June 4, 1964 (28 pages)

NORTHERN MINES & CALIFORNIA REPORTS . BEES ERO Et eee ret oP et Mean Dogs Are Legal, Owners Liable What can be done about a “biting dog” in Nevada County? Supervisor Gene Ricker asked this question of Nevada County District Attorney Harold Berliner Monday, and the answer was to sue the owner in civil action. “It iscertainly a terrible situation,” Berliner commented, “but it is no crime in California to harbor a biting dog. “ "It is extraordinary to me, " the district attorney continued, “that people who have a dog like that would keep it.” Ricker said the dog he referred to has terrorized the neighborhood's children, and when a neighbor opens a window the dog jumps with bared teeth at the property's community fence. Supervisors asked the district attorney to prepare an amendment tothe county 's dog licensing ordinance which would allow for the destruction of such a dog as a public nuisance. "Point System”’ Disinterred, But Loehr Doesn’t Dig It Construction Bids To Open = The California Division of Highways this week advertised for bids for resurfacing bridges at 17 locations on Interstate 80 between Cisco and Floriston in Placer and Nevada counties. Bids willbe opened July 1 with $220,000 available for the project, according to officials at the Marysville district office. The surfacing material will be a mixture of modified epoxy resin and sand. Recent tests show that this type surfacing is highly resistant tothe spalling or chipping of concrete decks, caused by salt, usedto meltice, and the freezethaw temperature change of the upper mountain areas. A Rambling Discussion of County Road Standards and Specifications Ensued Nevada County supervisors got into a discussion of roads at Monday's meeting which drifted from the possibility of using county funds on private. road improvements to the current road standards. The discussion was kicked off when District Attomey Harold Berliner gave an opinion that the Streets and Highways Code forbids the county from spending on private or public roads that are not in the county road system. His answer was to a question of Supervisor Don Blake. The district attorney then continued, saying that there were precedents, however, in other counties where funds had been expended on public roads and that the attorney general's opinion is that when this happens the portion of the road worked on is automatically taken into the county road system. This did not seem to solve the problem which prompted Supervisor Blake's question, and the discussion veered to the problem of what to do with private and public roads in the county. Supervisor Neil Hennessy noted thatit would be a terrific’ expense to bring such roads intothe county system. They are narrow, but witha little help from the county many of them can do the job (of carrying the required traffic). Blake agreed, and said it was time to take a look at the whole county road system. He saidhe favored a point sys~tem which would call for county improvement of roads. But the standards now required by the county are too high, he said, in some areas. In those instances, they should be lowered. Loehr said that possibly this wasn ‘tthe time to get into a discussion of road standards that might lead to action on the road system. In the future he sees the, probability of a Public Works Department witha paid engineer on the staff, an engineer who could program county rvad improvements. Supervisor Gene Ricker noted that county taxpayers live on many of these public (but not county) roads, “and as long as a person is a taxpayer, he should have some road work done.” Loehr warned that if the county were to accept these private and public roads into the system it would not be necessary to bring each road upto current standards. In this way, each road could be upgraded through the classifications when possible. Supervisor Blake noted that the problem is county-wide, saying about each of the districts, "We're all in the same boat. “ Supervisor Ricker agreed, but said, “Something has to be done about them (the old existing roads), " Supervisor Blake again urged a point system which would enable subdivision at a lower road standard than at present insome areas. He said the present standards are “not being realistic”. Blake said his point system would call for lower standards where the lot size was an acre or more. Supervisor Hennessy agreed, saying that road standards should be based on the density of population, but noting that he would suggest low er standards for developments in which the lot size was five acres or more. He said the standards now are arbitrary and are geared to high density population. Supervisor Loehr warmed, however, that the county would be called upon to improve these roads as soon as the original parcels were split into smaller units, thereby bringing higher population density. Supervisor Hennessy countered this with a suggestion that the lowering of standards be tied to deed restrictions against the division of parcels below a minimum size, according tothe lower road standards. He said these res~ trictions could be for a specified number of years---perhaps 20 or 25. Supervisor Loehr said he would not agree to this, believing that a property owner had a right to sell offa portion of his holding if and when he desired. The chairman said the county was trying to get orderly development, and questioned whether a lowering of the standards would fit into orderly development. Supervisor Blake said, “I don ‘t think high standards are necessary to orderly development. " Supervisor Loehr warmed again, “You can't let the barrier down. “ The discussion ended witha brief notation that the county had received areport from Supervisor Hennessy on the operation of a road point system in Shasta County. The last time this subject came before the board, Planning Director Bill Roberts reported that he had received a letter from his counterpart in Shasta County which said that the point system there was tied into that county's zoning ordinance. Nevada County's zoning ordinance is little more than a collec~tion of spot zoning, Supervisor Hennessy noted that he hadn't seen the Shasta County letter, and he intended to see it. ’ POGT ‘F Ounf’* *1083nN AqUNOD epeAeN* ** AS DEATHS WILSON ---in Miners Hospital May29, 1964, Irma May Wilson of Nevada City. She was the mother of Margaret McKittrick, Los Angeles; sister of Cora Strang, Nevada City, Arthur R. Theile, Bakersfield, and Dr. AlvinA. Theile, Peoria, Ill. She was a native of Wisconsin aged 75 years. She movedto California about 28 years ago and had been making home in Nevada City for the past six months. The body was shipped by Hooper-Weaver Mortuary to Fullerton for services and burial. ++ ++ + PAGE---in an auto accident on Highway 20 May 30, 1964, Haggard L. Page of Wells, Nevada. He was a native of Tennessee aged 64 years. He was the husband of Dexie; father of Mrs. Ann Halvarson, Grass Valley, Mrs. Mary Katherine Bradham, Fort Worth, Tex., Mrs. Wanda Griffith, Long Beach, and Mrs. Peggy Brown, Wells, Nevada. He was a lifelong Democrat and active in party affairs. He and his wife owned the Shell Crest Motel in W ells. Funeral services and burial were in Wells. ++ +t + MANCHEST ER---in the University Hospital of San Francisco May 28, 1964, Mrs. Genevieve Manchester of Jones Bar Road, Grass Valley; mother of Arthur, Jr., Camp Pendleton, Tim and Dennis, Grass Valley; and daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Pete Fiora, Grass Valley. She had been a resident of this area for about 12 years and had been active in farm bureau work in the Jones Bar area. Funeral services and burial were in San Leandro. 5 FTHE MINERS..As the third sch struction of the Nevada Union High School on Ridge Rd., Nevada Union High School students have these mining relics to lend authenticity to their athletic teams’ nickmF ool year ends since conRuess. name. The miningcar, large hydraulic nozzle, and hydraulic motivated pelton wheel are all part of the landscaping plan for the high school developed by landscape architect Joe

NORTHERN MINES & CALIFORNIA REPORTS . BEES ERO Et eee ret oP et Mean Dogs Are Legal, Owners Liable What can be done about a “biting dog” in Nevada County? Supervisor Gene Ricker asked this question of Nevada County District Attorney Harold Berliner Monday, and the answer was to sue the owner in civil action. “It iscertainly a terrible situation,” Berliner commented, “but it is no crime in California to harbor a biting dog. “ "It is extraordinary to me, " the district attorney continued, “that people who have a dog like that would keep it.” Ricker said the dog he referred to has terrorized the neighborhood's children, and when a neighbor opens a window the dog jumps with bared teeth at the property's community fence. Supervisors asked the district attorney to prepare an amendment tothe county 's dog licensing ordinance which would allow for the destruction of such a dog as a public nuisance. "Point System”’ Disinterred, But Loehr Doesn’t Dig It Construction Bids To Open = The California Division of Highways this week advertised for bids for resurfacing bridges at 17 locations on Interstate 80 between Cisco and Floriston in Placer and Nevada counties. Bids willbe opened July 1 with $220,000 available for the project, according to officials at the Marysville district office. The surfacing material will be a mixture of modified epoxy resin and sand. Recent tests show that this type surfacing is highly resistant tothe spalling or chipping of concrete decks, caused by salt, usedto meltice, and the freezethaw temperature change of the upper mountain areas. A Rambling Discussion of County Road Standards and Specifications Ensued Nevada County supervisors got into a discussion of roads at Monday's meeting which drifted from the possibility of using county funds on private. road improvements to the current road standards. The discussion was kicked off when District Attomey Harold Berliner gave an opinion that the Streets and Highways Code forbids the county from spending on private or public roads that are not in the county road system. His answer was to a question of Supervisor Don Blake. The district attorney then continued, saying that there were precedents, however, in other counties where funds had been expended on public roads and that the attorney general's opinion is that when this happens the portion of the road worked on is automatically taken into the county road system. This did not seem to solve the problem which prompted Supervisor Blake's question, and the discussion veered to the problem of what to do with private and public roads in the county. Supervisor Neil Hennessy noted thatit would be a terrific’ expense to bring such roads intothe county system. They are narrow, but witha little help from the county many of them can do the job (of carrying the required traffic). Blake agreed, and said it was time to take a look at the whole county road system. He saidhe favored a point sys~tem which would call for county improvement of roads. But the standards now required by the county are too high, he said, in some areas. In those instances, they should be lowered. Loehr said that possibly this wasn ‘tthe time to get into a discussion of road standards that might lead to action on the road system. In the future he sees the, probability of a Public Works Department witha paid engineer on the staff, an engineer who could program county rvad improvements. Supervisor Gene Ricker noted that county taxpayers live on many of these public (but not county) roads, “and as long as a person is a taxpayer, he should have some road work done.” Loehr warned that if the county were to accept these private and public roads into the system it would not be necessary to bring each road upto current standards. In this way, each road could be upgraded through the classifications when possible. Supervisor Blake noted that the problem is county-wide, saying about each of the districts, "We're all in the same boat. “ Supervisor Ricker agreed, but said, “Something has to be done about them (the old existing

roads), " Supervisor Blake again urged a point system which would enable subdivision at a lower road standard than at present insome areas. He said the present standards are “not being realistic”. Blake said his point system would call for lower standards where the lot size was an acre or more. Supervisor Hennessy agreed, saying that road standards should be based on the density of population, but noting that he would suggest low er standards for developments in which the lot size was five acres or more. He said the standards now are arbitrary and are geared to high density population. Supervisor Loehr warmed, however, that the county would be called upon to improve these roads as soon as the original parcels were split into smaller units, thereby bringing higher population density. Supervisor Hennessy countered this with a suggestion that the lowering of standards be tied to deed restrictions against the division of parcels below a minimum size, according tothe lower road standards. He said these res~ trictions could be for a specified number of years---perhaps 20 or 25. Supervisor Loehr said he would not agree to this, believing that a property owner had a right to sell offa portion of his holding if and when he desired. The chairman said the county was trying to get orderly development, and questioned whether a lowering of the standards would fit into orderly development. Supervisor Blake said, “I don ‘t think high standards are necessary to orderly development. " Supervisor Loehr warmed again, “You can't let the barrier down. “ The discussion ended witha brief notation that the county had received areport from Supervisor Hennessy on the operation of a road point system in Shasta County. The last time this subject came before the board, Planning Director Bill Roberts reported that he had received a letter from his counterpart in Shasta County which said that the point system there was tied into that county's zoning ordinance. Nevada County's zoning ordinance is little more than a collec~tion of spot zoning, Supervisor Hennessy noted that he hadn't seen the Shasta County letter, and he intended to see it. ’ POGT ‘F Ounf’* *1083nN AqUNOD epeAeN* ** AS DEATHS WILSON ---in Miners Hospital May29, 1964, Irma May Wilson of Nevada City. She was the mother of Margaret McKittrick, Los Angeles; sister of Cora Strang, Nevada City, Arthur R. Theile, Bakersfield, and Dr. AlvinA. Theile, Peoria, Ill. She was a native of Wisconsin aged 75 years. She movedto California about 28 years ago and had been making home in Nevada City for the past six months. The body was shipped by Hooper-Weaver Mortuary to Fullerton for services and burial. ++ ++ + PAGE---in an auto accident on Highway 20 May 30, 1964, Haggard L. Page of Wells, Nevada. He was a native of Tennessee aged 64 years. He was the husband of Dexie; father of Mrs. Ann Halvarson, Grass Valley, Mrs. Mary Katherine Bradham, Fort Worth, Tex., Mrs. Wanda Griffith, Long Beach, and Mrs. Peggy Brown, Wells, Nevada. He was a lifelong Democrat and active in party affairs. He and his wife owned the Shell Crest Motel in W ells. Funeral services and burial were in Wells. ++ +t + MANCHEST ER---in the University Hospital of San Francisco May 28, 1964, Mrs. Genevieve Manchester of Jones Bar Road, Grass Valley; mother of Arthur, Jr., Camp Pendleton, Tim and Dennis, Grass Valley; and daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Pete Fiora, Grass Valley. She had been a resident of this area for about 12 years and had been active in farm bureau work in the Jones Bar area. Funeral services and burial were in San Leandro. 5 FTHE MINERS...As the third sch struction of the Nevada Union High School on Ridge Rd., Nevada Union High School students have these mining relics to lend authenticity to their athletic teams’ nickmF ool year ends since conRuess. name. The miningcar, large hydraulic nozzle, and hydraulic motivated pelton wheel are all part of the landscaping plan for the high school developed by landscape architect Joe