HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061582June 15, 1982
82
a
983
iTATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
;OUNTY OF BUTTE )
The Board of Supervisors met at 9;0.0- a.m. pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, 24oseley; Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officers Del Siemsen, county counsel; and
Eleanor M. Becker; county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk tothe Board.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Clay Castleberry
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the minutes of May 18 and May 25, 1982 were app roved
as mailed with the amendment to the minutes of May 18, 1982 as follows:
Minute order 82-875 to show Supervisor Wheeler voting yes.
Minute order 82-880, pages 14, 15 and 16 ~~o, reflect as Follows:
agricultural/residential interface conflicts, potential loss of agriculture
and, traffic increases and congestion, energy consumption, and potential
loss of archaeological sites. Many, but not all, of the above-listed
impacts can be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, or in connection
with community improvement projects which may be undertaken in the future
with public or private funding. The likelihood of such mitigation is too
speculative for evaluation at this time.:
2. With the exception of the "No project" alternative, the alternative listed
on Page 41 of the ETR have been incorporated into the current proposal
where such incorporation has been found consistent with community desires
for rezoning specific areas and General Plan goals and policies.
Specific findings with regard to the alternatives are as follows:
a. Alternative 1 - No Project. The "No project" alternatives can be divid@d
into two categories, the first being no building or development within
the project area whatsoever, and the second being simply to retain the
existing zoning districts. The first of these is being rejected
because it is not politically feasible or realistic or consistent
with the desires of the community. Zoning tools to implement this
alternative is not likely to be adopted. Leaving the zoning districts
as they are is being rejected because the proposed zoning districts
more accurately reflect community goals and the policies of the
General Plan.
b. Alternative 2 - Modify Proposed Land Use Categories. This alternative
was applicable for the General Plan Amendment. Modifications were
implemented in portions of the project area.
c. Alterative 3 - Relocate Land Use and Zoning Boundaries. Several
locations within the project area have been modified from the original
• zoning proposal. Approximately- 140 acres- adjacent to the City of
Biggs are proposed for "R-1" and R 3" rather than the originally
proposed "SR-1".
Approximately 210 acres near the City of Gridley have been changed
from "SR-1" to "A-5", and approximately 370 acres have been changed
from "A-5" to "SR-1", resulting in a 160 acre increase in the amount
of "SR-1". Also near Gridley, 175 acres have been changed from "A-5"
Page 118.
June 15, 1982
s
_ _Ju_ne_1_5, 1982-- ____~-___-______
- to "A-10", and bb0 acres-in the ~lanzanita District have been modified
from "A-40" to "A-10".- These changes were-made to reflect recent
development and the desires of residents in the subject areas; and,
further making the following findings, by areas identified on the
rezone exhibit;
Area 1: "A 5" zoning is appropriate since the predominant parcel size
are less than 5 acres in size wstfi.parcels that are 10 acres or larger,
thus available for further division. "A 20" zoning would not make a
great differencein the agricultural viabilityof Area 1.
Area 2: "SR-1" zoning is appropriate since the predominant parcel sire
is 1 acre or less in size. The 1/2•mile, more or less, distance from the
city limits would not preclude annexation of intervening large parcels
proposed for "A-5" zoning. "A-5" zoning would preclude further land
division, but the existing parcels would represent infilling of an area
which currently is not conducive to commercial agricultural operations.
Area 3: "A 5" zoning is appropriate for the western half of Area 3. The
eastern half of Area 3 has existing small parcels (down to 1/3 acre)
around the periphery, thus compromising the viability of commercial
agricultural operations. For these reasons, "SR-1" zoning is deemed
more appropriate than "A-5" in the eastern half.
Area 4: Area 4A, proposed for "SR-1" zoning, is designated Low Density
Residential by the Butte County General Plan; a zone larger than a 1 acre
zone is not listed as a consistent zone. For that reason, "A-5" zoning
is not considered appropriate for this parcel.
Area 4B & C: "SR-1" zoning is appropriate rather than "A-5" or "M-2"
due to the existing predominant parcel size, generally less than 2 acres,
and the fact that "l+~ 2" (heavy industrial) zoning is not appropriate
immediately adjacent to or on existing residential properties.
Area 5: "A-5" zoning is appropriate for the eastern half of Area 5. "SR-1"
zoning is appropriate, rather than "A-S", for the western half since it
is designated Law Density Residential by the General Plan; a zoae•larger
than a 1 acre zone is not listed as a consistent zone.
Area 6: "A-10" is appropriate for the northeast portion of Area 6. '!How-
ever, the remaining portion of Area 6 is predominantly less than 10 acre
parcels. For that reason "A-10" zoning is not considered appropriate;
"A-5" zoning is proposed. ,
Area 7: "SR-1" zoning would be consistent with the current parcel sizes.
The configuration of the area and its physical constraints, such as a
large/pond drainage area west of the railroad track, would limit potential
land divisions. Since the majority of the parcels are 3 acres or less
in size, "A-5" zoning was not deemed appropriate.
Area 8: "AR=ME1-1" zoning is proposed to recognize the predominant parcel
size; most of the parcels are less than 3 acres in size. For that reason,
"A-5" zoning was- not considered appropriate.
Area 9: "SR-1" zoning was agreed upon by both. the City of Gridley and
the County of Butte as being consistent with existing parcels.
Area 10: "SR-l" zoning was proposed since the predominant parcel size is
2 acres or less. For that reason, "A-5" zoning was not deemed appropriate.
Only 3 parcels are 5 acres or more in siae.
Page 119.
June '15, 1982
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -_ sTune 15L 1982 = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Area ll; "A-10" zoning was. agreed-upon by both. the City of Gridley and
the County of-Butte as being cona~istent with-the underlying subdivision
for the entire area.
8:
b
Area 12: ~`M--2" zoning was proposed through "N~1" zoning reflected the
earlier interim zoning. Heavy industrial us e. is represented by the rice
drying operation.
Area 13; "A-5" zoning is considered consistent with the physical con-
straints of the property involved. "AR-MH-1" and, "SR-1"zoning would
require additional study to warrant parcel sizes of down to 1 acre.
Area 14: "SR-1" zoning is proposed. This represents enlarging the allowed
parcel size from what would have been allowed under the existing "A-R"
(agricultural-residential) zoning (1/5 acre under "A-R" and 1 acre under
"SR-1" zoning): "A-R" zoning would have allowed multi-family residential
uses with a use permit. "A-5" zoning would represent a drastic down-
zoning from the existing "A-R" zoning (1/5 acre to 5 acres).
Although there may be a significant adverse environmental effects
resulting from development which would be allowed pursuant to approval of this
project, there axe overriding considerations which justify project approval.
These overriding considerations include:
1. The Butte County General Pian has been amended for the subject area and
State law requires that zoning districts lie established which conform to
the General Plan designations. This project is apart of an ongoing process
to phase out "A-2" zoning.
2. The zoning districts being established represent an improvement over
present zoning. districts for the area in that they were formulated with the
help of citizen input to more effectively implement the goals and object-
ives of-the Butte County General Plan.
3. The zoning districts being establishedare potentially less environmentally
damaging at full buildout than the zoning districts which previously were
in effect for the area, while still providing room fox community expansion.
4. The zoning districts under consideration provide areas for rural homesites
on large parcels which will offer area residents the opportunity to offset
food and energy resource demand by becoming partially self-sufficient
through producing on the premises a portion of their food and energy
needs;
Having made the above .findings for the Gridley-Biggs rezone, Ordinance
l~285 establishing the zoning districts for the Gridley Biggs area was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
Supervisors Moseley, 5araceni and Chairman Wheeler
Supervisors Dolan and Fulton
984 ADDITIONAL ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE DAY
Supervisor Dolan read a telegram fmm the state relative to
Scotty's Boat Landing and the fact that it might not be situated on state
property, and the eviction notice was rescinded.
985 GIANELLA BRIDGE DESIGNATED AS TEiE N0: l.PRIORITY PROJECT
Chairman Wheeler received information-from Sacramento to the
effect that if the county would go on record indicating that the Gianella
Bridge is the county's No. 1 project at this time, there is a chance that
it might be placed back in the STIP for 19.82-83.
Page 120.
', June 15, 1982
B 2=
b ',
986
987
June 15, 1482
0[t motion o~ Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Sugervis,or Dolan
and unanimously carried, the Board went on record indicating that at this
particular tithe, knpwi:ng that there are other porjects that certainly are
very important to the needs. in the north. state, full well knowing that this
project may be the one that•may he replaced in the STIP for 1982-83, Gianella
Bridge was designated as the county`s No. 1 priority project.
F.ublic Works Director to immediately contact Chairman of the Trans,
portation Committee to advice e of action taken by the Board. Official letter
to also be written.
ADOPT RESOLUTTON5 82-44 & 82-95: APPR04E CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Consideration of resolution giving notice of intent to form an Adult
Day Health Care Council and resolution setting office hours for the Butte
County Library System was pulled from the consent agenda.
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervis or Dolan
and unanimously carried, the following action was taken:
1. Approved budget •transfers as set forth in the June 10, 1982
memo from Administrative Office attached as Addendum 1 to the minutes.
2. Adopted Resolution 82-94 designating the Board of Supervisors
contractor for grant purposes and approving local arts plan; adopted
Resolution 82-95 authorizing execution of California Arts Council grant
in the amount of $4,007.51; and the Chairman authorized to sign.
3. Approved permit to provide fireworks display at Silver Dollar
Fairground July 4, 1982 by Red Devil Fireworks Company.
4. Cancelled Armin Speckert agricultural preserve contract (Land
Conservation Act agreement) for AP 56-21--57 in accordance wi th Section
512$2.5. of the Government Code.
5. Approved contract change order No. 5, Supplement 1 that
provides for specifying working days for CCO No. 5 with no costs involved;
contract change order No. 12 in the decreasing amount of $45,865 providing
for elimination of Type 27 barrier railing; contract change order No. 14,
in the increasing amount of $4,000 providing for various changes in the
road approach construction; contract change order No. 15 in the decreasing
amount of $91.24 providing for an adjustment in costs for prestressing;
contract change order No. 16 in the decreasing amount of $1,764 providing
for eliminating a wheelchair ramp and revising the concrete curb and gutter;
contract change order No. 17 in the increasing amount of $239.55 providing
for a separate electrical circuit for lighting the old bridge; on Table
'Mountain Boulevard Bridge Project No. 28491-76-1 and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
6. Accepted the work of Robinson Construction Co ., Inc. for
th.e Lower Wyandotte Road Project No. 23511-79-1; authorized the Chairman
to sign the notice of completion and directed the Clerk to record said
notice with. the Recorder.
7. Set a public hearing date of June 24, 1482 at 10:30 a.m. fox
consideration of proposed increase in building permit fees to reflect
increased costs due to new energy regulations.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-46 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON NOTICE OF INTENT TO
FORM ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE COUNCIL
Discussion of formation of the Adult Day Health Care Council
held at this time. Several Board members had concerns that this would
be an overlapping of services. Page 121.
• June 15, 1482
8 2-
June 15, 1982
- The purpose of the putilic hearing is to Ye.ceive input relative
to the proposed formation of the council. At the. time o~ the hearing, the
Board would express concerns, about this program.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by~5upervisor Saraceni
and unani:7nously carried, 'Resolution 82-•96 setting a public hearing date of
July 13, 1982 at 11:00 a.m. for notice of intent to form an Adult Day Health
Care Council for the purpose of investigating the possible development of
an Adult Day Health Care Center was adopted and the Chairman authorized to
sign.
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SETTING OFFICE HOURS FOR THE BUTTE COUNTY LIBRARX
SYSTEM REFERRED BACK TO ADMINISTRATIVE. OFFICE TO 'MEET WITH LIBRARIAN
988
Allan Ochs, Paradise Library, spoke regarding the proposed office
hours. He felt there was a mistake in the resolution since there were no
hours for Thursday under Oroville and Paradise Libraries. The employees
were concerned about the proposed winter hours in which staff would have to
work a six-day week every other week and be present on Saturday. He was
concerned with the hours for Saturdays and whether two staff members would
be sufficient during the winter. With this proposal the three major branches
will be open 34 hours, when the Administrative Office proposal was for the
branches to be open 30 hours.
The matter was referred back to the Administrative Office to
meet with the Librarian on the concerns and to bring the matter back to the
Board.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS LMPLEMENTTNG PERSONNEL
ACTIONS INDICATED IN PROPOSED BUDGET: PERSONNEL DIRECTOR INSTRUCTED TO
CONTACT LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the Personnel Director was directed to contact the
Law Eitfvrcement Association and discuss with them any issue they may deem
pertinent relative to the MOU, and possible reopening of the contract to
allow for meet and confer.
989
Chairman Wheeler presented the update on the lay off process
for the county employees effected in the budget process. As a result of
budget actions they calculated there were 133-1/2 positions deleted out
of 1030.65 positions. There were 12.75 positions added back into the
budget throught shifting of budgets with a net total-of,positions of 959.59.
This is about an 11 percent reduction in the county work force. The total
positions delted is about 120 positions and of. those 120 positions there
were a total of 49-lay off notices sent. There are approximately seven
positions that are vacant due to retirement and will be termed lay offs,
with a net long term lay off of county employees of axound 41 positions.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out his proposal
relative to the Buildings and Grounds F2ivision. He has three people who
will be retiring by September and would like to retain three positions
until that time and then issue lay off notices effective in September.
He felt this would be considering long term employees. This would be to
allow two positions to be kept from two months longer and for one positions
to be retained for three months longer.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni., seconded by Sup ervisor•~'Moseley
that the first reading ;of .the salary ordinance. amendmezik implementing the
personnel actions indicated in the proposed budget with. the change of the
three positions" in the Buildings and Grounds budget as proposed by Public
Works Director be waived.
Page 122.
June 15, 1982
8 2-
~I
June_ 15, 1982>: _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ T = - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
Motion amended to delete portion of the salary ordinance amendment
^elative to the Sheriff`s- Department.
Vote on motion: .
AYES; Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseleyy Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
990
99.1
992
993
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the first reading of the salary ordinance amendment
implementing personnel actions indicated in the proposed budget for the
Sheriff's Department was waived.
ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 82-97 & 82-98 ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS LIMITS FOR
COUNTY OF .BUTTE AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNAER BOARD'S CONTROL FOR FISCAL YEAR
1982-83
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by S•uperoisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the following resolutions-were adopted and the
Chairman authorized to sign:
1. Resolution 82-97 establishing appropriations limits for the
County of Butte for fiscal year 1982-83.
2. Resolution 82-98 establishing appropriations limits for the
special districts under the Board's control for fiscal year 1982-83.
SUPPORT BUTTE COUNTY FAIR CASH FLOW FROM GENERAL FUND UNTIL MID AUGUST WHEN
FAIR REVENUES WILL INCREASE TO ALLEVIATE NEGATIVE CASH FLOW SITUATION
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded liy Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried the Butte County Fair cash flow was supported from
the General Fund until mid August when Fair revenues will increase to
alleviate the negative cash flow situation.
APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO OROVILLE AREA TRANSIT CONTRACT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the contract amendment to the Oroville Area Transit
contract with Oroville Bus Lines to extend the agreement through June 30,
1983 and increasing compensation to $16.05 per vehicle hour of service at
a net cost to Butte County projected to be $45,600 comprised of $12,287
in SB 325 funds and $33,313 in SB 620 funds was approved and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
ADOPT RE56LUTTON 82-99: APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the following action was taken:
1. Approved contract amendment to Paradise Express contract for
fiscal year 1982-83 with the Town of Paradise which would continue this
agreement through June 30, 1983 and provide for payment of $3,700 to
Butte County Public Works for administration of the contract and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
2. Approved revised transit claim for fiscal year 1981-82 which
revises the amount of SB 325 and SB 620 funds requested from BCAG for bus
systems only based on the latest estimate of expenditures through June 30,
1982 for a total of .$12,287 in SB 325 and $141,610 in SB 620 funds.
Page 123.
June 15, 1982
8 2-
994
99 5
_ _ _ June 15, 1982 __ _________ __
3. ,Approved transit clai'tn for fi•s.cal year 1982-83 requesting^SB 325
and SB.620. funds: front SCAG for the fiscal-year 1982-83 operation, of all public
and special services transportation in which. Butte County participates with
a total of $284,402 in SB 325 funds and $163,298 in SB 620 funds.:being
requested.
4. Adopted resolution 8 299 authorizing tTi.e Director of Public
Works to enter into and sign subsidized taxi. ticket sales agreements on
behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the Chairman authorized to sign.
5. Approved contract amendment to Oroville Express contract which
extends the agreement with Oroville Bus Lines through June 30; 1982 and
increases compensation to $2.55 per ticket for regular tickets and to $7.00
per ticket for wheelchair van tickets with a net cost to Butte County
projected at $54,228 to be funded with SB 325 funds and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF PUBLIC WORKS ROAD EQUIPMENT
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, purchase of a roller with trailer at a cost of
$10,685, a tilt trailer at a cost of $8,495 and a stencil truck at a cost
of $29,590 for a total cost of $48,773 was: authorized for the Public Works
Department.
MOTION TO DESIGNATE OROVILLE OFFICE AS VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE INSTEAD OF
CHT:Cfl OFFICE FAIL5
Discussion of the Veterans Service Office location held at this
time. Mike Pyeatt; interim administrative officer, set out the workload
statistics for six months in the Oroville and Chico offices. He asked for
clarifcation of the location of the office to remain open.
Supervisor Fulton could see no reason to change the designation
of the Chico office. The veterans he has talked to feel Chico is the best
location, there is transportation access to Chico and it would be abetter
location if there were a tri--county office. There is also the advantage
of using work study students if the office were in Chico which is not
possible in Oroville.
Supervisor Saraceni felt that the workload statistics show that
Oroville is the office that receives the largest number of calls .and people.
He felt that this should be given consideration.
Supervisor Dolan felt the statistics. for the Oroville office
could be because the files were maintained at the Oroville office. This
could have an effect on the numbers of people coming to Oroville. Chico
is a larger population area and has direct bus transportation to Paradise.
There are also agencies in the Chico area which have notified the county,
they will assist with outreach. It is important to have a facilities
that will aceomodate the handicapped.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that due to the fad that the Oroville Veterans Service Office has the largest
percentage of people attending that office that the Oroville office be
designated as the main and only Veterans Service Office in the county.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni,
NOES: Super•v% ors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
Motion faias.
Page 124.
June~15, 19.82
8;
996
997
998
June 15, 1982---- ______________
RECESS; 9.57 .a.m.
RECONVENE; 10,13 a.m.
AUTHORIZE'I'hIMEDIATE PURCHASE OF xEROX 1''OR ASSESSOR
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded lay Supervisor Fulton
and unani~tnously carried, the i~nediate purchase of a Xerox 740 unit in
the amount of $4,662.9.4 ,for the Assessor's Office- was authorized.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2289: INTERIM "A-40" ZONE .FOR PLACER SERVICB CORPORATION P
PROPERTX LOCATED ON NORTH HONCUT`CREEK NEAR COX LANE
Bettye Kirsher, planning director, set out the request by Placer
Service Corporation to have their property located on North Honcut Creek
near Cox Lane interim zoned "A-40" from "A-5" zoning. The request is
to enable exploration for mining purposes. There are in excess of 1,070
acres involved and almost all the parcels are under Land Conservation
Act agreements.
Time was spent discussing whether some of the other "A-5"
zoning in the area could be incorporated in this interim. No action
was taken on additional properties under the "A-5" zoning.
Oa motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
axed unanimously carried, the property for Placer Service Corporation
located on North Honcut Creek near Cox Lane was interim zoned "A-40"
(agricultural - 40 acre parcel) zoning for a period of 120 days; Ordinance
2289 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING: BUDGET TRANSFER, FIRE PROTECTION
The public hearing on budget transfer, Fire Protection was held
as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
999
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the following budget transfer was approved:
B-213 - Fire Protection. Appropriates $14,600 of unanticipated
revenues from deposit trusts to install fire hydrants in water districts
serviced by OWID, TID and California Water.
PUBLIC HEARING: BUDGET TRANSFER BUILDINGS AND. GROUNDS MAINTENANCE ISF
The public hearing on Buildings and Grounds Maintenance ISF
(budget transfer was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the following budget transfer was approved:
B-212 - Buildings and Grounds Maintenance ISF. Proposed is the
transfer of $2;000 from the appropriation for contingencies, General Fund,
for the purpose of repairing padding in the Butte County Tail and Juvenile
Hall padded cells.
Page 125.
June 15, 19$2
June 15, 1982
82~ 1000 PUBLIC HEARING; GERALD LUGENBEEL PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPEAL
V OF APPROVED USE PERMIT TO .ALLOW-HOME OCCUPATION WHICH MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE
BY REASON OF NOISE, AND A VARI~INCE TO THE SIDEXARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A STUDIO
THREE FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE AND A TOOL SHED AT PROPERTY LINE, ON PROPERTY
', ZONED "A-ld" (AGRICULTtfRAL - 10 ACRE PARCELS), LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF ELK AVENUE AND PIERCE AVENUE, APPROX: THREE 'MILES SOUTHWEST OF CHI CO
The public hearing on Gerald Lugenbeel proposed negative declaration
', and appeal by Archie and Ruth Paterson of an approved use permit to allow
a home occupation which nay be objectionable by-reason of noise, and a variance
', to the sideyard setback to allow a studio three feet from the property line
and a tool shed at the property line, on property zoned "A-10" (agricultural -
', 10 acre parcels), located on the northeast corner of Elk Avenue and Pierce
Avenue, approximately three miles southwest of Chico was held as advertised.
Bettye Kirsher, planning director, set out the background of the
appeal. She presented photographs to the Board at this time. The noise
levels have not been achieved as of the last testing that was done.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
', 1. Neil McCabe, representing Mr. and Mrs. Archie Paterson. Mr.
', McCabe set out the documents that were presented to the Board as exhibits
at this time:
Exhibit 1. Letter and petition from Mr. and Mrs. Paterson
Exhibit 2. Staff report dated December 16, 1981
Exhibit 3. Letter from Gerald Lugenbeel dated October 5, 1981
to concerned agency.
Exhibit 4. Planning Commission minutes dated December 16, 1981
Exhibit 5. Memo from Zoning Investigator dated March 16, 1982
Exhibit 6. Planning Commission minutes dated March 17, 1982
Exhibit. 7. Memo from Environmental Health dated May 5, 1982
Exhibit 8. Planning Commission minutes dated May 6, 1982
Exhibit 9. Memo from Environmental Health dated May 12, 1982
Exhibit 10. Planning Commission minutes dated May 13, 1982
Exhibit 11. List of firings of furnace and oven prepared by
the Patexsons.
Exhibit 12. Letter from Bill and Ne11 D. Cottingham dated June 3, 1982.
Mr. McCabe summarized the concerns by Mr, and Mrs. Paterson which
included safety, noise and traffic. They were concerned that Mr. Lugenbeel
would not meet the requirements of the conditions even after they had been
imposed. He could not see how the Planning Commission could make the
findings when the documented noise levels exceed those allowable in the
General Plan. The furnace is being used at this time and there is no
wall that has been constructed. He felt the problems could have been
avoided if the permits had been sought timely before construction was
started.
Supervisor Dolan would like an opportunity to meet with the
applicant on this matter.
Supervisor Fulton questioned Counsel on the Board's ability to
require the applicant to cease and desist until such time as he was in
** ', compliance with all the conditions.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that xhe applicant would
be in violation of the zona.ng.if'the use permit were denied and-the county
could proceed on a zoning violation. The applicant is technically in
violation of the zoning without compliance of the use permit and variance.
If this is continued, the Board could notify the applicant to stop processings.
Page 126.
June 15, 1982
June 15, 1982
B
Supervisor Dolan suggested that someone in the county call the
applicant and advise him that the Board is considering his application and
did not want him to izse the studio .until the application is approved or
denied. The record indicates the applicant was told that before.
Ms. Kirsher advised that they tried to get voluntary compliance
from the applicant. Until the Board takes action there is no way to get
into litigation and therefore, it would almost have to lie voluntary compliance.
Supervisor Dolan asked that the matter could be continued so
she could check out the information relative to whether the masonry wall
would stop the noise.
Staff directed to contact applicant and ask him to cease and desist
and to attend the next meeting if at ail possible.
The hearing was continued to June 22, 1982 at 10:00 a.m.
1001
PUBLIC HEARING: MARION GARBIS APPEAL OF DENIED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP,
AP 54-05-61, FOUR PARCELS, ON ALTA TINA DRIVE, 1/2 MILE NORTH OF TEN MILE
Ei1>7USE TRAIL, FOREST RANCH AREA
The public hearing on Marion Garbis appeal of denied tentative
parcel map (item on which an EIR was requested), AP 54-05-61, four parcels,
on Alta Tina Drive, 1/2 mile north of Ten Mile House Trail, Forest Ranch
area was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the appeal. This deals with further divisions in the Highway 32 area
and meetings with Caltrans on concerns without meeting proper access to
this area. Caltrans has asked that the road access not be improved until
someone goes with ;an EIR and public road approaches.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that the problem is the
state is saying that public road approaches are county projects and require
environmental study. Previous Board's did not fund environmental studies
for public road approaches and approved prior parcel maps. The state will
no longer look favorably at the use of field purposes for access to land on
both sides of Highway 32.
Bettye Kirsher, planning director, stated the project was further
compounded with the information from the Department of Fish and Game
relative to concerns of development of key winter migratory areas. There
are recommended mitigation measures that should be considered in light of
this additional information. The entire project is before the Board and it
is a little more than the access on Highway 32. She set out the previous
Board discussions relative to Santos Drive and access of one foot for Santos
Drive to touch the state maintained road. At that time, the Board determined
there should be an EIR done but they would not finance the study as it should
be done by interested property otaners. It was her understanding that efforts
on behalf of the applicants is that they have not been successful at this
time. Tf there were adequate area for leach fields and replacement the
map could probably be rearranged to allowed for the deer herds.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Russ Croninger, Ringel
and Associates, representing Marion Garbis. Mr. Croninger was appealing
the decision of the Advisory Agency on the basis that it had previously
been stated that a project cannot be denied based on the conditions of
another agency. He has a project just shouth.of this project and that
condition was omitted. He was. asking that the condition on the project
,read provide 6O--foot of access to Highway 32. This person is the key person
(with one other person that they are working on with. Caltrans to provide
Page 127.
June I5, 1982
8 2-
S
1002
June 15, 1982 ___ ________
= R ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ ~ _ - - -
access for this area and have discussed an EIR on the mitigation concerns of
Alta Tina Drive. This is just north of Santos Drive, 1,300 feet. off the road
and has four or five houses-next to Highway 32. If the denial is because he
could not have ,the condition placed on the -map, how could he proceed? If the
project is denied what was going to be done for environmental impacts. The
Planning Directors report spoke to comments from state agencies relative to
the fact that private applicants cannot file for road access.
rIr. Castleberry advised that if the.applicant would get together
to provide all the fees and costs for the environmental study, the county
would make application to the state for road access.
Mr. Croninger suggested that the hearing be continued so that
he could meet with Public Works andCounty Counsel to discuss the wording
on the condition.
The hearing was continued to June 22, 1982 at 10:45 a.m.
PUBLIC?HEA'RING: FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA N0. 85, CARRIAGE MANOR
(STREETLIGHTING~ '
The public hearing on formation of County Service Area No. 85,
Carriage Manor (streetlighting) was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Wayne Newman. Mr.
Newman questioned the size of the county service area and how many lights
there would be in the area.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out where the street
lights would be located .s,
The hearing was continued to later in the meeting.
1003
PUBLIC HEARING: HARRY KOENIG AND PAT GATES APPEAL OF CONDITIONS ON TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAPS FOREST RANCH AREA
The public hearing on the following items was held as advertised:
1. Harry Koenig appeal of condition 11 and 17 on tentative parcel
map, AP 63-12-04 (portion), dividing 21.7 acres to create four parcels on
6.6 acres and three at more or less five acres located on the southwest
corner of A. J. Stohr Road and Forest Ranch Road, Forest Ranch area.
2. Pat Gates appeal of condition 15 and 16 on tentative parcel
map, AP 63-12-12 dividing 23 acres more or less to create four parcels, two
at 6.5 acres and two at 5 acres, more or less, on the northwest corner of
A. J. Stohr Road and Forest Ranch Road, Forest Ranch area.
The hearings were continued to June 29, 1982 at 10:30 a.m.
1004
1005
DISCUSSION TO SUPPLEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR JOHN D. DRAKE AND
HOWARD ISOM REZONE CONTINUED_ TO JUNE 29, 1982
The discussion on supplementing the EIR for John D. Drake and
Howard Isom rezone was continued to June 29, 1982.
APPEARANCE: JAMES HURST
Mr. Hurst asked permission from the Board to remove the flag
pole in front of the County building i.n Paradise since it has never had
a flag on it and relocate it at the entrance to the County Center. He would
be happy to donate the flag. The cost would be~minimal to the county in the
relocation of the pole because of volunteer work by the veterans. They would
like to build a monument to Supervisor Lemke.
Page 128.
June 15, 1982
8 2-,
ji
100b1
1007
10081
10091
1010 I
1011
--______--===June 15:1982___________________
On motion of Supervisor Moseley-, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously- carried., James Hurst~s proposal to dedicate a flag pole in
front of the county building to former Supervisor Lemke was accepted.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM HIRING FREEZE FOR PROBATION DEPARTMENT CONTINUED TO
JUNE 24, 1982
The request for relief from the hiring freeze for the Probation
Office for 2.5 positions was continued to June'29., 19$2.
DISCUSSION OF CHARLES NEEL EXTENSION OF INTERIM "C~-2" (.GENERAL COM[~RCIAL)
ZONING
Discussion of Charles Neel extension of interim "C-2" (general
commercial) zoning was held at this time. Bettye Kircher, planning director,
advised that the Board would be making a decision on the zoning proposal for
this property next week.
No action was taken xelative to the extension of the interim "C-2"
(general commercial) for Charles Neel.
DISCUSSION OF RUDDY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF OROVILLE
CONTINUED FOR 30. DAYS
Consideration and discussion of an agreement between the City of
Oroville and Butte County delineating drainage basin responsibilities in
the Ruddy Creek drainage basin was continued for 30 days.
CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING "K" CODE
HOUSING HELD AT THIS TIME
Consideration of waiving the first reading of the ordinance
implementing "K" Code housing was held at this time since Counsel is still
working on the ardinance.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR INSTRUCTED TO APPLY ONE-FIFTH OF DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS TO TkIE ARTHUR B. WIGGTNS BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN
AUNT MINNIE WITH AN AMENDMENT TO BE BROUGHT BACK
Report Eo the Board concerning the Arthur B. Wiggins drainage
assessment on a building permit for an Aunt Minnie given by County Counsel.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, reported that the Board would be required to
provide for relieft, if they wished to do so and it would be necessary
to amend the fee resolution that was adopted by the Board.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out how the fees could
be handled on an Aunt Minnie situation. Tlie fee could be paid with the
renewal fee for the Aunt Minnie each year for ,a period of five years. He
would bring back an amendment if that is what the Board wanted him to do.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, Public Works Department was instructed to use
a ratio of one-fifth share per year for a period of five years for the
Arthur B. Wiggins building permit drainage assessment and to bring back
an amendment to the fee resolution to implement this policy for all Aunt
Minnie requests.
MOTION TO WAIVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND BUTTE COUNTX CODE
SECTION 24 TO PRQVIDE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF "CONDITIONAL ZONING" WITHDRAWN
Bettye Kircher, planning 'director, reported on the proposed
amendment to the Butte County Code Section 24 to provide for the consideration
of "conditional zoning". The Planning Commission will be considering this
type of zoning with an application this week. She wondered whether the
Commission could hear this matter in light of the proposed ordinance when
there is not an ordinance in effect at this time.
Page 129.
June l5, 1982
8 2>
'.1012
'1013
'1014
'''1015
' _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ = Jane 15, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chairman Ldheeler adyised that the Board had received a request for
changes from the Land Development Commission.
Ms. Kircher replied that the concerns of the Land Development
Commission were questions on timing and language in the ordinance with
exception of the 90 days which. is language out of the Government Code.
Supervisor 5araceni had problems with having conditional zoning.
There are conditions already imposed on everything.
Ms. Kircher set out what the requirements were for responding to
comments from state agencies. These comments have to b.e responded to by the
approving body and the Planning Department is required through CEQA to bring
the comments forward to the Board. Tfie Subdivision 1~fap Act provides and
requires that any time an area of concern in wildlife and habitat is identified,
the subdivision is to be denied. Unless the Board directs the Planning Depart-
ment and staff in looking at the process the ignore the concerns by state
agencies, they will be responding on those concerns. She did not view this
xis conditional zoning. They see many impacts that are pointed out in the
environmental process that might not be mitigated if this process is for
zoning and there would have to be overriding eonsideratings.
Supervisor 5araceni understood that the Planning Department had
to advise the Board if they are told by state agencies there is a problem.
The applicant would have to go through a complete appeal process and then
an EIR to prove something that the state agency is not even sure about. He
felt that with conditional zoning a pp.rson would not have a chance to do
anything with their property.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
that the second reading of the ordinance amending the Butte County Code
Section 24 to grovide for the consideration of conditional zoning be waived;
that the ordinance be adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
Discussion of whether the Planning Commission had considered
conditional zoning held at this time. Ms. Kircher advised that this was
on the Planning Commission's agenda for June 10, 1982 to be discussed and
was continued to this week.
Motion withdrawn and the matter to be tabled until such time as
the Planning Commission reviews it.
APPOINTMENT TO THE GR
L HALL COMMITTEE CONTINUED TO JUNE 22
Appointment to the Gridley Memorial Hall Committee was continued to
Tune 22, 1982.
PPOINTMENTS TO THE BIGGS MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE CONTINUED TO JUNE 22, 1982
mm Appointments to the Biggs Memorial Hall Committee were continued
o June 22, 1982.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARADISE MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the following were appointed to the Paradise Memorial
Hall Committee-
Halsey F. Fink,
John Tucker, representing the Retired Officers Association
APPOINTMENT TO THE BUTTE COUNTY COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS
On motion of Supervisor 'Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Clancy Stute was reappointed to the Butte County
Council of Senior Citizens Page 130.
June 3.5, 1982
$ z"1016
~'
_____--_-_~ June 15,-1982___________________
COPT RESOLUTION 82-100; PUBZIG"HEARING: T'ORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA 85,
The public fiearing on the formation of County Service Area 85,
iage 1°fanox (streetlighting) was held. as continued:..
Bill Turpin, LAFCo, set out the~map of the proposed County Service
ea 85. This would cover Carriage 1~Ianor Subdivision and four existing
~hts on Monte vista.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Mr. Newman indicated that tile map showed everything as being
tatus quo. He wondered if the map showed additional fights. The existing
fights would be fine and there are other areas where the lights should be
ut in.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
d unanimously carried, formation of County Service Area~85, Carriage Manor
treetlighting) was approved; Resolution 82-100 was adopted and the Chairman
thorized to sign.
1017 (REPORT BY SUPERVISOR DOLAN RE: RESEARCH OF AB 90 APPLICATION FOR FUNDS PULLED
Supervisor Dolan asked that the report concerning the research of
90 application for funds be pulled from the agenda since it was her
erstanding that it would come forward with the proposed budget.
1018 SOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO AB 3480 MEDICALLY INDIGENT ADULTS (MIA) PULLED
ROM AGENDA SINCE ADOPTED LAST WEEK
Consideration of the resolution in opposition to AB 3480 which
ransfers to counties responsibility for medically indigent adults (M.I.A.)
as pulled from the agenda since it was adopted last week.
1019 ISCUSSION OF CSAC ASSESSMENT TO FINANCE RENOVATION OF SACRAMENTO BUILDING
ONTINUED UNTIL CSAC BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Discussion of County Supervisors Association of California assessment
o finance renovation of Sacramento building was held at this time.
Chairman Wheeler advised during helast vote taken on this matter
CSAC she voted no. They discussed the possibility of sanctions but were
t specific in their consideration of this because several of the large
unties are holding out. This would be for a one--time assessment of $4,055
Butte County. The argument is that the building belongs to the counties
the state and that through renovation they will be able to make enough
ney to offset the cost of paying for the real estate, at the same time
nsidering the possibility of paying back the assessment if there is
fficient money.
The matter to be held until after the CSAC Board of Directors
eeting.
1020 ISCUSSION OF IMPACT OF PROPOSED 1982-83 STATE BUDGET ON COUNTIES
Discussion of the impact on the proposed 1982-83'state budget on
he counties was held at this time.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the chart
egarding the three diferent proposals which. would have an effect on the
ounty's budget. He had sent the Board a CSAC memo dated June 9, 1982.:-iHe
uggested that the Board ~i:ck one or two items for discussion as far as
Page 131.
June 15, 1982
8 2-
_ June 15, 1982_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
the impact to the budget. There are basically four items for comparison
between the Governor's budget,-AB 3480. and SB 2093. He did not know which
version to recommend that the Board support due to the trade offs involved.
The four items he set out consisted of the M.I:A., motor vehicle in-lieu,
business inventory and the deflator.
Jim Johansen, auditor, informed the Board that if these items
were forced on the counties there is Proposition 4 to fall back on and they
could initiate a lawsuit to force compliance with, the Constitution. The loss
of discretionaly funds would not allow for falling back on Proposition 4.
If additional mandates were imposed, there would be support to refuse to
accept the program.
Mr. Pyeatt advised that the Senate version of the budget appears
to favor the counties regarding the 1~S.I.A. program and the motor vehicle
in-lieu funds. There would be less subvention with both-the Assembly and
Senate versions than with. the Governor's version,:on the business inventory.
The key items appears to be the deflator. With either the Assembly or Senate
version if it triggers the deflator there is a potential of $2.1 million
shortfall to the county. The Assembly version talks about saving the county's
matching requirement for next fiscal year, which is something the Senate
version does not have.
Mr. Johansen shared the concern about putting a label on any of
the versions. What they want is the one that will least impact the county.
He felt that what wauld probably be done would be to stongly recommend that
the Legislature not implement the deflator process. The deflator is in
the Assembly version if the Legislature did not agree to increase in taxes.
If they agreed to an increase in taxes it would not be there. They are
talking about taking away .another $2.1 million to what they have already done
in the county. He did not feel they could interpret Proposition 4 and that
neither could they take away discretionary revenue. He did not see how they
could interpret this to mean the counties had to pick up the M.I.A. program.
If the Legislature were to adopt the Governor's tiudget and there was sufficient
funding for the proposal, then the bill would probably contain the provision
to not have a deflator.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the recommendations of the Auditor were accepted
in that today is the deadline for adoption of the state budget, it is an
onerous thing the county is facing and feel the state should cut back if they
can; the county is against the deflator; and the county asks that they come
up with something equitable. .
RECESS: 12:08 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:44 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 1:45 p.m. to hold a closed session
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 1:54 p.m. following a closed session
***
1021
COMMUNICATIONS
James McNaughton. Mr. McNaughton submits his resignation as Executive
Director to the Community Action Agency. See motion following
communications.
Robert A. Gulsman, Chico.. Mr. Glusman writes appealing the Advisory Agency's
condition 8 (to provide permanent solution for drainages on
tentative parcel map, •Al' 42x34-44, three parcels, on Cussick Avenue
on the south side of Dead End Court, Chico area. Set for hearing
July 13, 1982 at 10;30 a.m.
Page 132.
June 15, 1982
8 2',-
3',
1022
_ _ _ -June 15 ~ 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Gerald Lugenbeel, Jr., Chico. Mr. Lugenbeel provides information on his
request for a use permit for a studio/foundry, AP 34-7,8-31.
Considered earlier in the meeting.
Thermalito Trrigation District. Charles G. Allen, president, requests a
waiver of building permit fees on the Thermalito Irrigation Reservoir
project which. includes a $2 ..5 million water storage tank. Referred
to Public Works and Counsel for a report back on Jane 22, 1982.
Butte County Farm Bureau. Ed McLaughlin, president, requests the Board of
Supervisors reopen the zoning hearings for the area of the county
east of Gridley. Letter to be written explaining what happened
during the process.
Donald L. Lucas, Anchorage, Alaska. Mr. Lucas writes in protest to the
volume of paperwork resulting from his request to cancel a
Williamson Act contract affecting property owned in Butte County.
Set hearing for July 13, 1982 at 10:45 a.m. to consider appeal
of ETR requirement.
Thomas A. McCready, Chico. Mr. McCready writes in support of the proposed
Canyon Park Estates project and the relative rezone from "A-2"
to "PA-C" and additionally requests his letter to be read into
the record. To be kept for the files on this project.
Archie & Ruth Paterson, Chico. The Patersons provide information regarding
a use permit and variance permit on AP 39-18-31. Considered
earlier in the meeting.
Board of Supervisors - County of Sacramento. The Supervisors forward their
Resolution 82-511 supporting benefit assessments for the American
River Flood Control District and state maintenance areas. Referred
to Auditor and Administrative Office for a recommendation on
June 22, 1982.
Plumas-Sierra Pomona G-range No. 18. Officers of the Grange provide all
California legislators information on AB 3296 (timber yield tax).
Referred to Assessor and Board committee members.
Betty Gilbert, Oroville. Ms. Gilbert requests an investigation into her
allegations of harassment and suggests the investigation be conducted
by the Butte County Sheriff's Department. Referred to Administrative
Office for review and direction to the Sheriff's Office.
County Supervisor Association of California. Victor S. Pottorff, legislative
representative, requests the Board's position on AB 801, AB 3672,
both relating to agriculture. Referred to Agricultural Advisory
Commission, Farm Bureau, California Women in Agriculture and
Chamber of Commerce Agricultural Committee for input back to
the Board.
State Senator Ray Johnson. Senator Johnson provides information on transfer
of funds from the Agricultural Fund and the Acala Cotton Fund as
proposed in AB 1253. Information; no action-.-. taken.
.,ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF JAMES MCNAUGHTON AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CAA AND
(APPOINT WILLIAT4 D. TH6kIPSON AS INTERIM CAA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the resignation of James McNaughton as Executive
Director of CAA was accepted; William D. Thompson was appointed as interim
Executive Director of CAA at the beginning step of the range.
Page 133.
June 15, 1982
82- 1023
$ ',
10241
_____-____= June 15, 1982=====--------------
ADDITIONAL MATTERS ~'P~iESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moseley discussed the Land Conservation Act agreements.
She wondered if there was a burden to the county is. processing of the agree-
ments. The county- does not have to have the Williamson Act agreements in
the county. She wondered if the county was losing money on these items.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, advised that at the
$190,000 figure there is staff activity involved in the Planning Department,
Assessor's Office and Auditor's Office. He could not answer the question
o£ whether it was to the county's benefit and could look into the matter.
Supervisor Moseley felt there should be something to deter people
from filing AssessmentAppeals applications-and then not showing up for their
hearings. There is staff time involved in getting these matters ready for
hearing. She would like to see a fee charged that would allow for refund
of the person showed up for the hearing.
The matter was referred to county Counsel to look into whether a
fee could be charged for filing of the appeal to be refunded if the person
shows up for the hearing. '
Supervisor Saraceni advised he had received a letter about
a resignation on the Board of of the Pioneer Volunteer Fire Department.
APPOINTMENT TO GRTDLEY MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the following were appointed to the Gridley
Memorial Hall Committee:
Ray Roberts, senior citizens group
George Alcock, Rotary Club
': 1025
APPOINTMENT TO BIGGS MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and caxxied;>the fallowing were appointed to the Biggs Memorial Hall
Committee:
Ray Valverde, Veterans of Foreign. Wars
Mark Webber, Veterans of Foreign'. Wars
Ed Gauger, Veterans of Foreign Wars
FranJc Mathauser, alternate, Veterans of Foreign Wars
William Booth, North Valley Detachment of Marine Corps
Jim Hayes, North Valley Detachment of Marine Corps
Walter Bender, alternate, North Valley Detachment of Marine Corps
1026
1027
AYES: Supervisors Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBER
Chairman Wheeler advised that the Board had received the Legislative
Alert from Larry Naake with the estimate of impacts proposed reductions relative
to the state budget.
APPEARANCE: HAL BROOKS
Mr. Brooks presented the Board with information and made distribution
to the press.
ABJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, Tune 29, 1982
at 9:00 a.m.
Page 134.
June 15, 1982
June 15, 1982
82- ATTEST: ELEANOR If. B.ECKER, COUNTY CLERK.
3 and ex=officio Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors j ~f
of Supervisors
Page 135.
.Jenne '15, 1982