hays.
She has talked to someone from Llano Seco. It was their understanding
the property would be used for the express purpose of bur.ia~.s only.
12. Elizabeth Durham Joseph. Mrs. Joseph stated that she made
an effort to contact Mr. Hays and was unable to do so. She was finally able
to contact the senior Mr. Hays and made complaints regarding the cemetery.
13. Mrs. Hays. Mrs. Hays stated she had contacted Parrott Ranch
Company at their office in San Francisco, She was advised that at one point
Parrott gave property to the Chico burial .society, Tf it was not recorded
in the deed, Parrott was not objecting to the ownership of the property.
A few years ago, Chico College Agricultural class used the property in
front of the walkway, it was used as a test area for different types of
grass. If there were burial sites there, she did not feel the class
would have been allowed to use it for these tests.
14. Helen Logan. Ms. Logan stated that within the last ten
years there would be records of burials from the funeral homes in the area.
15. Katherine Bradford. Ms. Bradford asked what the purchase
price of the property was?
Chairman Lemke stated that Mr. Hays had not told the Board the
purchase price,
The hearing was continued to October 30, 1979 at 2:00 p,m.
1673
HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRE-
The public hearing for consideration of Housing and Community
Development pre-application for 1980-81 was held as advertised.
Tom Harrison, CHFA, left brochures with the Board regarding the
program. This is a quasi-independent state agency created about three
years agoo This gives them the ability to sell tax exempt revenue bonds
to create revenue. This is for procedures for developers and the consumer
to buy building and refinancing of housing. There are two types of programs.
These are multi-family rental projects and single family projects,
Their primary purpose is the extend the potential for home ownership for
the Iow and moderate income people in the state. Local government applies
for designation. The county has applied for that purpose. All of Butte
County is eligible. There are loans made for single family housing for
rehabilitation for 30 years at 8% interest. There was an allocation of
$1,8 million for this program. This is done through three landing agencies.
This could also be the allocation of additional funds for Butte County
in the rehabilitation area tied in with the HUD application, This program
i5 also for new construction. They can finance up to $60,000 or less within
the county.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Pat McCafferty, Connerly and Associates, requested that the
Board take action regarding the location of the application for this year.
Page 253.
October 16, 1979
79-
October 16, 1979
The application would be a comprehensive grant in the E1 Medio area.
They have concluded that the best and mosc~practical way to obtain funding
under the block grant program was to go with one area, which is E1 Medio.
He asked that the Board move the second hearing from November 13, 1979 to
November 6, 1979. At chat time they will have the preapplication ready.
It was moved by Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
that the Board go with E1 Medio as the target area for .the preapplication
and set the second hearing from November 6, 1979 at 11:15 a.m. instead of
November 13, 1979.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the target areas in both E1 Medio and
:hapmantown should be scaled down and the work should continue in both areaso
She understood that while it might. be better to go to one area, she felt
they should work with both areas on a smaller scale.
Chairman Lemke stated he would agree if he had not attended a
meeting in San Francisco with HUD who said the only way to obtain funding
would be to go with one area.
Glif Nickelson, administrative officer, recommended that the
Board go on with the E1 Medio areao He felt the county could be funded
this way and could not be if they included Chapmantown at this time.
Mr. McCafferty stated that the preapplication is for three yearso
The total amount is for $1,500,000, They have an estimate from Public Works
indicating there is a need for $2.5 million for the public works project in
the E1 Medio area. They are not abandoning Chapmantowno This is one
reason they urged using CHFA,
Mr. Harrison stated that between $500,000 and $600,000 has been
used in Butte County out of the $1,8 million this year.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler and Chairman Lemke
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
ABSENT: Supervisor Winston
Motion carried.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that the City of Chico has a very
active program in the Chapmantown area. A good portion of that area is
within the urban area of Chico.
.1674 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN HEINKE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND G
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO CHANGE FROM A "MEDIUM LOW
DENSITX RESIDENTIAL" DESIGNATION TO AN "INDUSTRIAL" DESIGNATION PROPERTY
LOCATED.WITHTN 1,320 FEET, OF CLARK .ROAD, APP.RO%. 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF BUSCHMAN
ROAD, AP 54-110-15, 2b, 27, 34 AND AP 54-120-13 AND 19. PARADI5E
The public hearing on the John Reinke proposed negative declaration
and general plan land use element amendment to change from a "medium low
3ensity residential" designation to an "industrial" designation property
Located within 1,320 feet of Clark Road, approximately 1/2 mile south of
3uschman Road, AP 54-110-15, 26, 27,.34 and AP 54-120-13 and 19, Paradise
was held as continued.
Bettye Blair, planning director, asked that this matter be continued
.o later in the meeting with the general plan land use element would be
considered.
Page 254.
October 16, 1979
79-
3
1675
_ _ _ _ _ October 16 ,_ 1979 _
Hearing opened to the public and continued to the hearing on
the General Plan Land Use Element.
PUBLIC HEARING: RICHARD VERMILLION AND WILLIAM DREW - DRAFT EIR AND GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO CHAGE EXISTING 'ORCHARD AND FIELD .CROPS"
DESIGNATION TO "RURAL RESIDENTIAL" OR "GRAZING AND OPEN LAND," CHICO
The public hearing on the Richard Vermillion and William Drew
draft environmental impact report and general plan land use map amendment
to change existing "orchard and field crops" designation to "'rural residential"
or "grazing and open land," Chico was held as advertised..
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background,
of the EIR at this time. This project was proposed as a subdivision and
it was determined that an EIR was necessary. The question is proposed
under the new General Plan for agricultural~.residential which would allow
development that would be proposed. The subdivision could proceed if the
land use element were adopted. The applicant proceeded on an individual
application. This is Class 3 agricultural land adjacent to Hwy 99 north
of Chico between Chico and Keefer Road. A11 that area is within the
Airport Environs Rezone. The rezone proposed a.s SR-1< ,The EIR related
to the development. There would be an increase of up to 400 cars per
day. This would still be in the capacity of the two-lane raad. The other
impacts were regarding the loss o£ agricultural land. There would be a
change in the quality because of the conversion of the uses. There would
be an increase in storm runoff. This property lies adjacent to Mud Creek
levee whichhas a one in 100 gear flood. This levee was designed for
agricultural protection. They meet federal standards. There would be
a demand for additional public services. The mitigation measures suggested
in the EIR would only apply when the ,project is implemented and approved
as a subdivision.
Bettye Blair, planning director, asked that this hearing be
continued to the hearing on the General Plan Land Use Element later
in the meeting.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
167E
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
The hearing was continued to the hearing on the General Plan
Land Use Element hearing later in the meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTX PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT EIR AND
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
The public hearing on the Butte County Planning Commission draft
EIR and General Plan Land Use Element was held as continued.
Chairman Lemke advised the Board had received a letter from the
Butte County Farm Bureau relative to the closed hearing previously held
by the Board. The Board also received a letter from Bob Broyden.
Del Siemsen, deputy county counsel, advised the Board there
was no problem with reopening the closed hearing.
Chairman Lemke read Mr. Broyden's letter at this time. He
felt Mr. Broyden's letter made sense. He has been gushing to have the
laws changed so that the General Plan is a guide and not a lawn He
asked that the Board consider adopting a resolution to the CSAC general
assembly in November asking that the General Plan be reinstated as a
guidelinE.
Page 255.
October lb, 1979
79-
October 16, 1979
Larry Brooks, Planning Department, set out the changes that have
been made to the land Use Element. They have changed the rural residential
to agricultural residential. This would be change the primary use from
residential to agricuitura.l. The parcel density in the agricultural
residential is 1 to 40 acres. The agricultural would be from 20 to 40
:cres and the rural residential would be below 20 acres. The criteria
proposed has been changed. Mr. Brooks set out the changes at this time.
The second change is the agricultural residential site critera. There
was a change in the orchard and field crop, Previously this was a five
acre minimumo It is being proposed to be from 20 to 160 acres.. It
will be divided like the other category. There.- would also be 5 to ZO acres.
They have also incorporated the PA-C concept. This would allow a developer
with a large piece of property to group the development. The changes have
been placed on the map. There is much less rural residential or agricultural
residential that the area originally progosedo
The Planning Commission reviewed the North Es~planade~roposal.
There was one change for agricultural for property in the Williamson Act.
There was concern~n Hwy 32. There is no problem with adding the North
Esplanade area to the land Use Element.
Mr. Brooks set out how the density bonus would work for the PA-C
designations. This would have to be worked out in a new PA-C ordinance.
The county is interested in maintaining the larger areas as open space
areas. The ordinance will have to evolve from the general policy statementso
Mr. Brooks stated that the Paradise changes would be all of the
PID and the most .southern portion of Lime Saddle Community Services District.
There are some developments in the northern portion of the district,
Supervisor Dolan questioned Mr. Brooks regarding the white
portion of the maps designated as study areas. Chico is the number one
priority. She wondered if the Board would use the text as a priority
for-those area.
Mr. Brooks stated that the text would apply to the study areas.
The urban lines are not being changed. These are study lines and nothing
more.
RECESS: 4:02 p.m.
RECONVENE: 4:21 p.m.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Ron Miller, executive secretary for the Farm Bureau.
The farm Bureau is opposed to the proposal to raise the limits on the
orchard and field crop designation. If this were raised there would be
non-conforming uses, They felt the present limit should remain,
Mr. Brooks felt there was a misunderstanding regarding the
orchard and field crop designation. This will not be raised. It will
be from 5 to 160 acres. It will be split.
2. John Stutz. Mr. Stutz stated there may not be anything
wrong with the orchard and field crop designation. It does not seem to
change much. There is no new designation in the mag. It splits apart
the site designation criteria. There is going to be a lot of problems
with this kind of criteria. The orchard and field. crop-has been the
same since 1966. He did not know why it was being changed.
Page 256.
October 16, 1979
79-
~'
October 16, 1979
Mr. Stu tz spoke regarding the text of the General Plan. On
page 30, one of the policy statements says maintain parcel size in designated
agricultural areas in a comprehensive zoning patterns. Orignially, it
would have been nice if the orchard and field crop was 40 to 160 acres.
The reason for the 40 acres is because it has been indicated that 20 acres
is not open space. It would be ideal if they knew what open space was.
Somewhere in the General Plan there should be a map. that shows open
space to meet the state requirementso The Planning Commissioner's were
led to believe that the minimum acreage had to be 40 acreso He did not
feel that PA-C belonged in the larger categories. It was not compatible.
Mr. Stutz asked questions regarding the Esplanade amendment,
There is one parcel in the Williamson Act. The change should be looked
at. Mr. Stutz questioned the changes that were made in the text.
Chairman Lemke advised Mr. Stutz- the Board had made a motion
of intent to adopt the text with the changes made and was sent back
to the Planning Commission.
3. Gerald Hermansen, representing Mr. Jones,'AP 39-24-40,
Mr. Hermansen stated that the property is close to the Durham urban area.
On August 22, 1979 he appeared before the Planning Commission to express
his client's opposition to being designated as orchard and field crop,
It is low density residential transitioning to orchard and field crop.
At that time, the Planning Commission was under the impression that the
Durham area would be considered some time in the future. They were
given assurances that this would be studied later. He wanted the Board's
determination as to whether the study areas were definite boundaries
at this time. He asked that this parcel be included in the study area.
Mr. Brooks stated that this property is on the boundary line
of the study area. If the Element is adopted the property would be in
orchard and field crop. He hoped this would not imply that it could not
be reconsidered at the time Durham is given further study. Durham and
Dayton will be under study.
Mr. Hermansen asked that the adoption be with some notice that
it is subject~to review in the forthcoming months so they are not locked
into the changes being proposed at this time.
Supervisor Wheeler did not see any reason why flexibility could
not be used with these lines for the study areas.
4. John Luwas, Chico 2000. Mr. Luwas stated that he supported
the text and map as is before the Board at this time. There are some
problems with the text but overall it is a very fine job. There are
some problems with the map, but general7.y speakiztg, they are supportative
of the map. He felt the changes proposed by Mr. Brooks were good. Mr.
Luuvas spoke regarding the north Esplanade amendment. There was controversy
at the time of the intial hearings. He would like a chance to look at this
amendment, particularly on the east side of the Esplanade. There are
problems with the north end of the amendment. He did not think there
aas a problem with the east side. There are some real problems on the
nest side with the highway commercial. Commercial generates more traffic.
there are some portions that need study. There is concern about the west
side of Esplanade. There could be problems north of the corner of Shasta
and Lassen Avenue. He felt the northern 2/3 on the west side should be
studied and eliminated from the amendment.
5. David MacKey. Mr. MacKey congratulated the Board on the work
that was done. Page 257.
October 16, 1979
79-
^b
1677
1678
1679
October 16, 1979
6. Don Blake. Mr. Blake approved of the map with. the changes
as proposed.
7. Cecil Johnson. Mr. Johnson felt the map was a good one.
He would be willing to 'help in any way he could to change some of the
laws that are coming down to the countieso
8. Don Brooks. Mr. Brooks stated that the Planning Commission
held hearings regarding the Esplanade amendment. He thought this included
the east side. He did not feel the amendment would create problems of
traffic on the Esplanade, He asked that this amendment be included.
was done>
9. Iten Brown, Mr. Brown complimented staff on the work that
10. Nick Garcia. Mr. Garcia commented on the letter from the Farm
Bureau. Tf they were interested, they should have been at the meeting.
He asked that the Board adopt the Element.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the Board made a motion of intent to accept the General Plan
Land Use Element with the suggested changes as presented by staff in a
memo dated October 8, 1979 to the Board to also include the Hwy 32 and
north Esplanade General Plan proposals as presented by staff; further
indicating that the areas not in the Williamson Act should be designated
Agricultural rural residential designation from the northeast corner of
the Oroville study area sectzOn 8 to the county line to the east and
south to Honcut; and further including and incorporating the John Heinke
and Richard Vermillion and William Drew general plan amendments in the
Land Use Element and referring the matter back to the Planning Commission.
The hearing was continued to October 30, 1979 as a closed hearing,
APPROVE BCAG COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT E%TENDING THE TIME PERIOD
OF THE AGREEMENT TO DECEMBER 1S. 1979
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the time period for the BCAG Cooperative Agreement was
extended to December 15, 1979.
DISCUSSION OF COUNTY COUNSEL'S REPORT CONCERNING HAROLD WELBORN APPEAL
CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 23. 1979
Del Siemsen, deputy county counsel, set out the Harold Welborn
appeal. Mr. Welborn had an approval of a map which. re:quz're3 certain
road standards. He obtained a use permit for the same property and the
Board approved a different road standard for the use permit. The opinion
was that this was not a contradiction of the two different standards.
If he wanted to sell the. property and split it, he would have to put
in the road standard for the map. Once the appeal period has passed
this matter cannot be heard without reapplying for a new map.
The matter was continued to October 23, 1979.
LETTER TO BE PREPARED FOR SUBMISSION TO ARB AND PRESENTED TO BOARD ON
OCTOBER 23. 1979 FOR CONSIDERATION
Supervisor Dolan felt that there had been changes from what had
taken place during the meeting in Senator Johnson's office lktween the
county and the ARB. They agreed to do many things. She would like to
see a letter sent to Mary Nichols, ARB, setting out what the understanding
of Butte County was regarding .the agreement reached at that meetingo
Page 2580. ~ ,
October 16, 1979
79-
1680
October 16, 1979
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ - G ~ T
Chairman Lemke reported on the ARB meeting held in Sacramento
regarding agricultural burning. The ARB staff showed a movie which only
showed~oneside of agriculture, It was a little less than an objective
presentation. The ARB allowed testimony from the public. They had to
sign up for the presentations and were told that the presentations would
be limited to five minutes. The county was schedu?,ed to speak at 4:00 p,;m.
Some of the presentations ran from one-half to a full hour. When Butte
County was able to speak they only spoke to two and three members of the
ARB. The county was confined to five minutes. They interrupted Del
Siemsen when he was trying to give his testimony..; The ARB did not do this
to anyone elseo When the county left Senator Johnson's Office on Wednesday
there was general agrement there would be cooperation. Butte County has
continued to agree to cooperate, The plan was adopted as presented by
staff.
Supervisor Dolan related a conversation that was held with one
of the staff from the ARB after the meeting. The staff member made comments
about the Board of Supervisors members making comments: that had been
prepared for them by staff. She advised this member the Board was at the
hearing because they were concerned and were not there to mouth comments.
She has never seen any extension of cooperation to Butte County from the
ARB. She advised this member of the staff that the comments made were
hardly in moving forward in the statement of cooperation.
The matter was continued to October 23, 1979 for consideration
of draft letter to ARB.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moseley asked that a letter be written to Sid
n~ebber's family, Mr. Webber passed away this weekend.
Supervisor Moseley asked what had happened with the workmen's
compensation. See was advised it had been referred to Risk Manamgent
~oordinatoro
Administrative Officer to sends expression of condolence to
the Sid Webber. family.
Mr. Ed Enhimes, Doe Mill Road, AP 63-02-57, is on 40 acres
snd zoned "TM-40". He would like to ,.:have the designation be "R-R".
Chairman Lemke advised that on October 17, 1979 at 7:00 p.m.
the Chico Chamber of Commerce will hold a workhouse, The county is
scheduled from 7:15 $.m, to 7:30 p.m. Supervisor Wheeler to attend the
neeting.
3DJOURNMENT
There being northing further before the Board the meeting was
adjourned at 5:44 p.m, to reconvene on Tuesday, October 23, 1979 at 9:OOa.m.
3TTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
3y
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Page 259.
October 16, 1979