HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110872November 8, 1972
72-1790 - PUBLIC HEARING: FORt4ATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA No. 46
HEARING CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 13, 1972, AT 1:30 P.M,
The public hearing on the formation of County Service Area No. 46
reconvened in the Veterans` Memorial Building in Chico at 7:40 p.m., for
the purpose of continuing the hearing of October 24, 1972, of a feasibility
study, with an estimated 150 or more in the audience.
Present: Supervisors: Douthit, Ladd, Madigan, and Chairman Gilman; Clifton
Mickelson, Administrative Officer; Dan Blackstock, County Counsel, by Allan
Burchett; Clark A. Nelson, County Clerk, by Oriel Elkins, Board of Supervisors
Clerk pro tem.
Clay Castleberry, Director of Public Works, set out the proposed outline
and said the meeting is actually to see if a study should be made with refer-
ence to the installation of sewers in this area at some time in the future.
He read a letter received from Yoder, Trotter, Orlob & Associates, signed by
Lawrence C.. Rugaard, Principal Engineer, answering five questions directed
to them in a communication from Mr. Castleberry. Toward the close of his
comments, Mr. Castleberry said a rough estimate of the cost of such a feasibility
study might cost between $15,000 and $25,000, perhaps more or perhaps less.
The land involved might have an approximate assessed valuation of $15,000,000.
Hearing was opened to the public and following were heard:
1. Eugene Vermuda, 1514 Verde Drive, against the study at this time.
2. Glenn Clark, 2840 Cohassett Road, said he thought there was no need
for this meeting.
3. A gentleman from 905 Culvert, spoke against the study.
4. Paul Jones, Route 4, Box 630-P on Troy Lane, made a motion to go home,
5. Bill Sullivan, Route 5, Marigold Avenue, against the study.
6. Sherril Smith, Route 1, Nord Avenue, has no problem and is against
the study.
7. James Foresome, 285 East Lassen, thinks the area is too large, against
the formation of a district.
8. Dr. Ronald Vogel, 2925 San Romina Way, has "hard pan" on his property,
favors the study for benefit of posterity.
9. Roger Hoffman, Verde Drive, against the study,
10. Roy Smith, Route 1, Nord Avenue, against the formation of the district.
11. Bannie Carr, 1073 Verde Drive, read a list of ten or more for whom she
apparently was speaking, all opposed to spending money for a study and opposed
to installing sewers, j
12, A gentleman from the Esplanade spoke against the study at this time.
13. George McClug, has property on Lockland, opposed to the study.
14. A Mr. Parks, 1292 East Avenue, corner of Mariposa, is in favor of the
study and said the hard pan is about four feet down.
15. Bill Prophet, is against the proposed study.
16. Frank Seawall, 17 Moraga Drive, is heard, asking if the Board members
all approved the study. Mr, Gilman explained that they all approved a resolu-
tion of intention to propose a study, He emphasized the word, "intention,"
Page 407. November 8, 1972.
November 8, 1972
17. Glenn Clark on Cohassett Road is heard again, repeating his former
statements.
18. Philip Lowden, 7945 San Romina Way, though "land use" should be
determinedo
19. Dr. Dick Peters, 4 Moraga Way, is against the formation for a sewer
district.
20. Rolland K, Hauser, 1075 Tracy Lane, spoke on waste water treatment
projects and service areas; he spoke about Water Quality Board and Air
Resources Board maps that include Chico in the air pollution descriptions.
He said the State Water Board wishes to see tape recordings of the hearings,
from the very first hearing on the formation of a service area.
21. Bernard Verna, 1056 Ia Mesa, sympathizes with the people who are
having trouble. He had experience as to the cost and methods used in
Stockton. He suggested a vertical drain that goes down about 35 feet.
22. A gentleman from 1077 Via Paloma Drive said the sewer would not
work in the proposed area, He felt the land developers should make the
necessary sewer arrangements for the individual sales. He also thought
the "sewer problem should be solved before undertaking a water problem,
consider each separately.
Howard Toussaint, Chief Sanitarian of Chico, explained the area and
various features of it, using a map on a board on the stage
23, Dick Nahlston, 2602 White Avenue, expressed his opinion against
the proposed study and against the proposed sewer district, He favors the
restriction of the district to the location of the problems, not the whole
area outlined.
24, John Stutz on the River Road, said 60% of the audience are in the
process of building, but they do not all have problems as considered here.
25, Mrs. Bonnie Carr is heard again. She and her friends do not have a
problem of this kind and do not want to pay for someone else's problems.
26. Dr, Fred Kendall said he lives considerably west of this area but he
believes a study should be made, coveting 20 years hence. There is bound to
be growth. and study should be made in advance of any dire need.
27o George Cook, 2713 Moraga, believes in the study, He believes in
foresight and approves the study,
28. Fred Hockett, lives on Bast Avenue. He said the discussion is
regarding an area north of the Longfellow School and suggested annexing
that portion of the area to the City of Chico. He is opposed to a study,
29. Vernon McNabb is heard repeating comments previously made.
The hearing is recessed at 9:12 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. The
hearing is closed to the public.
Supervisor Madigan is in favor of postponing the decision until after
the first of the year, setting a date certain in January. Allan Burchett
explained procedure according to Government Code and said the matter might
be continued to as late as November 23rd. If a decision on the merits were
set for a longer time, they would have to begin all over again., Someone
from the audience made a motion to discontinue the hearing.
Chairman Gilman suggested the area be redefined, Supervisor Ladd sug-
gested a redesignation of the boundry lines but thought this could possibly
be determined during the study,
Page G.08 November 8, 1972.
November 8, 1972
Clay Castleberry emphasized the records should indicate that the hearing
has been for the express purpose to decide whether there should be a feasibility
study on the matter and the members of the Board could see there is not a
tremendous enthusiasm in favor of the study at the hearing this evening. The
Board can amend the boundary description but cannot substitute a new descrip-
tion, Hearing continued to November 13, 1972 at 1:30 p.mo
RECESS:
The Boaxd recessed at 9:50 p.m. to reconvene on Monday, November 13,
1972, at 9:00 a.m..
Page 408(a)
November 8, 1972
~~