HomeMy WebLinkAboutM0527828 2- '
~ '
933
I~ay 27, 19s2
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 9p00 a.m pursuant to recess. Present:
Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, xioseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
Eleanor M. Becker, county clerk, by Nancy Wilson, deputy clerk.
PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED DRAFT EIR AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHICO AREA LAND
USE PLAN (GREENLINE~
The public hearing on the revised draft EIR and General Plan. amendment
for the Chico area land use plan (green line) was held as continued.
Charlie Woods, planning department, set out the executive summary
in the ETR showing the impacts of the proposed project. Comments from state
agencies and private indidivuals.in written form have been forwarded to the
(Board. Additional maps were prepared and are identified by EIR and a number.
They include an attempt to estimate boundaries of the soil map information,
information on drainage assessment districts, particularly in the north area,
'identification of Cal Water Service Company service area, the current boundaries
Hof the City of Chico, and the existing land uses in the area with an overlay
of the Planning Commission and the coalition proposals. Exhibit C shows the
existing land use that goes back to 1971, exhibit E is the Board-City of Chico
committee proposal, and exhibit G is the Planning Commission proposal.
Planning Department directed to prepare an overlay of the existing
General Plan designation with Board-City,of Chico committee and Planning
Commission:.-, proposals.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Bill Cottingham, Route 2, Box 130B, Chico. Mr. Cottingham set
out his background with the almond industry. He would be discussing the new
revised draft EIR, particularly pages 41, 46, 48, 49 and 50 as they relate to
the-south Chico area. At some other date, he would like to discuss the
deficiencies he had found in other areas of the EIR but would confine himself
to the pages outlined. He felt the~time spent in the hearings have been
well spent because they would eventually protect the valuable commercial
agricultural lands in the county, while protecting the other citizens and
property rights as well. The newest EIR is only a feeble effort at doing
the job correctly. He found the ETR to be biased, slanted and in some areas
insulting. On the pages he has mentioned,`the writer relied heavily on
the 1929 Butte County soils survey. The 1929 soils auxvey is obsolete.
He set out the soils hearing that was held in Durham this spring. He read
from a transcript of the tape recording of that meeting relative to the
1929 soils map. It was pointed out the map was on a scale of one inch per
mile with no aerial photography. The plotting was not too technical and was
done on a plain sheet of paper. There was not a great deal known about soil
science and there are many eculsions and errors in the map. It was his
understanding after talking with one of the soil scientists after the.
meeting, the soil tests were done by students and if the surface of the
soil appeared to be the same, they did not actually take soils samples
every ten acres. Sometimes the samples were taken every 300 to 400 acres.
The equipment for excavation was not available at that time and the crops
are also different than they were. They did not have the technical knowledge
about surface soil diseases and ph factors, which change over long periods
cf time.
It was his opinion that on pages 41, 46, 48, 49 and 50, the writer
attempted to put down technical data that has been offered into evidence with
reference to the soil in the south Chico area, particularly with Midway
)rchards. He read the quote from the second paragraph .listed on page 41.
Chia paragraph is very important and shows a great deal of bias and is not
Page 36.
May 27, 1982
82-'
May 27, 1982
e m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a s ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ e e 3. ~ a ~ a 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ = m ~ m e e
a true statement. It has a tremendous bearing on what the writer eludes to
on pages 46, 48 and 49. He did not provide the information. The information
was provided by the experts chosen by the county and he only deposited the
money to pay for the report. The writer of the EIR also advises that the
soil information is referenced in appendix I and uses the report done by
Dr. Hart. There is no where in the report where Dr. Hart sets any percentage
for various soils. .,The report states the orchard changes very rapidly. He
submitted a letter at this time. He submitted a map that had been drawn by
Eco Analysts, which would be checked back out to him at the end of the hearing.
They began to find rock and stone problems in the south part of the
orchard. They knew they had this problem in the north part of the orchard.
Apparently the sub Layer or compaction layer has broken up and now there
axe stones about three to four inches in diameter coming up through the entire
orchard. He read the letter from Dr. Beck dated May 24, 1982 which was submitted
for the record. He set out the exhibits in the EIR relating to the Midway
Orchards data. On page 4b, the soils classification for Midway Orchards is
set out. Someone had altered the evidence that was presented during the public
hearings. He read from the top of page 48 at this time. The writer of the
EIR uses the criteria that is in Dr. Hart's report and that report does not
set out any percentages. The report uses a 1967 soil conservation report, •a
1974 Department of Water Resources report, a 1929 survey, the 100-story index
and a rating of at least $200 per acre adjusted for inflation with a three-
year average income of $753.33. The writer used an obsolete 1967 soil map.
There. is a 1978 report available that was submitted for the .record. On page
49, the writer admits that Midway Orchards has a ph factor. The ph factor
for Midway Orchards is 4.9 percent. He submitted information from the soil
book showing the strong acidity far the property. He set out the information
that he had presented relative to the 1978 report at this time on the ph
factor reading, salienity and toxic substances. All of these factors show
that Midway Orchards has a sour soil, which is one of the most important soil
fertility problems in the United States. Because of the soil salienity, rock,
soil depth and soil diseases, the experts have put'Mi.dway Orchards into category
poor soil. On page 49, the writer has stated that the 1929 soils map shows
Midway Orchard as having vine loam which in fact they do not have any of the
viva loam. The writer refers to the fact that the soil conditions are a
result of .management practices. If the writer is referring to fertilizer
applications and past management practices, this could have changed the ph
factor, but it is questionable among the experts that he has spoken-with. Since
1870, the orchard has changed ownership every four and one-hal£ years. There
is no reference on pages 48 and 49 of the ETR that shows the problems Midway
Orchard is having. The writer presents a simple solution to the ph factor.
He set out the reasons the simple solution would not be applicable to tree
crops. The 1978 soil criteria says inorder to make a change in any piece of
land it has to be feasible. The cost of making Midway Orchards feasible
would be around $1 million.
On ppge 48, the writer refers to the fact an.adjusted gross income
of $617.80 per year would make property prime agricultural land category,
according to the Williamson Act. The Williamson Act was written so loosely
that in 1965 property was allowed into the Williamson Act that did not gross
$200 per acre. Many people received tax benefits from placing their property
into the act. The writer failed to mention :that it costs money to run an
orchard. He has presented figures during public hearings relative to the
income of the property that shows he is losing $2,000 per year and could
not see that that made this prime agricultural land.
On page 49 the writer refers to the fact there is oak root fungus
and this is one more limitation. The writer states this is a common problem
in the Sacramento Valley, particularly in Chico and Durham areas. He set
out how the oak root fungus prolilem started. To say this is a common problem
is incorrect. There were approximately 40,000 acres of eight to twenty year
old orchards that have no oak root Fungus because they are not planted on the
Page 37.
May 27, 1982
l+~ay 27, 1982
die
waterways, .but planted on the prairies.. The writer advises. it is easy to
control oak. root fungus. with management practices by simply changing the
crop, the trees or resistant root stock. If the writer had referred to
the report by Mr. Post, he would have noticed that resistant root stock was
dying in this orchard. There are very few crops he could grow.'-
Bacteria cankor is a limitation on this orchard and it is referred
to on page 49 with a simple answer this is not consistently present and no
sites are specific. They have had to replace some 1,100 trees in the past
three years due to bacteria cankor.
Mr. Cottingham read from page 50 of the EIR at this time relative
to the assessment of the impact of the project as it related to prime soil.
The EIR states that Midway Orchards is prime agricultural land. He could
not see how anyone could say the orchard was prime land when it has been
proven that it is class 4 or 5 soil, extreme acidity, toxic soil, excessive
percolation, soil disease, eight years of poor crops and minus cash flows.
There has been expert testimony that was not used by the writer of the EIR.
Supervisor Dolan felt that after listening to the presentation
relative to pages 41, 46, 48, 49 and 50, it seemed the criticism was directed
toward figure 4.3 on page 46 and the chart on page 44. The map and chart
delineate three limitations which are low ph, oak root fungus and bacteria
cankor. After rereading the letter report by Dr. Hart in the last paragraph
on appendix T, the report relates to the classification for PZidway Orchards
and says the southern most soil would probably be class 3 and the soils
in the other two areas would be at least class 2-and possibly class 1 soil.
She read the second paragraph of the same letter report by Dr. Hart relating
to the soils in the orchards, which sets out that the soils vary from stone-
free sandy loam br clay loam to clay loam areas having rocks and cobbles.
Mr. Cottingham advised in the third paragraph of Dr. Hart's soil
report, there is an indication that 60 percent of the soil in the north
section in certain areas are sand. That is high percolation which is twice
as much as required for prime land. He was pointing out that the writer
of the EIR'did not even use the evidence that was available to them. The
report by Dr. Hart was misquoted. As far as the experts are concerned,
Midway Orchards is in a class 4 category. The proof of that classification
is in the salienity and the additional charts showing the ph factors. The
chart in the EIR does not have salienity, alkalinity or toxins.
Supervisor Dolan questioned who determined the classification for
the soils from this chart that had been presented?
Ms. Cottingham stated he had presented the Baard with a list of
approximately 20 experts who have discussed the Midway Orchards problem.
The evidence was in the document and was not used properly.
RECESS: 10:17 a. m.
RECONVENE: 10:38 a. m.
2. Lloyd Heidinger, Dayton Road. Mr. Heidinger read a letter
from his father and himself, which he entered into the record at this time,
relative to the zoning for Dayton Road and the fact that the "A-10" zoning
was done on September 17, 1974 by Ordinance 1498.
3. Tom Edgar, representing Midway Orchards. Mr. Edgar stated in
reviewing the revised EIR he had discovered a significant number of things
that are incorrect and inadequate in the report. He would like to give an
overview to begin with and then go into further detail a little later on in
his presentation. The initial EIR had substantial areas of historical
Page 38.
May 27, 1982
8 2-
b'
May 27, 1982
information which. was. incorrect. John Stutz had prepared a significant amount
of information and, if he is not present at the hearing, he would be submitting
that information in a letter setting out the incorrect historical areas. The
next major point is that the EIR ignored the current greenline, which the
county adopted in 1971 for the Chico area. The map was modified slightly
in 1979. This line is clearly an urban growth boundary, and the document
virtually ignores those official documents of Butte County. The EIR treats
the joint city-county greenline proposal as the original greenline. That
is factually incorrect. The EIR does not provide the information that will
allow a decision as to where the greenline should be placed. It refers to
the city-county proposal, the coalition proposal and the Planning Commission
proposal. The Board appears to have three choices which is to rubberstamp
one of those proposals because the EIR does not give detailed maps on the
current land use activities and urban services on the properties. The
previous EIR had maps and charts in great detail and those documents have
virtually disappeared from this EIR. A large amount of material that would
ordinarily belong in the appendix is given great weight within the text itself.
The critical kinds of information that have been fought over and presented
to the Board on many occasions is simply not in the text. The law requires
that the information be before the Soard in order to allow the Board to make
a decision as to where to draw the line. He challenged anyone to show him
where the information is located within that document.
There is an orientation toward prime agricultural soil. There is
a real problem with that because the entire urban area. of Chico is located on
prime agricultural soil. The Planning Commission set criteria for drawing
the greenline which deals with agriculturally productive soil. It is defined
in the document. This was made reference to in the document that it is located
in the appendix. ACSUC dormitory is being built west of the main campus on
soil that is clearly prime agricultural soil, viva loam. It is in the middle
of the urban area. This is one of the reaons it is important to concentrate
on a discussion of agriculturally productive land rather than simply that the
soil is prime viva loam soil and must be preserved at all costs.
One of the major areas of the document is the fact the county will
potentially lose 17,700 prime acres of agricultural soil. They have already
lost 8,000 acres and are about to lose 9,700 acres if the EIR is adopted.
He suspected the county had already lost the 8,000 acres of prime soil and
felt that was what the Chico urban area was. He challenged the adoption of
the proposed project would involve an additional loss of 9,700 acres. The
reason for this is because the county currently has a greenline which was
adopted in 1971 and 1979 which is substantially west of any current proposal.
The line would move eastward and the land available for urban development
was not going to be available. There is a paragraph in the EIR setting
out that the letter from the State Department of Conservation received
May 6, 1982 advises the EIR is inadequate. In reading the letter, it says
this is an unacceptable document because the county is about to lose 9,700
acres of prime agricultural soil.
He would like to discuss the prime grasslands east of Chico. The
Department of Conservation is most upset about the fact the county is going
to destry prime grassland east of Chico. The land east of Chico is not prime
agricultural land and is nothing more than a nuisance. The report makes
reference to vernal pools east of Chico, which means springtime. Apparently,
the state would like to preserve springtime swamps. During the summer, the
fire department has burned the prime grasslands because of fire hazards and
because they are major sources of grasshoppers. In some manner the Board
is going to have to deal with the letter from the Department of Conservation.
The material received from the state points out it is virtually impossible
to determine how and where the-9,700 acres come from. The previous draft
EIR had substantial sections on economic analysis which have disappeared
from this document and the state'=~zs telling the county to put those sections
back into the EIR. Page 39.
May 27, 1982
8 2-
b
May 27, 1982
Mr. Edgar would b.e dealing with specific portions of the EIR. On
page 2, Mr. Stutz would b.e pointing out major factual erros in the historical
material. On page 5, there is a substantial blowdown of the land use plan
which deals with the land use map ; 1971 land use plan, by notation on the
document. Someone reading the EIR would develop the strong impression
there was a horrible state of affairs since 1971. On page 7 there is
mention of the several times the county has been sued but generally they
have wove all the lawsuits mentioned in that material. There are numerous
references in the document the county has an illegal General Plan in the
Chico area. The document refers to the fact they are acknowledging there
is an illegal General Plan admitting the county has taken certain actions
with an illegal plan. He cautioned the Board they were being asked to
rectify a document saying they agreed they had an illegal plan. He felt
the Board should ask the Planning staff and County Counsel to explain in
detail why the plan is illegal. Staff should give the Board a detailed
list of the areas where there is an illegal document so the Board has a
checklist when they finally complete the document, everyone would know the
Board had made an honest attempt to clear up all the illegalities. He was
aware of a few inconsistencies in certain areas of the intexior of the
Chico urban-are where the zoning was not consistent with•the General Plan.
The Planning Commission made recommendations that will resolve the problem
of the inconsitencies but that does not make the entire General Plan illegal.
On page 8, it refers to the fact both the county and City of
Chico entered into a joint effort to have a preliminary proposal for
discussions and a place to start on this very detailed and complex subject.
As a matter of law this in nothing more than a preliminary proposal upon
which public discussion will occur. The document seems to say there is
an agreement which was reached by the committee and that established a line
and the line should be set in concrete. It seems to imply there is no choice
but to rubber stamp the proposal and the commission has chosen not to rubber
stamp the proposal and that is somehow illegal and immoral. A change to the
General Plan must be based upon hearings and the EIR and all the things the
Board is doing. The document takes the pasition the greenline was established
by agreement which could not possibly be true.
On page 9 there is discussion about the original greenline. It
was his understanding the original greenline as mentioned is the original
proposal from the joint city_county activities. That is not the original
greenline because it was established in 1975 as the official document and
again modified in 1979. That is what is law and is the official greenline
of the county, which is clearly the urban agricultural boundary. He felt
what the EIR was to discuss as a matter of law was any adjustments to the
1979 map. The EIR does not deal with that map. The calculations on the
total loss of prime agricultural soild would be different if the 1979 map
were used.
The concept of the coalition line is introduced on page 11. It
was his understanding the Chico Board of Realtors was not supporting the
coalition line but supporting whatever the county chose to do. It was
also his understanding the Chico Chamber of Commerce was not specifically
supporting the coalition greenline. It is appropriate for the document to
find out who was supporting what line. It was his understanding the
coalition was no longer supporting what was the coalition line, and the
new line goes around the Fabian property and no longer in the greenline.
It was his understanding the coalition group was no longer requiring the
mine field in the general area of Bell Road be on the other side of the
line. That is the major problem of the document. It does not give the
Board information to allow them to exercise their independent judgment,
which as a matter of law theBoard has to do.
Page 40.
May 27, 1982
8 2-
~'
]stay 27, 19$2
The EIR on page 12 advised the Planning Commission received 33
requests for changes and that most of the people who made requests had
their requests accepted. The document does not tell the Board the bulk of
the requests was for minor adjustments within the Chico urban area, pointing
out the zoning in certain areas and the land .use designations were not con-
sistent. Those topics had no impact on the greenline itself. The Board
will be asked to ratify, modify ar deny those requests for changes of the
land use designation within the Chico urban area. 'The document does nat
help the Board make that decision other than advising the Board there is
a summary of requests in the appendix. There was a substantial amount of
mapping work done and he feet they were entitled to have some of the maps
in the document to show the land use designation in the Chico urban area
as it exists and as proposed for changes. The reason this project took so
long is because a great deal would have to be done in changing the land
use designation so there would be consistency, which is required by state
law.
He challenged the comment because the current Chico land use plan
did not meet the standards of law, it was a practical matter not functional
and subject to potential legal challenges recognized by the Board of
Supervisors and therefore the county was proposing to revise the plan.
This is set out on page I5 of the EIR in the middle of the page. He was
not aware the Board had made that finding and decision. Possibly the Board
has made that decision, but he encouraged the Board to discuss this matter
with County Counsel as to possible implications of that sentence. Page 18
of the EIR i5 an attempt at a breakdown of where the land use designations
are. It does not help very much in terms of whether there should be Land
added or subtracted in the north, west or south. It appears a significant
number of acreages described are coming from the eastern portion of the
project. He understood there were significant amounts of land added to
the eastern side of Chico as it relates to the planning area. When there
is a shift in the map in this manner, there are substantially larger amounts
of acreages to deal with. He felt as a matter of law the Board should know
what the implications of the map shift was especially when they have been
told that somehow they will be bulldozing 9,700 acres of prime agricultural
soil and potentially destroying vernal .pools of prime grasslands. He felt
this was why the state on May 6, 1982 advised the Board had major defects
in their EIR.
Mr. Edgar spoke relative to page 14 of the EIR dealing with
specific objectives. When Mr. Hempil was before the Board at the last
meeting he pointed out the major inconsistencies and problems between the
EIR as it existed and the Butte County Housing Element. He also pointed
out that California law requires the Board to specifically address concerns
relative to affordable housing. He noted in the area of specific objectives
there was discussion concerning the open space element but no mention of
the housing element. He felt this was a major defect.
Mr. Edgar advised that Mr. Cottingham had allued to page 2b.
It has previously been pointed out the Planning Commission proposal of
the greenline talks about protecting agriculturally productive soils.
The discussion on page 26 revolves primarily around prime soils and tries
to use the Williamson Act as a source of a good definition of prime agricul-
tural soil. When the act was passed it was designed to encourage farmers
to voluntarily put their land into the act to assist the farmers. The
state was modivated to have a very broad and liberal definition of prime
agricultural soil. This definition will not assist anyone in helping them
to decide where to put the greenline. This is a document that ignores the
commission's position based on the agriculturally productive soil. It
goes on further to state if a person can get $200 per acre that is prime
agricultural soil. He related his experience his family had on a one-fourth
Page 41.
May 27, 1982
8 2-
~'
May 27, 1982
acre of land in downtown Chico where they get $20.0 per year in agricultural
produce in backyard type of crops.
Page 55 of the EIR seems to he the source of the state`s concern
about taking 9.,700 acres of prime agricultural soil. He had tried to figure
out how-the acreages were calculated and where they came from. There is
reference to Table 4.5 on page 38. It does not estimate the figure on the
9,700 acres. Table 4.6 on page 57 does not help understand where the 9.700
acres come from. Tt felt this was a major defect in the document. The
state has pointed out it does not have appropriate tables to assist a person
in making a decision going from the north, to the west and east and then
to the south as to where the line should be placed. He disagreed with the
statement they are about to take 9,700 acres of prime agricultural land.
Mr. Edgar summarized his comments at this time. He felt the
document before the Board was less effective than the document they had last
February. A11 of the charts, economic analysis, maps, detailed information
regarding urban services in the Morehead area, small parcels in the south
and minefield areas, has disappeared. It has been replaced by general
types of information.
Supervisor Dolan stated page 55 of the EIR and the letter from
the state indicates in the planning area, there is 17,700 acres, which
fall in class 1 and 2 by the 1967 soil conservation service map. It
indicates 9,700 acres are already urbanized. She would like to have staff
detail where the 17,700 acre calculation came from.
Mr. Edgar stated he had his figures backward.
Mr. Woods advised they measured using the mapping that was
available from the classifications of the 1967 map. Those were adopted
by the county in the land use element. This figure relates to all the
soils classified class 1 and 2 rated by the soil conservation service
with the planning area. By looking at the map listed as EIR-1, they
approximated the boundaries, using the 1967 map. They measured the lands
in class i and 2 rating and the lands already impacted and subtracted those
and then measured thoses in the area planned for urban development to get
a set of numbers.
Mr. Edgar referred to the letter from the. Department of Conservation
on page 2, paragraph d, which states the prime lands lost in the magnitude
of 8,000 acres are a significant impact. In the executive summary on page 1,
the planning staff states there are overriding, considerations. If the
Board daes nothing, and lets the existing land use designation remain, then
there is nothing lost. If the line is moved tia the east, he submitted they
must be saving land and nat losing land. He felt because of the critical
issues involved, it was appropriate the Board be given the kinds of maps
and charts that allowed them to understand where the 8,000 acres are
coming from and where they are going. In all the proposals, there will be
more agricultural land in the Chico urban area. and less land available for
urban development according to the land use designation excluding anything
happening on the east side. He suggested it was misleading to have a
statement that says if they adopt one of the lines, they will lose 8,000
acres of prime agricultural land. Much of the land being discussed is
maybe prime agricultural soil in the same sense that CSUC dormitory is
prime agricultural land, but it is hardly prime agricultural soil.
Chairman Wheeler advised the state did recommend that certain
items listedz.on the memo dated May 6, 1982 be included in the final EIR
and she was certain they would include them. This speaks to the Williamson
Act and description as far as the possibility of agricu~aural acreages
Page 42.
I~.ay 27, 1982
8 2-
3
May 27, 1482
displaced upon full implimentation of the plan, they are asking the county
be crop specific or category specific, such. as row crop or orchard, data on
the amount of known agricultural land that would be converted under the plan,
ifi~there are any listings of Williamson Act parcels in the planned area and
current contract status and planned-use. It talks ahout the estimation of
loss of monies lost to the community from the elimination of surrounding
agricultural lands. Another one is the project alternative which she read
into the record at this tim.
4. John Morehead, Chico. Mr. Morehead questioned who had written
the draft EIR. He felt it was very inadequate. He had written a Letter in
February to the staff telling them what he wanted put into the EIR and they
did not even include it in the EIR. It showed up as an inter-departmental
memo on the first page. He wondered why this was not included in the EIR.
He wondered when the coalition placed their letter in the report. There is
a great deal of discussion about the coalition that is signed by five names.
The entire document is mixed up and a person cannot follow any of the sections.
He wanted to discuss the area where his property was located which is west
of town. There are urban developments in this area. He is dryland farming
his property, which is an orchard. They only time they have pools is when
they use sprinklers. If they kill something it would be the squirrels. They
are better off not farming because the chemicals used might drain into the
creek. The reference to the loss of aquatic habitat does not apply tbothis
area. He did not know what endangered plants were in this area. The surface
and subsurface water would be better if they did not try to farm the property.
The property adjoins the city limits.
Mr. Morehead made a correction to page 14 relative to the rezoning
for Oak Park Avenue done in 1971 by a Charles Holly, et a1. The "A-10"
zoning remains in effect. He set out the background of the zoning in the
area and the decisions by the Board on the requests. The history is as
follows: "A-1" zoning in 1949; "A-2" zoning until 1955; Dorothy Hill, et al
petition for rezone of 330 acres for west Chico incorporating the boundaries
of Big Chico Creek, Rancho Airport and Chico River Road from "A-2" to
"A-R" zoning which was approved in 1960; tTse permit for multi-family use
in "A-R" area for 11 acres adjacent to the city boundary by Craig Ha11 in
1464 which was approved; annexation application by Craig Hall in 1964 which
was approved; General Plan adoption in 1966 with AR designation for areas
to Rose Avenue for a density of residential 15 to 30 persons^per were west
of Rose Avenue to suburban 3 to 8 persons per acre;. Chico Savings and Loan
application for rezone of 10 acres in "A-R" area on Oak Park Avenue west
of Rose Avenue to "MHP" zoning in 1968 which was denied; Chico Savings and
Laon application for Ranchita Gardens, a 38 lot sub division,~west of his
property which was approved in 196.8; Reno Ricky, et al application for
rezone of 50 acres of "A.R" area west of Craig Hall on Santa Clara Avenue
to "RT-1" district approved in 1968; Tal Gamma Beta Fraternity application
for use permit for boarding house on Santa Clara Avenue in "RT-1" area for
public-quasi use approved in 1969; Baker and Baker application for rezone
of 10 acres of Ricky parcel west and south of Craig Hall on Santa Clara
?tvenue from "RT-1" to "R-4" for student housing project denied in 1969;
application for rezone of 10 acres of "RT-1" area west of Craig-Hall
Co "R-3" district in 1969 denied; Thelma Cummings et al application for
rezone of 300 acres of "A-R" ald "RT-1" area to "A-3", which is now "A-5",
rezone in 1969 which was denied; 'William I. Shultz application for rezone
~f 4 acres west of Rosedale from "A-R" to "PA-C" for apartments in 1970
which was denied; William i. Shultz application for use permit for multi-
family use for 4 acres west of Rosedale School; City of Chico Planning
Commission recommendation for denial of Shultz request and proposal to
nave cut-off line for multi-family use west of Rosedale School and Craig
Sall complex, later to be called the redline; Robert L. Britton, et a1
application for rezone from "A-R" and "RT-1" area to "S-1", now "S-R",
Page 43.
May 27, 1982
S 2-
May 27, 1982
for 300. acres which was denied in 1971; Willi am.I_. Shultz apartment use
permit approved by the Board in 1971 conditioned that property be annexed
to the-city and connected to city sewers.; General plan adoption of
designation of "RT-1" and "A •R" areas for medium density residential 5 to
8 units per acre and low density residential 1 to 4 units per acre in
1971; Robert L. Britton, etal, request for interim "S-•1", now "S-R", to be
placed on "RT-1" and "A-R" area pending Planning Commission rezone study in
1971; William I. Shultz application to City of Chico for "R-3" rezoning
which was defined in 1971; Butte County Planning Commission initiates west
Chico rezone of "A-R" and "RT-1" area west of the redline to eliminate
multi-family uses, to "S-1", now "S-R', and "S-2", now "SR-1" denied in
1971; Dorothy Hill, etal, application to City of Chico for annexation of
Oak Park Annexation District 1 and William Shultz parcel, 15 acres in 1972;
Charles Harvey, etal, request for rezoning study of Oak Park area and
interim "S-2", now "SR-1", placed on the area north of Oak Park and Interim
"A-3", now "A-5", placed on "A-R" area south of Oak Park to the Chico River
Road in 1973; interim zone extended in 1974; Planning Commission initiated
southwest Chico rezone for 85 square miles between Chico City boundary,
Big Chico Creek, county boundary at Sacramento River and Dayton Road from
"A-R" and "RT-1" areas to "S-2" and "SR-1" north of Oak Park and "A-10"
south of Qak Park and "R-1" for Ranchita Gardens Subdivision west of Rose
Avenue in 1974; Baily and Halbert application for rezone of 5 acres at Rose
Avenue and Oak Park from "A-10" to "SR-1" approved in 1978. He felt that
all of this information should have been placed into the EIR and was not.
Ms. Kircher advised that if they had included a zoning history for
every area of the plan, the material would be voluminous.
Chairman T,Theeler advised there were some discrepancies as far as
the Vistec property and the northwest Chico rezone. The "A-5" zoning on
Bell Road goes back to and was included in the 1975 Bartram rezone issue
and was changed prior to that in 1966 to "A-3" zoning, which was the first
agricultural zoning that was requested. The "A-5" zoning was not
implemented unitl 1978. For the Bartram rezone,.the Board did implement
and make the changes of the "S-1" to "SR', "S-2" to "SR-1" and "A-3" to
"A-5" zoning. As far as the redline was concerned, it was her understanding
that with the adoption of the proposed line, the intent was not to dissuade
growth into the agricultural areas but to slow building of high density
dwellings in that specific area. She felt they needed to have the city
records to substantiate sem of the statements that have been made as far
as the redline is concerned.
5. Bob Millar, attorney representing Andy and Tommy Colmerhauer.
Mr. Millar stated the property is located between Liberty Lane and North.
Graves on Chico River Road. He referred to Mr. Edgar's testimony on the
inaccuracies or errors in the EIR and would defer to the memo which John
Stutz would be circulating to the Board. The property he.is interested
in is 3.1 acres. in size. The property is located at the top of a horseshoe.
Coming down the left side of the horseshoe are three parcels of residential
property, and coming down the right side of the horseshoe there are approx-
imately ten acres to the east with another residential development. There
is 3.18 acres developed in walnuts. The neighbors to the west are having
discussions with environmental attorneys with respect to spraying of
the orchard and the possibility of bring some type of suit which puts the
property owners into a catch 22 situation. If any of the greenline proposals
or alternatives submitted are approved, Andy Colmerhauer will become part
of the greenline and will Beverly restrict any changes they may want to make
on that property. The property was purchased 20 years ago and used for a
walnut grave. When the property was purchased, they had the full intention
of sometime in the future of taking the property and splitting it up to make
it into family dwellings for residential development. He asked that the
Page G4.
May 27, 1982
11ay 27, 19.82
~~~
Board review--the EIR very :carefully and recognize the deficiencies pointed
out and take into consideration those factors. The Board might want to
also consider this migfit be inverse condemnation in the event his clients
are not able to develop their property in the manner they would like to.
6. Lloyd Heidinger, Chico. rlr. Heidinger wondered when they
were going to receive a fair hearing as 'far as the affected property owners
on this proposal are concerned. The "A--10" zoning does not conform to the
General Plan. He felt people should remember the knowledge that existing
around Chico and why the people invested their time and futures into land
that was adjacent or near commercial zoning of the city limits in the Chico
area. People who own land along the line are being direly affected by the
proposal and seem to be the one's who are consistently at the meetings and
yet the hearings go on and on. He hoped they would be given a fair hearing
on the issues raised.
7. Bob Heiman, Rt. 2, Box 202, Chico, Bidwell Avenue. Mr.
Heiman stated that after attending many of the hearings that have been
held, he felt the people were wanted to disregard the greenline and the
growth could be controlled by the present zoning. He felt that was the
purpose of having zoning. He did not feel the Board would create harimony
among the people of Chico by continuing the hearings on this matter.He
felt if the EIR is so insufficient, any public hearings would be an injustice
to the people who come to every hearing. He recommended that the greenline
be disregarded and they control growth through zoning.
Chairman Wheeler advised she would like to submit a review she
had made of the EIR in written form. There were several inadequate
statements made in the EIR. An example of the inadequate statements is
on page 2 under the project history which stated the redline was intended
to implement the goal of perserving agricultural lands. The information
she has is that that is not necessarily so. Any inadequacies need to be
responded to by staff. She understood the coalition might be coming forward
with some new boundary proposals.
8. Son Morehead, Chico. Mr. Morehead stated he would be speaking
to the area west of Chico. From approximately 1978 to date, he has received
approximately $4,000 from his 22 acres. That does not conform to the facts
of $200 per acre per year. From 1978-79 the property was in almonds and
from that date it was bare ground. The property is. currently zoned "A-10"
zoning, which is inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan
designation is for low and medium density. He would like to see the zoning
in that area changed to conform to the General Plan.
-The hearing was continued to June 23, 1982 at 9:00 a.m.
934
RECESS: 12:01 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:32 p. m.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 1:33 p.m. to hold a closed session
regarding a personnel matter
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 2:30 p.m, following a closed session
regarding a personnel matter. No decisions made at this time.
BUDGET REVIEW FOR PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1982-83
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, summarized where
the county has been, where they are going and some of the xeasons behind
it. In late April, the Board approved specific allocations fox the budget
units under the department§' control. The mathematical allocation was
based upon the Board's control over discretionary funds. It was the
Board's intent to allocate the flexibility to the departments to develop
Page 45.
May 27, 1982
8 2-
~''''
I~ay 27, 1882
the budgets based on the allocation basis. In .some instances, departments
either failed to prepare a-budget;-did not.zneet the Board's direction on the
allocation or prepared a budget not operationally fcinctional. In those cases
the Administrative Office pursuant to the Boards instructions and other
sections of the Government Code prepared a recommended budget for those
departments. He was requesting that the Board take action on several budget
units to allow the Administrative Office and tkuditor the opportunity to
compile a proposed budget document which the Board can adopt prior to
June 30, 1982, as an operational document and provide the basis for scheduling
the final budget hearings. Another reason for action is any reductions,
particularly those involving staff, can be implemented either by the layoff
procedure or by salary ordinance amendment so the cost will not be carried
into next fiscal year. Any cost carried into next fiscal year will worsen
the budgetary shortfall that has been addressed by the Auditor. The only
way the budget will be balanced is by reducing in-part or perhaps eliminating
entirely some of the vital services. The county did not receive any direct
bailout assistances with the exception of the special district augmentation
funds utilized for fire and library. The county was provided some relief
when the state assumed the Medical contributions and SSI contributions in
1977-78 which totalled approximately $3 million. As a result of this and
the incorporation of the Town of Paradise there were some cutbacks made in
government. There were also many additions and program enhancements. One
of the departments which experiences substantial increases during this period
of time was the Sheriff's Department. It appeared the stated would be placing
additional responisibilities an the counties without providing the necessary
funds to operate. these programs. ,,,The position paper. the Board adopted two
weeks ago addresses specific areas that will have an impact on the budget
in the future. There were reductions in excess of $9.3 million, approximately
$8 million of that are in discretionary funds. He offered a word of
caution to the Board and for them to allow for flexibility to meet not only
the demands that will be placed on the Board by the state this year but to
realize future budgetary considerations and the importance of maintaining
financial stability to plan ahead for.
Jim Johansen, auditor, stated the committee directed a budget of
$57 million, which was $9.6 million less than originally requested.by department
in order to provide a continuing level of services. The requested budget
by the departments did not have any mayor significant increase in the levels
of services being proposed and that budget was $67,600,000. The Board directed
reductions in total of $9.6 million. The state of that reduction would result
in lass of revenue where grants were involved and the reduction in discretion-
ary revenue required was $8.6 million. He had not completed an analysis of
the revenue impacts in the areas where the courts and Treasurer-Tax Collector
were a little more difficult to determine the revenue impact reductions.
The Board is faced with a $7-3/4 million deficit. The state is considering
further reductions in subventions to local agencies. One of these reductions
is the motor vehicle in-lieu revenues, which they were told about a month ago
would be the taking of 45 percent and now it was his understanding the state
was taking back 100 percent, which would mean another $1 million. The state
is talking about shifting the MIA program to the counties and they are not
providing sufficient funds. The original estimate for the impact on the
1982-83 budget for the"MIA Program was $1.2 million.
The presented proposal, without any additional cutbacks from the
state, could meet the stated goal which is to have the revenue match the
expenditures. For the past couple of years,, the expenditures have exceeded
the revenues and the county has continued to live on the dwindling reserves,
which are no longer available. Butte County is not alone.. He was concerned
with the balancing of the 1982-83 budget and any proposals in the departments
that are submitted will have deferral of costs which will ultimately have
to be paid for. There are deferrals of fixed assets and acquisitions that
Page 46.
May 27, 1982
8 2-
3'
-___________= Maur 27, 1982___________________
will have to.b.e taken care of. The deferral of`maintenance could result in
even higher costs in the future. They have .been looking closely at the
compensation fund since the county is self-"insured"for compensation and
general liability. They have reason to believe the fund is getting close
to being underfunded as far as the compensation insurance fund is concerned.
It is desirable for reasonably"immediate action by the Board on the proposed
budget. They would like direction on action hecause every week the Board
delays action, especially on salaries, there is a cost to the county of
$40,000.
Ed Brown, assessor, stated he had complied v7ith the letter from
the Administrative Officer and read in the paper that something else happened.
If the Board made any changes from what he thought he complied with, he would
appreciate the Board letting him know. He asked for any documents before
the budget meeting on June 3.
Mr. Pyeatt advised he had been made aware of this problem earlier
in the meeting. He verified with one of his staff members who had verbal
contact with Mr. Brown that he has almost full knowledge of everything that
is in the document as it relates to the Assessor's Office budget.
APPROVE BUDGET AGREEMENTS FOR 1982-83
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the Administrative-Officer and the Auditor-
Controller were directed to prepare the proposed budgets on the following
departments in accordance with the plan developed by the Board of Supervisors;
with the amendment to the Purchasing Department budget to include the
transfer of the van driver and van from the Library budget; the department
heads were instructed to effect an necessary layoffs effective immediately;
and the Personnel Department was di"r2cted to prepare salary ordinance
amendments on those positions deletions and any necessary reclassifications
and to take any other necessary actions:
Board of Supervisors
Public Defender
Administrative Office
Civil Disaster
Retired Employees
Benefits
$ish & Game Commission
Animal Control
Juvenile Hall
Probation Services
Victim/Witness Program
Probation Special Programs
Juvenile Court Wards
Assessment Appeals
Elections
County Clerk
Recorder
Poison Sales
Manpower Admin.
Public Guardian
Veterans Service
Water Services
Special Grant Req.
ISF Equipment
Unallocated FP1C 74-4
Space & Equip Allow
Purchasing
Auditor-Controller
County Counsel
Personnel
Utilities ISF
Self Insurance ISF
Workers Compensation
Insurance ISF
Motor Pool ISF
Duplicating ISF
Stores ISF
Communications TSF
Unemployment Insur-
ance ISF
SHERIFF CORONER BUDGET
Capt. Mick Grey spoke regarding the patrol division budget.
He had prepared posters and two budgets for this division. One of the
budgets is on the lines of the recommendation by the committee o£ a cut
of $1,256,000 and the second budget is a compromise budget, with a cut of
$411,000. They felt they could still provide some level of law enforcement
with the compromise budget. Although this budget is funded by 100 percent
discretionary funds, the activities are not 100. percent discretionary.
They spend a great deal of time answering emergency calls for acts of
violent crimes, criminal conduct and calls-from citizens. In 1981, the
Board did a survey through Hughes-Reiss to determine what the level of
service was that they had. The standard set as-far as the amount of time
on preventative patrol was determined to be on a 50 percent ratio. During the
Page 47.
May 27, 1982
May 27, 1982
8
time of economic problems their business.geta_~much.better. When the survey
was done for tha department in 1981 the arrests were about 1;400 per year
and they pro,~ected an increase to I;500 per.year for a three percent
increase. Last year, there were 2,500 arrests-per-year which is in increase
of 50 percent. The calls regarding violence have increased. In a normal
year, he would be asking theBoard for an increase of six deputies to maintain
the level of service they had in 1981 in order to maintain the 50 percent
ratio. This is not a normal year. To maintain the level of service for
1982-83 they would need 58 deputies.
The second budget which. was prepared is not the elimination of
25 deputies but the elimination of 6 vacant positions. which would bring
the patrol time down to a 50 percent reduction of what it was in 1981.
Preventative patrol also gives a bas to immediately respond to a call for
help. If there is no preventative patrol time, that means 100 percent of
the time for all patrol units will be committed to calls. iTnder the
Administrative Office's proposal of 27 operational deputies to serve the
entire 1,600 square miles for the county on three shifts, seven days per
weeks, this gives them an average of about 4-1/2 officers per shift on
a county-wide basis. There have been many Friday nights that they had
five officers committed to southside in Oroville for problems which would
leave no one for Gridley, Chico or Paradise Pines. Normal shifts run
anywhere from 10 to 12 cars and many nights with that many cars they have
stacked calls. He set out the respnnse times for armed robbery, assault
and battery, burlary, disturbances to family fights at the present time
and the response time if there were decreases in personnel. Another thing
he was unable to determine was the travel time it would take if they had
on four or five cars per shift. They would have to centralize the patrol
operations into two areas, which would be in Chico and Oroville. They would
be responding from those two areas to the outlying areas. They are handling
36,000 reports of responding cars at this time. With a decrease there would
no longer be preventative patrol but they would become an incident response
team to investigate criminal complaints. They only way they could provide
any level of service would be to decrease the calls for service. They would
no longer be able to dispatch a car to respond to every call for service.
There would be call prioritization planning and would have to refer some
of the calls to other agencies. They would have to adopt a mailin report
system for almost all misdemeanor calls that do not involve~.the use of
violence. The stolen property reports would be mailed to the victim to
complete and mail back into the office to be filed for insurance purposes.
There would be no followup investigation on the crime. They would also.
be asking the Board to adopt a false alarm ordinance that would require
a license for installing the alarms and requring a person to pay a fine
after a certain number of false alarms.
Another concern of the first budget that would delete 27 deputies
is the safety factor for the deputies. There would be a long delay for the
response of the second car as a backup. He was extremely concerned about
a lone officer searching a business or building where an alarm has gone off.
He felt the compromise budget showed a substantial reduction of 50 percent
and would eliminate 6 deputy positions, one sergeant position, denying the
request for 3 new dispatcher positions, some fixed assets and gas and oil:
He felt the compromise figure would allow for running of the division safely
and still allow for response to the majority of the calls.
Chairman Wheeler asked how the statistics would be effected if the
Law Enforcement Officers Association were not to take the 7-l/4 percent increase
in wares this year and how many people could remain.
Capt. Crey advised the Auditor had made computations and they were
$221,000 which could be divided into 27 to get the amount of positions that
would remain. Page 4S.
May 27, 1982
8 2-
~'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Maw _27, 1982 = = = = _ _ _ _
Capt. Grey advised this could be added to .the $411,000 and the
reduction would .then be approximately $635,00Q'fiom-the patrol division.
Chey now have six vacant-deputy positions, .The figures for injured officers
°hange daily. The longer it takes to get to a.reported crime, the less
Likeihood of apprehending the suspect. As they decrease apprehensions, crime
does up.
Chairman Wheeler advised with. what .the Administrative Office staff
zas proposed and what the department has proposed and if the 7-1/4 percent
increase was not taken, that would leave the Board with a little over $1/2
pillion approximately and would possible tie a flexibility the Board could
Seal with.
Capt. Grey advised he could not speak for the association. He.
believed if some commitment was made by the Board and if the figures allowed
for working with 46 deputies, he felt the association could vote on whether
to take their increase or not. Their primary concern was the safety factor.
Phe feeling of the association is the Board is asking two things of them,
one to give up their pay raise and the other to expose themselves to more
risk.
Supervisor Dolan saw the major-differences between the Administrative
Office; budget and the recommendation by ,the Sheriff as the number of positions
in the patrol division. If she made the comparison correctly, the number of
sergeant positions to be reduced by the Sheriff would be one position and
four positions in the Administrative Office proposal. Those are not officers
on patrol.
Capt. Grey stated the sergeant positions were in the field as field
supervisors. They try to have one sergeant on 24 hours per day north and
south. At the present time, they are unable to do that and have experienced
supervisors to make sure everything goes well to keep them out of lawsuits.
They are not included in the 52 positions. They have nine allocated positions,
with one empty at this time. The Administrative Office proposal was to delete
all vehicles. Last year, they deleted the vehicles and did not feel that was
possible two years in a row. They proposal would delete three four-wheel
drive vehccles that were requested.but retail ten patrol vehicles. If they
reduce personnel, they do not have the need for vehicles. Bven if they were
able to get another $1/2 million over the Administrative Office recommended
budget of $5.4 million that would not give them the_46 deputies. They are
required to perform the services-for the Biggs contract, which has an income
of $100,000, and are not given credit for that income. Perhaps it might
be better to set up a separate account fox the, Biggs contract and not have
it go into the General Fund.
Supervisor Fulton stated the Administrative Office recommendation
was for $5.4 million and they are looking for $1/2 million. The raise
would give then $.2 million and the Biggs contract is $.1 million. This
would add up to $6.2 million which would give them 46 deputies. This would
be $700,000 off the requested budget.
Capt. Grey stated $400,000 would be out of the patrol division
and the remainder would be out of the divisions the Board has not heard~i.
from yet.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated he had a
question relative to the $100,000 for the Biggs contract. If the money
is set aside to fund the Sheriff's Office., the General Fund has $100,000
less to pay for other services and therefore, there is not $100,000 found
but just moved around.
Page 49.
May 27, 1982
May 27, 1982
s 2-
d,
Capt. Grey stated it would be much easier for the department to
be able to answer :questions from Biggs in terins.of accountability if the
funds were set up under a separate budget and hired people under that budget
to operate the contract including motor vehicles.
Dick Stenberg, undersh~riff, stated since the patrol division is
the most important and the Board is willing to go into it, they will accept
the rest of the recommendations from the Administrative Office and will drop
one lieutenant. The Sheriff will be speaking to .the Board regarding the
Secretary II position and the would like some consideration in the investigation
section of not losing two sergeant positions. By having those two sergeant
positions that would reduce them down to four plus the two in narcotics. That
would give them a difference of about $13,000. They need the clerk more than
they need the computer system because the biggest part of the operation is
still manual. They could not operate the computer system with the personnel
they have now. This would be keeping the typist clerk position in the
records bureau. There has been a study made on the system at this point.
There is a need for a captain in the jail rather than in the investigation
section.
Supervisor Fulton was not willing to implement the proposal at
this time because there were several unknowns, among them the $1/2 million
they do not have at this time. It was very important that the budgets gat
proposed so then can go forward and start operating on them.
Mr. Pyeatt advised the Soard was under a time constraint to adopt
the salary ordinance amendment on the salary increase. If the amendment
were implemented, it would take an agreement with the association to agree
to back out,. which would take another salary ordinance amendment.
Sheriff Giliick stated this caas the last budget he would be involved
in. The Administrative Office made the recommendation to delete the secretary
position. He was asking for consideration of this position, since the person
has been with him for 40 years and he has six months to hold office. There is
a great deal of confidential information involved in this position and he wanted
someone he could trust.- This person is a loyal competent person. The person
has been used in court as a bilingual interpreter and never paid for this
skill. The person is in charge of the personnel files and starts all extradiT.
tion papers. There is a difference of $8,997 between the Administrative Office
proposal and the Sheriff's proposal.
Mr. Lively stated in reviewing the Sheriff's administration budgee,
this recommendation was strictly to reflect the Board's direction of reducing
$66,000. This is not a large budget and there is only five people in the
budget. This is a labor intensive budget and any cuts in the $66,000 would
have to be people.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. ,Ian Holman, 1761 Garden Road, Durham. Ms. Holman stated there
were .many people at the meeting from Durham to work with the Board in solving
the problems the county is facing. The people in the area of the Durham
Unified School District and the Durham Park and Recreation District with
480 square miles pay $2,200,000 in propexty taxes. This is close to
one-third of the property taxes paid in the county if her figures were
correct. She felt the priorities in government were education and safety
of the people. That means fire, police and libraries among other things.
She served on the Law Enforcment Committee a few years ago, which went
through the needs of the county particularly in the small areas on the
valley floor and in the foothills. After many hours and meetings the
committee decided there was a need for more deputies. The Board then
Fage 50.
May 27, 1982
82-
May ?7,., 19_82
sad a study done of the Sheriff`s. Office which .showed_the department was
'.airly lean andlmaybe a little heavy .on the administrative side but not that
such. The study was pleased with the staffing and wanted more deputies.
'he need is there. When she went through.the:~'.~udget, she found the salaries
sere matched with approximately one-tHird in special benefits. When the
salary negotiations take place, sfie suggested-.that the Hoard take a look at
:he total salaries and•make sure the salaries are .not higher than the average
~f the people in the county. She felt it would be important to clarify the
Budget somewhat. There is a need to know the total cost of the services.
utother concern she had was the state-mandates and asked the Board to take
i more forceful stance. She felt a computer for the Sheriff's Office would
~e of great benefit,
Chairman Wfieeler stated only 21 percent of the property tax monies
go into the runnigg of county government, because the balance of the property
tax monies go into the schools and special districts. As far as the programs
from-the state, they are balancing the~:r budget at the expense of the counties.
During a recent meeting, when the counties appeared before the state, the
counties were told it was their fault they are in the situation they are
in with regard tw the financial _difficulties. The state~is continuing to
send more programs to the counties and taking away the monies to operate the
programs. She felt the people should start writing to the state demanding
that the state make changes and make reductions as the counties have been
doing. There is a Iaw that requires the state to pay for programs sent to
the counties. The counties went together in a declaratory relief action,
which is in the courts now, telling the state they are in violation of
their own law.
', 2, Nancy Kepner, 2495 Durham--Dayton Highway, Durham. Ms. Kepner
stated the Board is saying without any money in discretionary funds, services
ust be cut. The citizens are saying the Board must listen to their priorities
and not make cuts in vital services.. The Law Enforcement Committee made some
', drastic recommendations two years ago in the recommended hiring of 27 deputies
as a minimum even though they knew there were 67 deputies need to keep the
protection levels at a bare bones level. They also recommended a study by
done by POST at no outside cost, but the Board chose to hire an outside
consultant at a cost of $15,000. ;;. When the study showed the Sheriff's
administration was doing a fairly effective job, the Board apparently chose
to ignore the findings. In a detailed study of crime in America, Charles E.
Silverman in his study, "Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice" states one of
the most effective means of reducing crime and making law enforcement first
rate is to have highly visible patrol. She urged the Board not to make cuts
in the Sheriff's Department just because the state had not mandated money
be spent in that area.
She had other suggested cuts that could be made: 1) eliminate
the position of Director of Personnel; 2) consider closing down non
emergency county departments one day per week; 3) eleminate apparent
udget padding under the budget category of maintenance, structures,
improvement and grounds. She felt the expenses should be delineated
She was concerned in the Library. budget for the housei¢eeping'expense
to have increased from $138 in 1979-80 to $75,000 in 1981-82. She asked
the Board to check for errors in the Administrative Office recommendations.
On page 2 of his letter dated March 30, 1982, he recommended $1544 for
', the re-roofing of the bookmobile garage and on page recommended the book-
'. mobile be sold. That did not make sense.to her, The residents of Durham
', pay a substantial amount of property tax and pay doubly because one of the
sales tax spent in the cities come back to them. There is only $800,000
that goes to their school district from the $2.2 million paid in property
taxes. There is $73,000 applicated to the Park and Recreation District.
She had signatures of 176 people in the Durham area recommending the
Page 51.
', rfay 27, 1982
May 27, 1982
82- saving of the library, fire and deputies. The main criteria used-throughout
~', history for establishing government was for safety and security. Butte County
was on the-verge of making changes in goveriment of what the citizens consider
', the primary purpose for government.
3. Walter 3ohnston,. 18 Kimberly Lane, Chico. Mr. Johnston stated
he had done a study of the Sheriff's Office budget .over a period of seven
years.. They could prob.ab.ly use about 50 more dep,nties. He could find no
justification for expenditures that amounted to $244,000. There was no
explanation in the budget. There has been previous discussion about not
filling a captain's position and hiring two sergeants. He felt it would be
bettern to not fill the captain's position and hire two deputies to put in
the field. With the $244,000 in items with no justification and $192,000
calculated on 1981-82 monies would have almost $1/2 million to use. The
'figures he had worked out would give the Sheriff's Department the opportunity
Ito nearly meet the Board's recommendation for the budget without having to
'.lose any personnel. He questioned the fact that insurance, data processing
'and utilities were included as part of the operation budget for the Sheriff.
These are three items the Sheriff has not control over, which is over $1/4
million.
It was moved by Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
to direct the County Administrative Officer and Auditor-Controller to prepare
a proposed budget for the department in accordance with the Administrative
Officer's or department's recommendation or any modification by the Board
during the hearings and instruct the department head to effect any necessary
lay offs effective immediately and direct the Personnel Department to prepare
a salary ordinance amendment to delte all positions and make reclassifications
in accordance with the Board of Supervisors actions and to take any other
actions as requested, to add the requested $8,996 amount necessary to retain
the secretary position for the period as requested by the Sheriff, and the
Board is looking forward to making some adjustments upwards and looking for
an agreement on salary requests in this department, with the budget to be
$5,475,215 plus the $8,996 for the entire Sheriff's Department.
Supervisor Saraceni felt the number of positions should be left
up to the determination of the Sheriff. He wondered if the 46 deputy
positions was part of the motion being made. There might be more or less
depending on how the Sheriff operated his budget.
Supervisor Fulton stated his main question was dealing with what
$1/2 million would give them in terms of positions. The answer was 46
deputies. ,
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would like to see more deputies
but thought the determination should be with the department.
Supervisor Dolan was not clear what budget was being discussed
in the motion. She thought it was the Administrative Office budget
recommendation, which reduced the division by 25 deputies. The budget
proposal by Capt. Grey would reduce the number by 6 deputies. She thought
the Administrative Office proposal was 38 deputies and Capt. Grey's proposal
was 46 deputies.
Supervisor Fulton stated his motion involved the present budget
level of $5.4 million with a reduction of deputies to 27. The Board is
saying this is how much money the department has and the department is
saying this is how many people they can have with that much money. The
only figure in the motion is the Administrative Office recommendation of
$5475,215 with the additiona $8,996 for the secretary position. It is
obvious there will not be 50 deputies with $5.4 million.
Page 5Z.
May 27, 1982
82=
~'.
May 27, 1982
Mr. Pyeatt stated perhaps an ordinance might be presented to the
Board on June 8, 19.82. He could .meet with.the Sheriff and if there are some
adjustments within tha staffing to meet the •saime,money figure that would be
presented to the Board for consideration. The. Board might want to allow
a little flexibility over what they have recommended.
Chairman Wheeler stated that was her intent to allow the organiza-
tion the opportunity to think. the matter through.and maybe there can be some
changes comung forward.
Supervisor Dolan felt the message the Board was giving was the
Administrative Office proposal reducing the department by 25 deputies and
if the association were to change their mind about the salary increase the
number could be increased by eight or nine positions.
Mr. Pyeatt stated it was one of the reasons he mentioned meeting
with .the Sheriff. There have been at least two suggestions relating to
the investigation division and the captain position. It was his under-
standing there was on captain position, which supervises six people, and
another captain position, which was vacant. He would like to meet with
the department to discuss this matter.
Supervisor Fulton advised the result of the motion would be the
meeting between the Administrative Office and Sheriff to work these matters
out. He would never make a motion to reduce the number of deputies beyond
what they have to do.
Vote on motion:
AXES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Saraceni, Moseley and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
The hearing was continued to later in the meeting.
935
936
RECESS: 4:21 p.m.
RECONVENE: 4:28 p.m.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2287: WAIVE SECOND READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the second reading oe the salary ordinance amendment
which increases the compensation for members of the Law Enforcement Unit by
seven percent pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Union was
waived; Ordinance 2287 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
BUDGET REVIEW FOR PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1982-83
The budget review for proposed budget for 1982-83 was held :as
continued.
FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGETS, 450-001 & 450-002
Bill Teie, fire warden, spoke regarding the budget for the Fire
Department. They have complied with the request by the Board and reduced
their proposed budget by $1.2 million and prepared a budget. There has
been every attempt made to keep as many stations open as possible, but
the budget still does not fund seven stations. There are several staff
positions and fixed assets eliminated from the budget. This budget will
require, if they operate at $1.4 million,-the lay off of 32 state employees
coupled with the loss of 27 CETA positions in 1980 to be a minus 59 or
83 percent reduction in servic Pa a the last two years. In the package
g 53.
May 27, 1982
y
S 2-
{+''
_MaX 27, 19_82 ----- -- ___-- -__
C ~~ .~ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ..n ... - - - - - -
submitted, he had made recommendations if more.mone~.became.available.as to
how to reinstate the operation: Lt is listed in fiye priorities.. He could
not recommend the closnre.of any of the .12 stations., There are some things
they could do with reduction and postponing of some purchases and the eliminar
tion of one dispatch clerk.. He felt other than thaC iC was vital to maintain
any similance of protection that they-maintain the-force that exists. Even if
they are required to go back. to the manning leyels.of 1941, it would only close
three stations. With an additional $1/2 million, it would still not fund
Richvale, Bangor or Biggs stations plus the training officer. They requested
$64,000 in special department in order to keep-five stations open and they are
down to $17,000. They will still go to that many more fires but it will be
with less people and longer distances. The recommended cuts and re-anstate-
ments are based on his professional estimate if there has to be a cut and
which direction. If the county is divided north and south, the largest
cuts are north of Richvale than the south part. It is 60 percent versus
57 percent which works out to 58 percent overall.
He set out the reasons for the manning proposal that was presented.
There are a couple of stations, they could man on eight hours per day,
with Bangor being the easiest to justify. Most of the others he could not
recommend it because of the workload.. If they did not pay for the person,
they would be paying for it in overtime. The only real benefit of manning
a station 8 to 5 is to offset the loss of availability of the volunteers.
He set out what was happening as far as the fire season and his ability
to move vehicles from different parts of the county to other parts of the
county for protection while an engine was called out on a fire. The advantage
of having paid personnel is they can be sent all over the county and still
have the volunteers at those for protection on the home front. He asked
that the Board give him what money they could and he would do the best he
could with those funds. He could not predict the loss or damages to
structures from cutbacks. He set out the automatic aid agreement the
county has with the City of Biggs. If the station were closed, they would
have to rely on the volunteers of Biggs if the city remained under the
agreement.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Jan Holman, 1761 Garden Road, Durham. Ms. Holman handed out
(material to theBoard. This was a letter to the Board from her and others in
',Durham. The people in Durham feel the priorities in Durham are education,
fire and police protection. There is a cost of $132,000 to operate the
Durham fire station for the salaries of the 2-1/2 paid positions to allow
for one fully trained fireman on call 24 hours.per day. This also pays for
the engine house and maintenance of the station and insurance on the truck.
(The volunteers take care of the insurance and other things. One person and
one county fire truck could be classified as skeletal fire protection in
the county. The Durham Volunteer Fire Department is supported by the
community which contributes to the high level of fire protection in Durham.
Through requests for donations and the annual bean feed, the volunteers
raised over $40,000 from 1952 to the present with $32,000 between 1972
and the present. The money to purchase the lot for the fire station was
raised by the Rotary Club, the foundation of the station as well as all
the concrete was volunteered, and one man almost single handed built the
station. Subsequent stations were built by contractors at a much greater
expense. Since 1970 the volunteers have purchased an International truck
and put a 1,250 gallon milk tank on it to hall water and the cost was
$12,528. The pump installed by the volunteers cost $4,000. Tn 1978,
the volunteers purchased a 3/4 ton Food chassis and wrecked utility body
which was fixed up and cost $6,630. This is a first class rescue unit
now. The people of Durham Have never expected the county to provide total
fire protection for the community. She urged rejection of any attempt to
close the Durham fire station. Page 54.
May 27, 1982
8 2-
~',
S'1ay_ 27,_1982
2. Lynn Dempsey,-2475 Burdick Road, Durham. SSs. Dempsey submitted
a total of 776 signatures on the Durham area.. The figures that•have been
used for the property taxes paid from Durham are figures-she researched and
they are xough figures. She would be making a presentation next week on
the library in Durham. She-was also presented'.letters-from the Third
Grath Class on the Library at this time.
3. Reverend. Nick Castello, Bangor. Reverend Castello had four
suggestions for the Board's con$ideration. The Department of Forestry was
giving the county a good deal on protection and administrative coordination.
He asked the Board to consider looking at equal funding for all stations.
He felt any cuts should be across-the board. The recommendation is for
the southern end of the county to be totally unprotected by paid fire
engines. The Bangor, Palermo, Richvale and Biggs stations would be staffed
solely by volunteers. These areas have the most volatile grasslands that
could catch fire. Bangor Fire Station is the backup station for the Kelly
Ridge station. That station would be manned. The county does not have any
control over the volunteers and who would show up for what fire. The fire
hazards are outrageious with the grass running four to five feet hight in
their area. The store in Bangor might be forced out of business because of
the high fire insurance reates which would result because of the closure
of the station. If the store is closed, the county will lose sales tax
revenue. The fire insurance €or the church and residents will also increase.
Bangor has three services provided by the county, which are roads, fire
and police. They have been told the roads will be cut to almost nothing.
The Sheriff's Department will not respond further than five miles of the
city limits. The only thing left for Bangor is fire protection services.
They cannot stop a wildland fire. He understood the sales tax revenue
in the rural areas of the county in discretionary funds was almost $4 million.
The unincorporated property taxes are another $4.6 million. He asked that
the Board have across the board funding for the stations,fuller dayling
manning of the stations, continuance of state administration and coordination
for fire protection and the Board to recognize their responsibility to help
protect the people and property in the rural areas.
Discussion of across the board funding for the twelve stations
held at this time, rlr. Teie stated if fie had an additional $1 million, he
could keep all the stations open as they are now. He could not recommend
an across the board cut for use in the county. If it were set out that
the county from the General Fund would fund 40 percent of the budget and
the 20 percent would come from the residences, the cost to the x'esidents
per year would range from $30 to $130. Hs concern was not any particular
station but making sure the system works. Tha value of a station is not
necessarily the protection of that area it protects. There is a need for
three engines on structural fires and they cannot afford to have three
engines in every station. He set out the backup situation in the county.
If the county reduces the paid force, he would have to evaluate the
CDF movement. They could not move down to the valley as much as they
have been doing. That was the trade off. The only reduction they are
taling about is people. There would have to be engines for the volunteers.
4. Ronald Engle, 92 Kern Street, Chico. Mr. Engle stated this
was an overall issue of fire services. He completed his master's degree
on mutual aid from the Department of Forestry and U.S. Forest Service.
He prepared data which he has presented to Chairman Wheeler. This involves
people and structures not just land, r'Ir. Teie ref erred. to the state
responsibility areas and engines, and what the state would be doing for
the county. The state engines do not just set and wait for fires in Butte
County but are moved from area to area within the state. If the state
budget is already in trouble, there will be pressure put on the Department
of Forestry for some of their engines. This will increase the risks.
Page 55.
May 27, 1982
M,ay_27,_1982
Lf the county-reduces this year, they might face-additional reductions in
1983-84 with..the state engines. When the professionals are taken out of the
station, the county is asking the :tolunteers to•train and .lead themselves.
This will reduce the effectiveness and cohesiveness of the volunteer fire
service.
5. Arwood Homeword, 2958 5th Street, Biggs. Mr. Homeword stated
he was a volunteer and did not get paid but.a token amount. It appears there
is a great threat to a great many people in Biggs if they lost the paid
firemen in Biggs. The volunteers lean heavily on the paid firemen. There
is a reciprocal-agreement for responding to fires outside the city. There
was a grass fire the city was called to when there was a county truck which
was manned by one man to fire a large grass fire and could not handle it.
There would have been a good deal of damage without the volunteers of Biggs.
He asked if any cuts are made that they not be made in personnel. San
Francisco and Kansas City tried cutbacks and found the engines were not as
important as the manpower.
6. Bill Thebach, Biggs. Mr. Thebach stated the City of Biggs
purchased the property for the fire station and deeded it to the county.
From the day the department was built the city paid the electric, water
and s-ewer bills. There are five large dryers and one large rice mill.
It is important to have a paid fire department when 95 percent of the
people work out of town. Fifty percent or better of the calls received
are life support system calls.
7. Ramon LaFevre, Bangor. Mr. LaFevre stated history recorded
that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. He asked that the Board consider
how history would remember them.
8. Milt Persons, 382 B Street, Biggs. Mr. Persons stated
homes burnt down in Biggs like everywhere else. They pay more than their
share of property taxes and they need the fire protection. He felt they
were as entitled to fire protection as Paradise and Oroville.
9. Irene Graham, Biggs. Ms. Graham objected to the stations
in Biggs being closed.
10. David Hurst, representing the volunteer chiefs association.
Mr. Hurst stated the volunteers do the best job possible.
Chairman Wheeler stated she could not make major cuts in this
particular department. It has been one of the~most fiscally responsible
departments and provided the highest possible level of service for the
county.
Supervisor Saraceni was not prepared to take action on this
budget. He would like to have time to take a look at this matter. It
is a very high priority.
The budget meeting wzs continued to June 3, 1982 at 10:30 a.m.
937
RECESS; 5:17 p.m.
RECONVENE: 5:2I p.m.
ADOPT ORDTNANCE 2288 :.BUTCH. RANDALL INTERIM "RT=1rA" ZONE
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, an interim "RT-1--_A" zone for property identified as AP 48-062-35
for Butch Randall was approved; Ordinance 2288 was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign. AYES: Supervisors Pulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler. NOES: Supervisor Dolan.
Page 56.
May 27, 1982
82- 938
~' I
May 27, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ r ~ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ - - - - - - -
DTSCUSSION; DAN HAXS IN.DLTSTRIAL REZONE FOR PROPERTX LOCATED ON PENTZ ROAD
Steve Streeter; planning department; .set .out the background o£
what should be done with the Dan Hays industral.rezone for property located
on Pentz Road. County Counsel has stated tYiere should be a public hearing
before the planning Commission instead of just~a,referral to the commission.
Supervisor Dolan stated they had referred a new project with
conditional zoning.
Chairman Wheeler did not feel that was the intent of the Board's
action.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised the zone was going to be
conditional conditions on the "M-1" zone. He thought it could be referred
back under the referral process for a 40--day response time from the commission.
Tt is still an "M-1" zone.
RECESS: 5:26 p.m.
RECONVENE; 5:28 g.m.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 5:29 p.m. to hold~a closed session
regarding a personnel matter.
RECONVENE: The. Board reconvened at 5:36 p.m. following a closed session
regarding a personnel matter. No decisions made at this time.
RECESS: The Board recessed at 5:37 p.m. to reconvene on Thursday, June 3,
1982 at 10:30 a. m.
Page 57.
May 27, 1982