HomeMy WebLinkAboutM063082June 30, 1482
8 2-
1111
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 10,00 a.m. pursuant to recess. Present:
Supervisors IlQlan, Fulton,.Mos.eley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
Mike Ey"eatt, interim administrative officer; and Eleanor M. Becker,
county clerk, by Cathy Pitts., assistant clerk to the Board.
DENY PROPOSAL BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION RE; EXTENDING OF THREE
YEAR AGREEMENT 'AND 210DIFYING"COST-~OF-LIV'ING"RAISE AND ELIMINATION OF LAYOFFS
Discussion of the Law Enforcement Officers Association proposal to
extend the three-year agreement with the association, modifying the cost-of-
living raise and eliminating layoffs held as continued.
Supervisor Fulton reported on the meeting that had been held with the
Sheriff, Auditor, Administrative Office, Personnel Director and Chairman Wheeler.
The committee found the proposal made by the Butte County Law Enforcement Officers
Association on June 22, 1982 unacceptable because of the $1.2 million cost and the
locking in of an unacceptable staffing level, ane that could not be guaranteed.
The county is still willing to negotiate the seven percent pay increase in order
to save positions. The Sheriff will be exploring the possibility of savings
and of rehiring during the budget session on July 21, 1982.
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the proposal as made in the June 22, 1982 letter from
the Butte County Law Enforcement Officers Association was turned down.
PUBLIC HEARING: CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN (GREENLINE) - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The public hearing on the Chico area Land use plan (greenline) General
Plan amendment was held as continued.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
I. John Morehead, Chico. Mr. Morehead handed the Board members
a letter that was written for the meeting.
2. Herb Heidenger, 1590 Dayton Road, Chico. Mr. Heidenger set
out the uses in the area including the subdivision that had been allowed.
He purchased the property on Dayton Road based on the General Plan in 1961.
The greenline is not needed because of current zoning ordinances. He mentioned
the doubt regarding the legality of the rezoning in west Chico in 1972 and
1974. That is not only the opinion of some property owners but also a member
of the commission. There is a conflict of interest regarding one of the
present Planning Commission members, when the individual presented to the
Board a petition signed by property owners in the same immediate area of that
person, and when the commissian member voted on the greenline when it affected
their property. There is discussion of property rights under the U. S. Consti-
tutional amendments by those circulation petitions. He does not propose to
take land out of farming in the immedate future. He felt he was entitled to
comparable zoning that is in the immediate area.
3. Lloyd Heidenger, 1590 Dayton Road. Mr. Heidenger read a letter
from Sweet"Nectar Enterprises and submitted it for the record. They are
requesting to be placed on the urban side of the greenline. He had heard
a small farmer get up before the Board and say there were no problems with
farming 20 acres of almonds. He just received his PG&E bill and for almond
production on 20 acres of land the cost is up 30 percent and they anticipate
that the 1981 crop will not be sold until December and November. He paid
$.57 per pound.,.'Fifteen months ago the grits was $1.80 per pound. He was
concerned with a recent article in the newspaper relative to this issue.
4. Nick Bertagna, Chico. Mr. Bertagna stated he was a farmer and
did not feel that the issue was what was grown on the property but whether
the land was a farmable piece of property. If it is not economical for a
farmer to grow one crop, they will go to another crop. Where the h.ne is drawn
is the issue. Page 180.
June 30, 1982
8 2-
b'
,Tune 30, 1982
5. Lloyd Heidenger. klr. Heidenger stated that a number of people
lave come before the Board talking a8.out the growing of kiwi.. IY. is easy
for people to come. up to the Board and say what someone should be growing
on their property.
6. Frank Brazell, Rt. 1, Box 407-B, Chico. Mr. Brazell stated
he had a draft that was started. The Land us.e Element draft was started
in 1981. He read from the draft in 1981, page .3, bottom of the page giving
a definition of production of agricultural land. He also read from page 4,
[~o. 2 relative to the term-of pommercial production of agricultural products.
He hoped that the Board did not forget these terms and definitions. This
would give agricultural people an opportunity to make a profit like every
other industry in the U.S. He was very much in favor of agricultural land.
He was also in favor of the greenline being established and not penalizing
people with small land who cannot make a profit.
Hearing on the EIR closed to the public and confined to the Board.
This was sent back to staff for final comments to be prepared for
Board consideration on July 21, 1982.
Charlie Woods, planning department, stated they had provided the
Board with maps That are 8-1/2 x 11" format. In putting all the different
lines on the maps, they had to show the places where the lines differ. The
information from the Department of Water Resources inventory dates June, 1981
and not 1980. The Board also asked for a tabulation and they have not been
able to do that. There are responses to the Department of Conservation
letter. One of the things that seems to be of concern to the Board involves
the impact of 8,000 acres of agricultural land or soil. It was appropriate
to use the maps and show why they arrived at that and who it is not what
people think it is. They also have some aerial slides that might be
of help to the Board.
The hearing was continued to July 7, 1982 at 10:30 a.m. for
consideration of the project.
RECESS: The Board recessed at 10:53 a.m. to reconvene on Wednesday, July 7,
1982 at 10:30 a.m.
Page 181.
June 30, 1982