OROVILLE — A protest sign reading “My taxes. My Land. It should be my choice” stood front and center at Tuesday’s Butte County Board of Supervisors meeting where the urgency ordinance tied to the North Complex fires was discussed.
The sign was one of many as residents living in or with property in the North Complex burn scar made their way to the board chambers to air their grievances over the then-proposed six-month extension of the ordinance, favoring instead a longer-term option.
In August 2020, the Bear and Claremont fires in Plumas County joined to make the North Complex fires which burned into Butte County, devastating Berry Creek and surrounding areas. In the following days, Butte County declared a public emergency and ultimately drafted an urgency ordinance similar to what it and the town of Paradise did following the Camp Fire in 2018.
The ordinance allowed residents to work toward rebuilding by easing some of the county codes regarding land use.
Development Services Director Paula Daneluk brought the item before the board Tuesday requesting a six-month extension of the ordinance which was scheduled to end Dec. 31. The recommendation came with some changes, including the removal of Federal Emergency Management Agency temporary housing sites, equipment staging sites and temporary log storage yards. The extension itself pertains to temporary housing and administrative permits for those living on their properties and looking to rebuild.
“Recovery for individuals who are in the process of going from the temporary housing into more permanent housing would also have the opportunities to use regular sections of our ordinance that are there whether this urgency ordinance is in place or not,” Daneluk said. “Specifically in Chapter 24.174, the temporary uses in the bulleted item E which is for recreational vehicles as temporary residences. That is an opportunity to continue an administrative permit while you have a permit for the reconstruction of your home into a permanent structure.”
Supervisor Tami Ritter noted that county code also requires that temporary housing, such as recreational vehicles, must also be hooked up to electricity and some form of waste system be it sewer or septic.
It was also clarified by Daneluk that Butte County Code Enforcement is citing properties based solely on complaints rather than patrolling. Daneluk went on to say that the vast majority of properties with complaints come into compliance on their own.
“Based on last year’s numbers, which is the only full year I have, we run about a 96-97 (percent) compliance voluntarily,” Daneluk said.
The public comment period saw a large number of speakers, most of whom are living on their properties with hopes of rebuilding. Concerns came up regarding the loss of homeowners insurance after the fire as well as the high costs of rebuilding. Robert Lyles called for more support from the county when dealing with agencies like PG&E and FEMA.
“PG&E came in and they cut down all of my trees, they took them out and then left the stumps,” Lyles said, “Now, do you know how much it costs to remove a stump? That’s like $500 a pop. I went to FEMA and sent them the submissions and they sent it back saying my deed was wrong. Nobody’s owned this property since the ’80s but my father and me. So you guys need to help us out and help us keep our properties. We have owners who are paying their taxes and trying to do the best they can to fix things up.”
Supervisor Bill Connelly asked that Lyles, as well as the others attending the meeting, call his office to see about advocacy.
Berry Creek resident Jennifer Philips gave her support for property owners in her community while also pushing to end the dry camping section of the ordinance that has created some controversy among those living in the burn scar.
“The people of our community do not want drug addicts and violent gang members trashing our town and making it feel unsafe,” Philips said. “I think most of us up on the hill would be happy to see those people have to leave for not meeting the county’s requirements. But what we absolutely do not want to see is the members of our community thrown out on the street or forced into low-income housing just because we are low-income. If there is no possibility for an extension for our camping situation beyond the six months that may be granted, then we should be working together toward solutions. There could be guidelines and requirements for people living in trailers that can be set to ensure their properties are well-maintained, that their sewage and garbage are being properly disposed of and that they’re working within their means to improve their environment.”
Philips suggested a payment plan for required permits going forward.
Tara Pash, who previously advocated keeping rural fire stations open during the winter months during the county’s budget hearings, backed her fellow community members at the meeting.
“I was fortunate, I didn’t lose my home, but I would really hope that if I was in their situation, somebody would stand up for me,” Pash said.
Returning to the board, Ritter called for a longer extension for the urgency ordinance beyond the six-month recommendation and to end a limitation that states RVs can only be at minimum 10 years old.
“I do believe that the county is doing some things, they have set up their advocate, they are working to get people their permits,” Ritter said. “It’s government. You’ve got to make calls, repeat calls. But as you heard (Daneluk) say, we want folks to be in compliance. We want you to be able to stay on your land, but I do think we need an extension of the time period, longer than six months, and I think that we need to remove the 10-year limitation because it unfairly discriminates against people who are poor.”
Connelly backed Ritter with the exception of the mobile home age.
“I can agree on almost everything you said except for the mobile home thing,” Connelly said. “They’re terrible. They burn really fast. They wear out. I made a living repairing them and if a fire starts in one of them it’s terrible. So maybe we can look at when they modernized them and made them better we can look at a different date.”
Supervisor Doug Teeter said he felt the 10-year age limit for mobile homes felt arbitrary and asked that more information come back regarding mobile homes to come up with a better, fairer age estimation. Teeter also opted to give dry camping six additional months from the expiration date at the end of 2023.
It was Supervisor Peter Durfee who made a motion to extend the urgency ordinance, not including dry camping, an additional 18 months rather than six.
“There were some people in here today that were here two weeks ago and some of those same people two weeks ago, one in particular, said we want six more months,” Durfee said. “Six more months is on the agenda. Today, that person said we need two more years. So now it’s taking one person two weeks to go from six months to two years. While I’m not against the year, a year from now they’re going to come back and say, ‘Well it’s winter time and we can’t change things and we can’t move in the winter, we can’t build in the winter’ so we’re going to be sitting in this room again.”
Durfee drew some ire from the crowd by raising concerns that some of those in the room won’t have done anything to change their situation come the next discussion, but pushed for the 18-month extension to allow for additional time beyond the 2024 winter months, moving the next expiration date to June 2025. Ritter noted the variables that would likely continue in the meantime that has affected property owners.
“What it doesn’t take into consideration is what happens in the interim,” Ritter said. “We have (The Rural County Representatives of California) working closely with the insurance commission doing what we can do. We have a legislative platform that happens between then and now. We’re going to have funding decisions that are going to be coming down from state and federal. So we don’t have all of the information right now that we’re going to have in a year. And I think you’re right, we are going to be back here and that’s our job is to be back here and to look at all of the new information that’s come about and we can make the decisions according to that.”
Teeter motioned to extend the urgency ordinance by a year and a half while only extending dry camping for six months. The board unanimously backed the motion, passing it and extending the ordinance.
