HomeMy WebLinkAboutM033181MdrC~l 31, 19.81
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS.
OF BUTTE
81•
_~
The Soard of Supervisors met at 9:QO a.m, pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and
Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Catfiy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
ledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Supervisor Lemke
509 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, the minutes of March 24, 1981 were approved as mailed with
the following corrections and the minutes of March 10, 1981 were amended
as follows:
Minute order 81-491, March 24, 1981 minutes to reflect: Dan
lackstock, county counsel, stated the Board had previously adopted
esolution 80-175. This resolution simply incorporates all of the matters
hey have before them a year ago when that resolution was adopted whereby
person has a dietary problem they get an additional $50. There have been
o requests in the past five years. The Board holds executive sessions on
hese requests and one was resolved before it was heard. The state's
llotment for AFDC is approximately $50 per month. This $50 is not out of
ine with what they have now. The Welfare Director is presently preparing
new study and will be back with it within a month ar so. New federal
ood stamp proposals discussed at this time.
Minute order 81-505, March 24, 1981 minutes to reflect: A
ter from California Women for Agriculture was referred to the "K" .
e Housing Committee nstead of a letter from Community Action Agency.
Minute order 81-490, March 24, 1981 minutes, page 175, paragraph 6,
reflect: Supervisor Dolan said we afeltrying to anticipate legal
Zlenges brought about by the EIR processes.
Minute order 81-507, March 24, 1981 minutes to reflect: authorized
-r~vest be made ao the state Department of :Business and Economic Development
o hold a seminar in Butte County on economic development systems.
Minute order 81-397, March 10, 1981 minutes to reflect that
n agreement for use of radio equipment relative to assignment of OES Engine
85 to the Butte County Fire Department was approved and the Chairman:
uthorized to sign. AXES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley ABSTAINING: Supervisor Saraceni
510 PORT ON SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPUTY STAFFING IMPLEMENTATION AND PATROL
Sheriff Gillick reported on the Sheriff's Office deputy staffing
Cmplementation and patrol team concept. There are sometimes problems within
my department. Often these can be remedied if he is made aware of the
problems the Board members have. When his office started hiring deputies,
Fhey advised the Board it would take months to put the deputies on the streets.
~t the present time, they have lost personnel and have not been up to full
~rength. They have had to make a background check on all the applicants.
ey have had to send officers to soutfiern California to do some of these
nvestigations. There have been several officers in the academy. After a
eputy has come out bf the academy, they have to go through field training
rograms. As the deputies were allocated, the Board was advised in what
rea they would be placed. When he found out things were not up to parr,
Page 180.
March 31, 1981
March 31~ 1281
81- he called a meeting o£ the commanding officers and implemented the platoon
b ' or team concept. The xeason this concept was implemented was fox better
supervision and efficiency. Captain Grey was given the fob of implementing
this concept. He was aware of the people in the department who have
discussed these matters with the Board members. He wished the Board would
refer these individuals to him to discuss their complaints.
Sheriff Gillck spoke regarding the resident deputy program.
He has discussed this matter with the Board in the past. At this time, there
is a deputy in the academy who will be assigned as a resident deputy of
Feather Falls. He does not have any other deputies living in the other
areas to be able to assign resident deputies. In the past he has experienced
problems with the resident deputy program. The deputies have gotten
involved in the small community politics. This is the reason he has
assigned deputies from Oroville to cover these areas.
Supervisor Lemke felt the Sheriff had allied some of the fears
from last week.
Supervisox Wheeler thanked Captain Grey for going to Cohasset
with her to discuss law enforcement. The Sheriff'was correct in saying
,some of the situation was stirred by deputies in those areas. The
'residents were advised that the coverage is coming and there will be
(deputies in the Cohasset and Forest Ranch areas.
Capt. Mick Grey stated they had been authorized fifteen deputy
positions. There have been twelve of those positions filled with the
assistance of the Personnel Department. They recruited statewide for the
positions. In the interim, they have lost three deputies. They are still
down to twelve positions. They have three more designated to be hired.
They have lost three of the other deputies to long term disabilities.
They are making progress and taking steps backwards. As of Friday, four
of the new deputies were in the academy, with two of them graduating
on Friday. They are in field training. When the Sheriff made the
commitment to put patrols in the rural areas, this was part of a three month
program. They have really only had about four officers trained to go into
the field. Of the first four allocated, the positions were Durham, number 1,
Cohasset and Forest Ranch,Forbestown, Bangor and Flipper Mills. They have
met the commitment for Concow, Yankee Hill including Berry Creek.
Capt. Grey set out the background of the team concept at this
time. In the past, there have been twelve deputies and three to four
sergeants on the swing shift. The officers had not all the same days off.
The unity of command was varied, It is easy for a supervisor to not take the
responsibilities if they only have that officer one night a week to
supervise. The team concept makes the supervisor responsible for his
men five nights per week. They started this concept on Saturday morning.
At night the sick call levels dropped 70 percent. Tt doesn~t take any
more personnel to have this system. It is a matter of scheduling
arrangement. This change affected some people with pretty good jobs. They
might have to work a full eight hours now. This concept does not place
two officers in a patrol car: They do not have enough men for this to
happen.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board recessed at 9:24 a.m. to hold an executive
session regarding. meet and confer.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 10:18 a.m. following an executive
session regarding meet and confer. No announcements to be
made at this time.
Yage 181.
March 31, 1981
81•
3
_ Marcb_ 31~-1481
511 PUBLIC HEARING; BOBB GOWEN - PETITION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 1910 AND/OR
19-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE-F'OR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON AP 48-05-1-10,
2700 MARIPOSA AVENUE CHICO AREA. ZONING: uRT~1F'
?fie public Hearing on BoTib Gowen petition for variance to Sections
19-10 and/or 19--12 of .the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 48-06-1-10, 2700 1ariposa Avenue, Chico area, zoning:- "RT-1" was held
as advertised.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, set out the
background of the petition. Tt is in order.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No>one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the petition for variance to Sections:;19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County far placement of a mobile Home on AP 48-06-1-10,
2700 Mariposa Avenue, Chico area, zoning: "RT-1" for Bobb Gowen was
approved for a period of one year,
512 DECLARE VACANCIES ON CETAC AND YOUTH PLANNING COUNCIL FOR POSITIONS OF
CITY GOVERNMENT AND VETERANS? ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and unanimously carried, vacancies on CETAC and Youth Planning Council
for city government were declared and the Administrative Officer was
directed to post the vacancies.
5]3'i POLICY DECISION RE: ADVANCEMENT ON SALARY SCHEDULE FOR ASSESSMENT CONTROL
OFFICER FROM STEP B TO STEP E, RANGE 24.5 TAKEN OFF AGENDA
Policy decision on request for advancement on salary schedule for
assessment control officer from step B to step E, Range 24.5 was taken
off the agenda.
514) MERIT INCREASE FOR VETERAN SERVICE OFFICER CONTINUED 90 DAYS: SUPERVISORS
DOLAN AND WHEELER TO WORK WITH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE RELATLVE TO EVALUATION
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, set out the performance
evaluation procedure for employees under the Personnel Rules. The merit
increase for department heads. is the prerogative of the Board. The Board could
follow the procedure used for regular employees. The Board could grant
the increase retroactive.
()n. motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the consideration of merit increase for Veteran
Service Officer was delayed for 90 days.
Supervisor Wheeler asked that staff be advised to do an anal"ysis of
the Veterans Service Office and the needs.
Supervisor Lemke felt that if there is to be a performance
evaluation then Board should do that evaluation and not staff. There is
no one over that employee except the Board.
Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler to work with Administrative
Office on performance evaluation.
5151 DECLARE SURPLUS PROPERTY - SCOTT BREATHING APPARATUS -- FIRE DEPARTMENT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the following breathing apparatus was declared
surplus to the needs of the county and the Fire Department was relieved
from accountability as they can no longer be used in the State of
Page 182. March 31, 1981
March 31, 1181
California: inyentoxy numbers 01713, 01714, 0240.7,-02408, 02b61, 02839,
02826, 02852,_ 04533 ,01534, 09538, 01019-, 10121, 10122! 03539., 10153 and
10154.
81•
516 (DECLARE VEHICLE 4414 SURPLUS: AUTHORIZE DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF
REPLACEMENT VEHICLE -~ HEALTH DEPARTMENT
517
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, secnnded by Supervisor Lemke
and unanimously carried, vehicle 4494, 1965 Vega, assigned to the Health
Department was declared surplus to the needs of the county; the Purchasing
Officer was authorized to dispose of the vehicle; and acquisition of a
replacement vehicle from a rental agency at an estimated cost not to
exceed $5,300 from within the Environmental Health Department's fixed
asset budget was authorized.
AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT ITEMS FOR CHICO MUNICIPAL COURT
On motion of'Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, acquisition of the following equipment for
Ghico Municipal Court was authorized: automatic time clack, $280 and
a single element correcting electric typewriter, $780 in order to implement
a manual traffic system and parking ticket processing proposal with the City
of Chico.
518 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2204: PUBLIC HEARING: RON IMHOFF REZONE FROM "A-2"
(GENERAL) TO '!PA-C" (PLANNED AREA-CLUSTER) TO ALLOW A 231 UNIT RESIDENTIAL
MOBILE HOME DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED APPROX. 200 FEET WEST OF HICKS
LANE, APPROX. 200 FEET SOUTH OF SYCAMORE LANE, IDENTIFIED AS AP 44-49-38,
CHICO (ITEM ON WHICH EIR WAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED)
The public hearing on Ron Imhoff rezone from "A-2" (general) to
"PA-C" (planned area-cluster) to allow a 231 unit residential mobile home
development on property located approximately 200 feet west of Hicks Lane,
approximately 200 feet south of Sycamore Lane, identified as AP 44-49-38,
Chico (item on which an environmental impact report was previously certified)
was held as advertised.
Charlie Woods., planner, set out the background of the rezone.
This proposal is medium density 6.04 dwelling units per acre. The Planning
Commission recommended adoption of the "PA--C" zoning with conditions.
Earl Nelson, env~.ronmental review director, stated the layout
of the "PA-C" zoning is the same as that issued for the use permit.
The changes relate to ownership patterns.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Ron Imhoff. Mr.
Imhoff stated the discussion regarding setbacks was the concern as to
hether there were setback requirements inside the zone. This is a
mobile home subdivision.. The exterior of the park is ringed with homes.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, finding the project is in conformity with the
General Plan; the project has been reviewed in accordance with CEQA with the
ETR having been certified on August 21, 1979; finding the project will have
no significant effect because of mitigation measures included within the
conditions of approval; the rezone from "A-2" (general) to "PA-C" (planned
area-cluster) to allow a 231 unit residential mobile home development on
property located approximately 200 feet west of Hicks Lane, approximately
200 feet south of Sycamore Lane, identified as AP 44-41-38, Chico was
approved subject to the following conditions; Ordinance 2204 was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign:
Page 183.
March 31, 1981
rlarch 31~ 191
_ ~ _ _ - _ _ ~ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ T
1. Submit road and dra~,nage plans to the.Dept, o,f Public'4~prks for
approval and install the .required facilities;
2. Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street
intersections per County requirements. (Submit 5 alternate street
names fox each street to the County Address Coordinator for approval
of street named
3. Provide permanent solution for drainage.
4. A11 easements of ,record to be shown on the final map.
5. Meet requirements of the Butte County Fire Dept, or other responsible
agency.
6. Street lighting shall be provided 3n accordance with. Butte County
requirements accepted design criteria and recommendations of PG&E.
7. File a tentative and final subdivision map and pay appropriate fees.
8. Meet the requirements of PG&E, PT&T, and CAL WATER.
9. Show typical interior rDad section on plans. '
10. Contribute share toward traffic signals at Hicks and Eaton Road.
11. Pay off assessments.
12. Provide domestic water from the California Water Service Company.
13. Provide sewage disposal facilities in compliance with Butte County
Health Department and California State Regional Quality Control
Board requirements.
519 I
14. Destroy under permit, any water wells to be abandoned on the pxoperty.
15. Provide a homeowners association agreement or other legal entity
that provides for the installation, repair and replacement of tie
sewage disposal systems, the entity to be reviewed by the Butte
County Health Department and the California State Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
16. 7 foot fence on the perimeter of the parcel--wood, masonry, concrete,
brick or chain-link, with evergreen hedge maintained to a height of
7 feet, or more, in living condition.
17. Construct standard left turn lane an Hicks Lane at entrance to this
development.
18. Install automatic garage door openers on ali garages.
19. Applicant must also comply with all othex applicable State and
local statutes, ordinances and regulations.
~l~SCUSSION OF CONNERLY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR OPERATION OF THE
HCD PROGRAM IN BUTTE COUNTY
Discussion of Connerly and Associates, Tnc, proposal for
operation of tfie HCD program in Butte County held at this time.
Superussor Dolan was concerned with why this was on the agenda.
Last fall the Board went out the bid for proposals and considered the
Page 184.
Marcb 31, 1981
_ March 31, 19.81
81- three acceptable bids.- She thought the decision had been made. There is
~'', nothing in the minutes, to show-that the Board decided for a different
operation.
Chairman Moseley advised that the matter was placed on the
agenda after a committee meeting was held regarding this-matter. They
asked for a proposal at this meeting and this is what the Board is considering
at this time.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated there was a
meeting on a different subject. At that meeting Nr, Connerly made a
proposal that his office could do everything the county was doing for
$38,000. If he can do the job for that amount of money, he should have it.
Supervisor Dolan was concerned with the process. No where in
the Board's minutes does it reflect discussion on this matter and costs.
The process held before was operational discussion on what does the county
want to handle and haw. The county developed a proposal and then received
bids on that proposal. The Board never reversed that decision. She
felt the Board should discuss cost or operational problems and if the
Board decides. to contract this program out, the process followed in the
Bast should be done and the county should ask for competitive bids.
Chairman Moseley stated the cost with the county is $88,000
and the proposal from Connerly and Associates is $38,000 for the same
work.
Supervisor Dolan stated she had a letter to the Chair with
copies to two other Board members. She had received no other information.
She wondered why there wasn't a cost analysis or comparison done by the
Administrative Office. She referred to the letter dated March 16, 1981
from Connerly and Associates, paragraph 2 relative to the county's
decision to go in-house. This decision was because of the
concerns and issues because of local control. The administrative cost
savings belonging to this program cost 3s a separate package but the
cost savings within the entire Administrative Office must be considered.
There were people in the Administrative Office that could be added into
the staff. Section D of that letter says there is no necessary information
to compare the administrative arrangement. She assumed someone had those
figures. She felt that maybe the bottom line was not that different.
She could not make a decision on whether this would be more cost effective
or not without that comparison.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated his office had
not been asked to prepare a costtanalysis. They would do so. For $38,500,
his office could not compete with Connerly and Associates at all.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that was the reason of the meeting.
Mr. Connerly agreed to give the county the services fox less expenditures.
Supervisor Dolan stated that she wanted a complete analysis of
the costs. Part of the reason the Board decided to operate in-house was
because the grant picked up part of the salary and it was a savings to
county funds. Those things that staff does without the grant will come
out of county funds.
Mr. Nickelson stated that the responsibiligy far HCD was added
to what they were doing. One of the problems is that because of the time
spent on HCD they are '.unable to do a groper job of general overall administratioi
As far as he was personally concerned, he would be happy to be relieved
of the program. They ', are having trouble doing the budget because of time.
Page 185.
March. 31, 1981
. ~.,, :~
a
March 31, 1981
Chairman Moseley stated that in the committee meeting these things
were brought out, The committee asked for a proposal and .received it.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, advised that
Mr, Connerly offered a proposal for $33,00 with an annual amount of $38,400.
On a head to head compaxison, the county cannot meet that figure,
Steve Musselman, administrative analyst, set out the figures for
the program. In order for this program to operate with the county it takes
2.5 positions. This is 30 percent of the deputy administrative officer's
salary, 50 percent of 'an administrative analysts salary, 50 percent of
the clerk typist's salary and 12 percent for an account clerk in the Auditor's
Office. Those amounts are plus the allocated costs plus office supplies and
the contract with Connerly and Associates. This amounts to about $100,000.
If Connerly and Associates contract is removed the figure would be $80,000.
Mr. Connerly's proposal is for a six month period of $19,200 which annualizes
to $38,400. This includes administration and implementation costs. These
are charges to the grant. If all you are looking at is $35,400 to be
charged to the grant then it is a better proposal than in-house. Mr.
Connerly `s proposal is for six months. He had stated that it would be in
the best interest of the county because of the uncertainty of finances in
1482. He has been told verbally from HUD that the grant would go through
1982. He felt it would be in the best interest of the county to contract
for 18 months instead of six months. The 82-83 budget would be subaect
to reductions of federal funds. There would still be about $4,000 per
year cost for the Auditor's duties. On a six month basis the cost of
the contract would be $19,200 plus $2,000 for the Auditor`s services which
could be a total of $21,200.
Supervisor Dolan stated she had heard the difference between
the two proposals was $3,700. She would like to know if this is true.
Mr. Musselman understood the amount would be $19,200 for six
nonths and would encompass the previous contract. Tt was not his understanding
it would be $19,200 plus the $24,000 for the other contract.
Ward Connerly, Connerly and Associates, stated his office was
submitting a proposal at the request of the committee. Their proposal is
to do for $38,4000 what the county staff is currently doing. It was not
ais understanding that Counsel or Public Works were charged services. They
could not be taking on responsibilities the county is taking on elsewhere.
This would be for the administrative cost for rehabilitation counseling.
3e had no problem with a nne year contract. The reason the proposal was
for six months was because the federal fiscal year starts October 1.
There are no hidden costs in this proposal. If the Board needs an analysis
of this, there is someChing wrong. He would be agreeable to a six month
contract at a specific price with a full year subject to federal funding.
Supervisor Dolan felt comfortable with asking questions regarding
this matter. It is not clear, and she would like an analysis between the
two operations. In many meetings she heard that the deferential is $3,700.
She wanted to pursue it. She assumed that Counsel and the Auditor would
retain some responsibility. Where is the coordination of problems and
loss it fall with the county staff? The fiscal: accounting does not have
3 firm cost attached to that. She asked if when the program was previously
run, did the county have people on county staff on general fund funding?
Mr. Nickelson stated that previously the county used CETA
employees and there was no cost to the program in the beginning.
Page 186.
Mardi 31, 1981
March 31, 1481
Mr. Connerly stated fie was now talking with a member of the
axisting staff about the possibility o£ having staff in Oroville. The
:oat for Counsel's services are not included in the $38,400 figure. They
will also do their own design work.
Supervisor Dolan asked if there was going to Tye a local person
available to talk with the people involved?
Mr. Connerly felt that the county had to give his office the
responsibility to respond to the Board. He would not say he would have
a full-time person available in Oroville at this time. He will make the
iecision at the appropriate time on how best to handle the situation.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the local process is an gmportant
part of the program. It is to the people involved and to the contractors.
She felt this was a Board policy decision. Sfie felt that a person locally
could mean a more effective program. She felt the Board designated a
neighborhood and if the grant is to the county, people expect to be able
to contact someone locally.
Chairman Moseley stated she had the privilege of going on a tour
pith Mr. Connerly in the past. The people involved know Mr. Connerly.
Mr. Connerly stated he would like the flexibility to decide
;~hether there would be a full-time person available in Oroville.
Supervisor Lemke felt that the Board could enter into a contract
with Mr. Connerly as produced in good faith leaving it to his discretion
on personnel locally. He did not doubt that the program contracted for
could be carried out in the best manner and for one-half less cost.
Supervisor Dolan stated the Board had gone on record
appreciating the services of Mr. Connerly. She had some specific
questions on this contract and did not feel they had been answered on
the real cost analysis' and the local issues. When the county enters into
an agreement it is necessary to work out what the county wants in the
contract, relative to policy needs, program needs and fiscal limitations.
Mr. Connerly agreed on local presense in the program. This does
not necessarily mean providing an office five days a week. He did not
[cnaw what would be the most adequate for the situation. They are not going
to try to run the program from Sacramento.
Supervisor Dolan asked a question regarding fiscal accounting
and fiscal control. She would like to have the Auditor`s comments.
Jim Johansen, auditor, stated he had some unresolved concerns
at this point. He questioned whether the contract being proposed is required
to go out for the bid process. Tt was his understanding that any contracts
under the HUD provisions must go to the bid process if they were over
$10,000.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, asked if he could research this
matter and respond to the Board in writing. if the Board wants to go
with this type of contract it will take about a week to prepare it and
bring the matter back to the Board for action. There is the question of
who is going to administer the contract through the county. There are a
number of things that have to be done. The county has a contract at the
present time and the contract being proposed would be a different contract
altogether. In this contract the consultant is to perform the running of
the program. He would like to make sure the county is .clear with HUD.
Page 187.
Mardi 31, 1981
March 31,_1381
~*
He would want the Board pzotected that they a,re go~.ng to b.e willing to
go without a competit;Cve bid. The county is dealing w3,th the federal
procurement regulations. Tf in the countyFS situation, the county is
talking about a personal service type of agreement, there is no requirement
to go out to bid. Tfiat type of contract depends not in terms of money
but in terms of reputation and ability of the individual to give a personal
service. Since this type of contract is within the federal procurement
regulations, fie would want clearance as to wfiether the Board can contract
without going to bid. He would like to see the Board give staff instructions
as to the way they want staff to proceed. If the Board wanted a modification
of the contract has office could prepare that for the Board's review and
approval. He would seek clearance through HUD as to whether this can be done.
The reason he would be contacting HUD is because they .are approving the
grant.
Mr. Johansen stated that if this is county money and the county
is granted the money then the money must be under the control of the
county.
Mr. Blackstock stated the funds would be county funds and
distributed under the laws of the state and government code. The funds
would be in tfie county treasury. The money would go out only through a
warrant by the Auditor with approval by the Auditor or the Board. This
raises one other question procedurally. Who is going to administer the
contract. This would have to be in the agreement.
Mr. Connerly stated he now knew why they could do the program
for less money. One of the things missed in this discussion is the
concept of a redevelopment agency. At that point the funds would no longer
be county funds and a CPA could then be used. His office does not want to
handle the money. He would much rather see the Auditor handle the responsibility
Supervisor Saracen3 stated the county is looking for ways to
save money. The county should look to every means to get underway.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
that the contract with Connerly and Associates be modified as outlined and
proposed in the March 16, 1981 letter from Ward Connerly and to transfer
responsibility for the HCD program implementation effective April 1, 1981;
to also instruct them to proceed in establishing an RDA as outlined in the
same letter and making Public Works Director administrator of the contract.
Mr. Blackstock stated he would suggest that the agreement
before the Board be authorized for the Chairman's signature and getting
arritten response and clearance from HTJD that this is not a violation of
the federal procurement standards.
Motion amended:
subject to Auditor and Counsel's approval.
Supervisor Dolan felt that if this-vial approved, the county
has two or three county employees doing the HCD program at the present time
snd with part of their salary from the grant monies will be drawing their
salaries from the county General k'und. The overall cost to the county
goes up. She wondered what the cost to the county would tie for these
employees.
Mr. Nickelson stated the cost would be about $25,000 to the
county funds. The problem they have is they cannot do the job- negessary
now.
Page 188.
March 31, 1981
March 31, 19.81
81•
3
Supervisor T~Itieeler doubted if tfie grant money was significant
enought to offset the duties needed as far as administrative work is
concerned, It is also'mportant to note tfiat at Fsudget time tfie Board
will be considering whether any of the positions are necessary in the
county and addressing wfiether people are needed for administrative work
or whatever office work. It is the Board's responsibility to see if
they need the number of people.
Supervisor Dolan stated the motion also included a request
for proposal for an RDA that was not discussed. She felt this topic
warranted much more discussion. The whole discussion today has been on
the operation and fiscal cost of HCD programs. Perhaps the Board would
want to consider instructing staff to bring back. to the Board that
discussion of establishing an RDA.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
Mr. Blackstock suggested that the Board not have the contract
executed until April 7, 1981. This would give the Board time to check the
modifications.
Mr. Blackstack to meet with Mr. Connerly and come back later
in the meeting.
RECESS: 11:40 a.m.
RECONVENE: 11:.50 a.m.
520 APPEARANCE: CARL ORY
Mr. Ory spoke regarding the green line in Chico. He was on the
joint committee of the Board and the City of Chico to develop the green line.
This was a compromise. This green line is no longer there. The city wanted
development to go to the east. Theecounty Manning Commission voted to
extend the green line further to the north and west. He asked that the
Board reject the commission's recommendations.
Supervisor Wheeler felt it was necessary for the Planning
Commission and the Board to define the green line, The definition of that
green line should be written into the General Plan. They need specific
language that address where urban ends and agricultural land begins. She
felt the Board needed to take the responsibility for tfie green line for
the entire county.
Michael Schrader, planning commissioner, stated that the Planning
Commission took into consideration something Mr. Ory was not considering and
that is property rights of the people that own land.
PUBLxC HEARING: CARROLL LEASON - APPEAL OF CONDTTIONS 13 & 14 ON TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP, AP 25-23-69, FOUR LOTS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 70 SOUTH OF PALERMO ROAD SOUTH BUTTE COUNTY AREA
The public Tiearing on Carroll Leason appeal of conditions 13 and
14 on tentative parcel map, AP 25-23-69, four lots, property located on the
west side of Higfiway 70, south of Palermo Road, south Butte County area was
held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the appeal. Condition 13 should tie withdrawn as the applicant does
Page 189.
March 31, 1981
1. Bill Geddis, representing Mr. Leason. Mr. Geddis appreciated
the removal of condition 13. The vegetation rentention was on the map when
Mr. Leason purchased tT~e property. They talked with. Fish and Game to get
an understanding of what the restriction meant. Wfien the map was processed
there was additional verbage added. One of the concerns is the large
cottonwood trees. They do not Intend to remove those trees. There is an
annual droppage of limbs that could be afire problem. They are asking for
clarification as to whether they are allowed to remove the dead vegetation
that would create afire problem.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
2. Ernest Hodson, Fish and Game. Mr. Hodson stated they were
concerned with the large mature cottonwood trees that adjoins the property.
These trees are considered critical to the habitat. They supplied the
definition of vegetation retention to Mr. Leason over a year ago. That
is not included on the deed.
Mr. Castleberry asked the Board if his office could handle this
matter with a note on the map and that they would have the right to
maintenance of dead wood. He agreed with removal of the dead wood and
felt the fencing was entirely reasonalile. He asked that fie be allowed to
work with the property owner on this matter.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the appeal of condition 13 was sustained and
condition 14 was changed to include a note on tfie map relative to the
trees.
522
_ _ rlaxch 31~ 1381 - _
not have the right.thxougii the adjoining prapertX. .He suggested that the
,Board sustain the appeal on Condition 13. Mr. Castletzezry spoke regarding
condition 14 at this time. This is for vegetation retention. The property
owner would have ownership of this area and it would be for habitation. It would
'not preclude most of the use of the property.
Q~TTTIATE ZONTNG OF "R-3" FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY ORVILLE TRACX, JR. FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON WEST SACRNTO AVENUE FOR AP 43--260-004 & 005
Orville Tracy spoke regarding his request for "R-3" zoning on
his property located on West Sacramento Avenue. He submitted a letter
requesting this zoning. Because of the approval of the Sacramento Avenue
Assessment District it is necessary to request this zoning.
523
524
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the "R--3" zoning for property owned by Orville Tracy, Jr. for
property located on West Sacramento Avenue for AP 43-260-004 and 005 was
initiated. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley.
ABSTAINING: Supervisor Lemke
APPEARANCE: LES COHEN RCRC
Mr. Cohen presented some material to the Board relative to the
RCRC organization. He asked that the Board consider membership in this
organization. He set out what RCRC has been doing for the rural counties.
LETTER TO BE SENT TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASKING FOR AUDIT OF BUTTE COUNTX
LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND THAT THIS ORGANIZATION BE MADE
TO BE RESPONSTVE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY
Mike Busfi, Legal Services of Northern California, spoke regarding-
the resolution passed last week with regard to the letter of support to
abolisfi Legal Services. This item was not on tfie agenda. There are two
points brought up by Supervisors Lemke and Wheeler which seem to form the
Page 190.
March 31, 1981
----_-_===~iaxch.313 1281 __________________
basis of^reasoning fox adoption of the resolution. The feeling and experience
he has with practicing law in the past seven ,years is simply that the county
wants to control Legal Services and keep them out of the county's hair.
He felt the resolution was adopted witFz this in mind. The first point had
to do with efficiency and whethex the county could provide legal services
Better. The contract metfiod was originally tfie way they started in the
county. It was very difficult to keep alive after tFiey filed a lawsuit
against the county. It is not moxe efficient to contract out for services.
They deal mostly in federal law. Many of the private lawyers in the area
do not deal in tfiis type of service. A second point was raised by Supervisor
Lemke relative to the fact he had felt it was strange for one tax supported
agency suing another tax supported agency. How come someone has to sue
a tax supported agency?
Supervisor Lemke stated he thought it was strange that after the
law suit findings, the tax supported agency again sued anotfier tax supported
agency to sue for court costs.
Mr. Bush stated this was not another lawsuit but was contained in
the first lawsuit. The court awarded $37,000. The comments relative to
double taxation he did not understand. Where a government agency is
shown to be violating the law that might deter them from violating the law.
It was the county's decision to go to the lawsuit. He was willing to
neQOtiate.
Supervisor Wheeler felt that the burden of proof must be
placed on Mr. Bush. She felt there should be a federal audit of the
organization. She wondered if it wasn't possible that Mr. Bush was
in volation of federal contract because of the lawsuits brought against
a tax supported agency.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
that a letter be written to the federal government asking for a audit
of Butte County Legal Services of Northern California and that the
organization be made to be responsive to the people of the county.
Supervisor Lemke felt there was not reason for Mr. Bush to
be upset if there is nothing wrong.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saracens, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
525
PUBLIC HEARING: PRATT SCHOOL MALL COMPANY APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S
',CONDITION 8 ON TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, AP 40-234-01, FIVE LOTS AND
COMMON AREA, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BROWN STREET, WEST OF
THE MIDWAY, DURHAM AREA
The public hearing on Pratt School Mall Company appeal of the
Advisory Agency's condition 8 on tentative subdivision map, AP 40-234-01 ,
five lots and common area, progerty located on the south side of Brown
Street, west of The Midway, Durham area was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, setout the background
of the appeal. This is a very elaborate storm drain design for the area.
There are some problems. They could not put in the system today. It would-
cost several thousand dollars to put in the system. Tfie developer has
proposed to use a termporary drainage system using seepage pits. They have
also proposed to pay their share of a future drainage district.
Page 191.
Mardi 31, 1281
Max'ch 31, 19.81
gl. Mz, Castlebezry stated that the dxainage.~lan £or Durham was
~'', accepted but not offl:c%ally approved, .The. deyelopex i.s proposing a
counteroffer. He suggested-that the county take tfie deposit as part
', of the offer. Tt is not gractical to put in the drainage that is required.
There would be french drains instead of dry wells.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Wesley Gilbert, McCain
and Associates. Mr. Gilbert reiterated tfiat putting in the drainage would
be prohibitive. They are willing to work witfi the county in installing
drainage seepage pits- and paying a fee for future connections to a drainage
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
526
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the appeal of condition 8 on tentative subdivision
map, AP 40-234-O1, five lots and common area, property located on the south
side of Brown Street, west of The Midway, Durham area for Pratt School Mall
Company was upheld and the condition deleted with acceptance of the offer
of contribution and construction of the seepage pits.
RECESS: 12:50 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:46 p.m.
SUPERVISOR LEMKE ABSENT AT THIS TIME
APPROVE AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT FOR FIRE SERVICES WITH COUNTY OF BUTTER
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the automatic aid agreement with the Sutter County Fire Warden
which covers automatic response of one engine company from Butte To Sutter
and Sutter will provide one engine to Butte within designated areas which
will be at no cost to either party was approved and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
527 APPROVE CONTRACT WITH FAMILY SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF BUTTE AND GLENN COUNTIES
FOR FAMILY CONCILIATION COURT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the contract for mediation services with Family Services
Association of Butte and Glenn Counties for the Family Conciliation Court for
a period of six months from March 1 through August 31, 1981 in the amount
of $30 per hour for services rendered to the court was approved and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
528 APPROVE/DENY PENALTY ABATEMENT RE UESTS CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP REPORT
On motion of '.Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following action was taken with regard to penalty abatement
requests, change of ownership regorts:
1. Approved request for penalty abatement for Edward H. Rapacki,
AP 034-76-0-004--0
2. Denied request for penalty abatement for Evelyn C. Liptrap,
AP 044-65-0-021-0
529
3. Denied request for penalty abatement for Gary D. Coleman
AP 005-25-4-026-0
DISCUSSION AND POLICY DIRECTION ON REPORT ON ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT WITH
_ANIMAL CONTROL HEALTH SERVICES - CONTINUED TO APRIL 7_, 1981
Discussion and policy direction on the report on animal control
contract with Animal Control Health Services was continued to April 7, 1481.
Page 192.
March. 31, 1981
.5
530
Max'ch 31, 19.81
APPROVE BUDGET TRAATS~'ETZ$
On motion of'Superyisor Dolan, aeconded:by.Supexvisor ?dheeler
and carried, the following budget transfers were approved;
B~169 - Libra Transfers $55 from office expense to fixed
,assets - equipment in order to provide an additional appropriation to
I, acquire a desk from county surplus pfoperty.
B~170 ~ Community Action Program. Transfers $2,310 from other
costs; with $2,000 going to salaries and wages and $310- to benefits within
.the 19.81 Energy Crisis, Intervention Program grant year to cover the salary
of an account clerk erroneously established under other costs:
B-171 - Community Action Program. Establishes the budget for the
1981 grant year Housing Winterization Round V Program in the amount of
$20,000 as approved by the State Office of Economic Opportunity on March 9,
1981.- Revenue for the program is from unanticipated revenue - state aid.
B-172 - Welfare Administration. Transfers $800 from fixed assets -
equipment to maintenance of equipment in order to cover the cost of
reupholstering cfiairs rather than purchasing new chairs. Reupholstering
was accomplished at a savings to the county. .
B-175 - Auditor--Controller. Transfers $5,60.0 from extra help;
with $4,500 going to professional and specialized services and $1,100 to
rents and leases of equipment and provides for a one month lease of two
NCR 494 bookkeeping machines and for programming for a revenue ledger
and improvements to existing programs. The NCR 499s are to replace the
existing NCR 399x.
B-176 - Chico Municipal Court. Transfers $3,560 from revenue
sharing - jail addition project; with $1,200 going to office expense,
$1,300 to professional and specialized services and $1,060 to fixed assets -
equipment. The purpose of this transfer is to implement the manual traffic
system and parking proposal in place of a computerized system. The fixed
asset equipment appropriation is to purchase a time clock and electric
typewriter.
531
532
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A public hearing date of April 21, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. was set
for the following items:
1. Stanley M. Boggs petition for variance to Sections I9-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code fox placement of a mobile home on AP 39-12-03,
Route 2, Box 850, River Road, Chico area. Zoning: "A-10"
2. Edward and Donna McMartin petition for variance to Sections
19-10 and/or 19-12 of 'the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 28-27-099, off of LaPorte Road, Bangor area. Zoning: "A-5"
APPROVE TREASURER/TAX COLLECTOR ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Aolan
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Authorized request for penalty aelief £or Janice Evans
Gilmore for Account 927-001269-00.
2: Denied claim for refund of taxes paid for Catherin B. Norman -
for AP 53-11-0-095.
3. Denied request for penalty relief for John R. Bultema for
Assessment Nos. 06-4022FR-00, 08~Cf00346-0.0 & 25-000007-00.
Page 193.
. ~- March 31, 1981
March 31, 1281
alp
a'
533
534
535
On motion of Supervisor Saracens, seconded_by.Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Approved contract change order No. 8 for Ta61e Mountain
Boulevard Bridge across the Feather River, Project No. 28431-76--1 in the
increasing amount of $6,740. which provides for adding some additional reinforcing
steel in the box girder stems as recommended Tiy CalTrans with. funding coming
from the project contingency fund and the Chairman authorized to sign.
2. Approved, agreement for pufilic connection to State Route 99
between Southern Pacific Railroad and Butte Creek and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
(ADDITIONAL ITEMS PRESENTED BY
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated he had asked the
Auditor's Office to check the contractor's books relative to septic tank
fees.
CANCEL LAND CONSERVATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION SI112 ET SEQ.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the Land 4:puservation Act agreement for Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation pursuant to Government Code Section 51112 et seq on the
following parcels were canceled:
AP 061-01-0-001-0
AP 061--01-0-008-0
AP 061-07-0-007-0
AP 061-09--0-005-0
AP 061-09-0-006-0
AP 061-10-0-002--0
AP 061-10-0-004-0
AP 061=I0-0-008-0
AP 061-10-0-009-0
AP 061-10-0-010-0
AP 061-11-0-001-0
AP 061--11-0-002-0
AP 061-i1-0-003-0
AP 061--12--0--001--0
AP 061-12-0-002-0
AP 061-12-0-003-0
AP 061-12-0-Q04--0
AP 061-12-0--005--0
AP 061-12-0-006-0
AP 061-13-0-004-0
AP 061-13-0-006-0
AP 061-13-0-007-0
AP 061-13-0-009-0
AP 061-13-0-010-0
AP 061-13-0-011-0
AP 071-04-0-003-0
AP 071-04-0-012-0
AP 071-05-0-032-0
AP 071-05-0-053-0
AP 071--OS--0-fl58-0
AP 071-05-0-073-0
AP 071-05-0-079-0
AP 071-OS-0-080-0
AP 071-05-0-081-0
AP 073-02-0-001-0
AP 073-02-0-002-0
AP 073-02-0-006-0
AP 073-03-0-001-0
AP 073-03-0-002-0
AP 073-03-0-003-0
AP 073-04--0--001-0
AP 073-04-0-002-0
Ap 073-07-0-009-0
Ap 0.73-07-p-012-0
Ap 073-OS-0-OOZ-O
AP 073-04-0-00.4-0
AP 273-04-0-006-0
AP 073-04-0-010-0
AP 073-04-0-012-0
AP 073-04-0-013-0
AP 073-04-0-019-0
AP 073-04-0-027-0
AP 073-05-0-001-0
AP 073-05-0-013-0
AP 073-0.7-0-003-0
AP 073-07-0-005-0
AP 073-0.7-0-00.6-0
Page 124.
March'31, 1281
a
---_-____-- I~x'ch31~ 19~87~__________________
536 ADOPT ORDIN~INCE 2205 .CONCERNING kARKING AT THE PARADISE JUSTICE COURT AND
PARADISE MEMORIAL HA~.L COMPLEX
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler,.seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, tFie second reading of the ordinance concerning parking at the
Paradise Justice Court and Paradise 'Memorial Hall complex was waived;
Ordinance 2205 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. AYES:
Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley. ABSENT:
Supervisor Lemke
537 APPOINTMENTS TO MENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD AND AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY
,.,..., ,...... ~...., ,.~., m.,~...... r .,..z,.,.r.,,,,,,. ...., .,,,, r,~ ~ - - ~ nog
is were continued to April 7, 1981:
1. Appointments to the Mental Health Advisory Board.
2. Appointment to the Agricultural Advisory Commission - District 5
538
APPOINTMENT TO HOUSING ELEMENT TASK FORCE
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the following were appointed to the Housing•Element Task Force
District 1:
Mike Glaze
Lee Colby
*~~
539
540
SUPERVISOR LEMKE PRESENT AT THIS TIME
COMMUNICATIONS
Richard L. Hickman, engineer, Fair Oaks. The engineer, on behalf of Foothill
Two Investors, files a late appeal appealing conditions 2 and 13
on tentative parcel map, AP 71-01-93, four lots, property located
on the west 'side of Oroville Quincy Highway, off of Bell Ranch
Road, Canyon Creek area. Referred to Advisory Agency for
comments.
Richard L. Hickman, engineer, Fair Oaks. The engineer, on behalf of
Foothill One Tnvestors, writes filing a late appeal appealing
condition No. 2 on tentative parcel map, AP 71-01--94, eight lots,
property located on the west side of Oroville Quincy Highway,
off of Be11 Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area. Referred to Advisory
Agency for comments.
Richard L. Hickman, engineer, Fair Oaks. The engineer, on behalf of
Robert Johnson et al, writes filing a late appeal appealing
condition No. 2 on tentative parcel map, AP 71~-01-95, seven lots,
property located on the west side of Oroville Quincy Highway,
off of Be11 Ranch Road, Canyon Creek area. Referred to Advisory
Agency for comments.
PRESENTATION flF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT_COMMITTEE
Lee Colby, chairman, made the presentation of recommendations of
the Land Development Committee at this time. The recommendation would
include a Land Development Director. If the Board adopts this presentation
Mr. Colby felt that the Land Development Review Board should be comprised
of individuals familiar with the land development process by education or
vocation or experience. They would like to see Environmental Health,
Sanitation Department put under Public Works instead of being under the
Public Health Director. They would like to combine Planning and Environmental
Review Departments under one department head. The Director of Planning
and Environmental Review would be answerable to the Land Development Director.
The Public Works Director would not be answerable to this department head.
page 195.
March. 31, 1951
March 31~ 1981
81-
b
AlI the departments would be consolidated in a central area. The
Land Development Director would fie accessiT3.le to the public. The funding
for this new position will fie from putting the two departments under one
department head, He felt this should be a self supporting .department.
Ttie Land Development Director will operate under the Administrative Officer.
[ie or she will have interaction with LA'FCo and the Planning Commission.
T[te~[,and Development Review Board__wQu1d`Se appon~edi Fiy ~-t~~'>Board of
Supervisors. The Land Development Review Board would hear appeals from
thelAdvisory Agency, Their decision would be Funding on staff but not
on the applicant. The applicant could still appeal to the Board. It will
6e the directors respons~iility to see that the application is processed
as fast as possible inl€avor of the applicant.
When an applicant comes in for a General Plan change, he hoped
that the environmental,datawas done so the applicant would not have to
go through and do an EIR. Tt was felt there should be no EIR required if it
complies to the zoning,
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated the
committee discussed the plan he had worked on and considered the input.
He saw a lot of similarity between the two proposals. He had not seen the
proposal. The similarity is the combinatian of Planning and Environmental
Review Departments. The two reports are somewhat different as to the
role of the Public Works Director. He was still unclear of the role of the
Land Development Review Director.
Mr. Colby stated that the Land Development Director would be
answerable to the Board of Supervisors. The Land Development Review
Board would set policy. The Public Works Director's responsibilities
are much more than land development. Even if the personnel was taken
from his department, he would have to sign the final maps.
Mr. Lively stated ghere would have to be approval from the
Health Department as to the transfer of Environmental Sanitation.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, set out the
funding for his department. The state pays for 50 percent of the funding
far this department.
Supervisor Zemke felt there should be a fiscal report done
on this recommendation. He would like to see the Auditor go over the
recommendation with the Committee and the department heads. He would
like to see what the proposal is going to cost and what the available
funding is.
Supervisor Wheeler asked that County Counsel also be involved
with the report.
Supervisor Dolan stated she had just received the recommendations.
She was concerned about the level involving appeals from the Advisory
Agency. At the present time the appeals are to the Board. This is a
good appeal process. She thought this might Be a duplication with the
Land Development Review Board. She wondered if this did not lenghten
the process. This would make three separate advisory boards to the
Board.
Mr. Colby felt that the county had competent staff. He felt
that competent people did not always make unbiased decisions. considering
costs. Many times there are numerous conditions placed on the applicant
that could be changed to three or four conditions. The developers do
not always come in with bad ideaso The applicant can appeal to the
Page 196.
March-31, 1481
81-
b
Match 31, 181
Board from the Land .Development .Review Board. Not all recommendations coming
from staff benefit the puhl;Lc and private sector. ..The.n.ew hoard would
review any ordinance oz' codes adopted by the Board,
Mary Andrews stated that the Advisory Agency was basically made
up of staff. The reason for review of the appeals comes from the fact
that staff recommends something the applicant does not want. This
would come to the new Board for appeal. This would helg make the land
development process run smoothly.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the Advisory Agency puts conditions
on a project and if the applicant does not like those conditions, they
have the right to appeal to the Board of Supervisors. She felt that
the new board would bean added step.
Mr. Colby felt that it was important to have people involved
in land development to be on this new board. It could eliminate a
lot of problems. The new board would meet twice a month and could
eliminate many conditions because people will understand better what is
required of them. The cost of housing must lie cut.
Supervisor Lemke felt that the reason for the number of conditions
placed on a project by'staff was because of the various ordinances and
codes the county has to work under. The Advisory Agency cannot make
decisions outside those permiters. If this goes into the Land
Development Review Board, he assumed they could make the decisions similar
to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Colby stated the reason for the meeting each week would
be to simplf_y_ the code. He felt things needed to be redefined. If the
law is cumbersome, then this should be taken to the state and have something
done about it. He did not feel any ordinance should fie adopted by the
Board until the new board has considered that ordinance.
Ms. Andrews felt this new board would eliminate some of the
problems the county has at the present time. It would not take the
control from the Board. They would meet twice a month. One of the meetings
would be for appeals and the other meeting would be a workshop.
Supervisor Dolan was concerned with the appeal process. The
recommendation is to allow the applicant to appeal. She felt they also
needed to allow the public to appeal a project, If there is an appeal to
the Board from the Advisory Agency why is there a need for another step,
Mr. Colby felt Supervisor Dolan was talking about philosophy.
i7hen an applicant makes application they have requirements from the
staff level. This new board would be a balance because that board would
be familiar with what the person is talking about,
Supervisor Lemke suggested that this report be sent to the
Auditor for a study of, the fiscal impacts. A copy of this report should
be sent to each department involved in the process to make notations.
This should also go to Counsel for legal intrepretation of the recommendation.
He felt this matter should be continued to April 14, 1981 for a report
back from the departments.
Bill Collins, asked that the departments be asked to look at this
recommendation in terms of value or positive instead of looking for
problems in the structure. The recommendation was a hope to streamline
the process. He felt this meant a great deal of savings on the time
of the Board and staff without compromising the law or safety to people.
Page 197.
Marcfi 31, 1981
81,
b
jlarch 31, 1981
Mr. Colby stated they had seen the proppsed ~ixe standards.
wanted to know if the comm~.ttee would sti11_.be.active. He felt in
oking at this process-that this must Tie an on-going process. He would
ke to see-the committee go through the codes, The board is comprised
the people involved 'in land development.
Supervisor Lemke felt there would probably be less problems in
he proposed process once everything is opened up and looked at. He
oped there would be streamlining of the process. Tlie process now takes
bout two years.
Mr. Colby stated that if there is a General Plan change the
process is about two years. If there are numerous hearings the process
could be three years. 'He would like to see the committee involved in
doing away with the "A-2" zoning in the county. He would like to see a
good environmental study done so that when a person comes in for a
development they do not have to go out and have an EIR done. There
sheuld be someone controlling the flow of process. There should be a
check on where these items are in the process.
Ms. Andrews stated that the average person coming into the
'county does not know which department to go to for assistance. The
new system would also have a tracking system on every application in the
county.
Supervisor Wheeler felt the committee should continue.
Supervisor Saraceni felt this should be an on going committee.
Ms. Andrews wanted to make sure the Board understood they are
not trying to make it easier for someone to development land. The;:committee
wants to see the preservation of agricultural land. It would be possible
to develop in greater density those areas on urban improvements.
The matter was continued to April 14, 1981 for a report back
from the departments.
541 CONNERLY AND ASSOCIATES TO COMPLETE HOUSING ELEMENT BRAFT USING AB 2853
TO BE READY FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS IN APPROXIMATELY 40 RAYS
Charlie Woods, plannexr., set out the memo regarding the Housing
Element Discussion. Of those things discussed relative to the providing of
information to Connerly and Associates. The Planning Department is
prepared to provide most of the information. They have discussed the
land use inventory with-the Assessor°s Office and have a proposal to
access their files. A program will have to be developed to obtain this
information.
Supervisor Saraceni reported on the meeting with Connerly and
Associates. They discussed how the Housing Element could be completed to
meet the deadline. There would be coordination of information necessary
to finalize the Housing Element under AB 2853 of the 1980 laws. Connerly
and Associates are going to give the county an additional 40 hours of time
to complete the element.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Connerly and Associates are to complete the
Housing Element draft using AB 2853, 1380 laws, with the Planning staff
assigning and supplying the necessary data needed to have the draft ready "
for public hearings in,approximately 40 days.
Page 198.
March. 31, 19.81
Mafich-31_19.81
31- 542
~,
543
542
ADOPT ORpxNANCE 2206.; .INTERIM "~,S--R" FOR SALES TACT OFFICE WITH USE PERMiT
AS ALLOWS IN QTHE'R SIMILAR ZONES, I:E„ "~1-,R,t' tt,P,R:MELttt.t'Rtl,n "R-2," "R 3,°
'tR~4~n .ttRT^l;t~ ~'SR;t''$'R~1,"'ETC.
tJn motion o~ Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, interim "AS-R" for sales tract offices with a use permit as
allowed in otfier similar zones, i:e., "'A-R,'" "AR-MH_°1 "R~1,°1 "R-2,° "R-3,"
"R-4," "RT-1," '"SR," "SR-1" etc, for a period of 1;20 days was approved;
Ordinance 2206 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. AYES:
Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley. NOES:
Supervisor Aolan
MODIFY CONTRACT WITH CONNERLX AND ASSOCIATES TO TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY
FOR HCD PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1981
Dan Blaekstock, county counsel, reported on the meeting held
with Connerly and Associates relative to the contract far transfer
of the responsibility of the HCD program. He has been in contact with
YUD as to whether this amendment would require a competitive bid process.
They seemed to be of the opinion that it would not be necessary. However,
he will be sending the contract amendment to HUD and they will be calling
him back and advisa~g him in writing as to their opinion on the subject.
Phe agreement being prepared is subject to that approval from HUD. If HUD
rules the county must go to comgetitive bid, the contract would be null
and void. The contract would be for one and one-Half ~*ears to approximately
October 1, 1982. Mr. Connerly feels that if this is combined from October 1,
1981 to 1982 they are asking for $45,000 for that period of time. The
contract would be payable monthly. This would include all expenses.
The total amount would be about $3,200 per month with the contract starting
April 1, 1981. It would be subject to federal funding. The contract
could provide that if the money is not cut below $400,000 that contract
could continue as it is. If the federal funds fall below $400,000 they
could renegotiate the contract. The contract deals with additonal work
Implementation, operation and planning £or the grant. It does not include
sny of the Auditor's services, Counsel's services, Public Works services,
planning and design or any apgraisal of real property. Those services
could be paid for by the county.
Ward Connerly, Connerly and Associates, concurred.. HUD does not
require competitive bid process. It was not needed in the beginning.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, questioned the Board
regarding the one employee who would be laid`- off with transfer of this
grogram. They would be required to issue a ten day layoff notice. He
recommended that the Board pick up that salary through the General Fund.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, the contract with Connerly and Associates was modified as
outlined and proposed in the March 16, 1981 letter from Ward Connerly and
transfer of the responsibility for the HCD program implementation effective
April 1, 1981 was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign the
:ontract. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley.
DOES: Supervisor Dolan.
;QNSTDERATION OF FEE SCHEDULE AND REVISION TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
GUIDELINES REFERRED TO LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR A REPORT BACK TO
CHE BOARD
Dan Blaekstock, county counsel, set out the background of
:he resolution revising the Environmental Review Guidelines. Paragraph 1 _
ander objectives should be deleted.
Earl Nelson,'environmental review director, stated there is a court
:ase pending that could have as1 effect on tfiese guidelines. There could
age 199.
March 31, 1981
March 31, 19.81
be a modification of paragrah K to paragrah.4 to .show the developer can
submit information in tiie form of a draft ETIi.
Lee Colhy asked that tfiis matter be continued. He would like
the Land Development Committee to review the resolution, He did not feel
that only certain people could prepare FIRS. He did not feel an EIR
Should Fie changed without consulting the applicant.
Mr. Nelson stated that most of the changes in this resolution
have to do with definitions and policies within state guidelines. The
definition of mitigation has been expanded. There are minor changes.
It is necessary to bring the county guidelines into compliance with the
state guidelines,
Jolene Blake felt that the time periods for having something
done should be included in the new guidelines. The state law had
been incorporated by reference. She felt this should be spelled out
in the resolution.
The matter was referred to the Land Development Committee for
a report back to the Board.
543
COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. C. J. Chartrand „et al, Chico. Thirteen letters have been received
appealing the Planning Commissionrs decision on a proposed negative
declaration and rezone from "S-R" (suburban residential) to
"R-3" (multi-family residential), property located on the east
side of Burnap Avenue, between Eaton Road and Lassen Avenue,
identified as AP 44-33-12, 13, 14, 1S and i02, Chico. To be
considered at the hearing April 7, 1981.
Elizabeth Martin, Paradise. Ms. Martin writes in opposition to the R. Grant
Cline proposed negative declaration and appeal of denied rezone
which is schedule before the Board on April 21, 1981. To be
considered at the time of the hearing.
Archie and Lois McDonald, Magalia. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald write in
opposition to the R. Grant Cline proposed negative declaration
and appeal of denied rezone which is scheduled before the Board
on April 21, 1981. To be considered at the time of the hearing.
Gene Trinkler, Paradise. Mr. Trinkler writes requesting refund of storm
drainage fee in the amount of $1,634 that was paid for AP 51-163-30
(new APs 51-163-037 and 038) in the Town of Paradise. Referred
to Public Works.
Alma Jean Berg, Chico. Ms. Berg writes concerning the extension of the
Chico Clipper into areas outside the present service area in
Chico. Referred to Public Works.
Mrs. Betty J. Brown, Oroville. Mrs. Brown writes requesting the Board
to consider abating the $100 penalties on nine parcels within
the Village Oaks Subdivision of Oroville. Referred to Counsel
and Assessor.
Jody Settles, Oroville. Ms. Settles, on behalf of Evelyn Whitworth, writes
requesting the Board to consider canceling the $100 penalty for
property identified as AP 13-22-5-012, Referred to Counsel and -
Assessor.
Page 200.
March. 31, 1981
81•
____________ March 3l, 1981 ____
Chico Visitor and Convention Bureau, Tha Tiureau wx~.tes asking the Board
to support the progress of the acc~uis~;tion fund fox Bidwell
River Park as part of the 1980 California Parklands Bond Act.'
Referred to $upervisor Dolan for a.report back to the Beard.
City of Chico. Mayor Evans writes expressing the Chico City Council`s
support of the Chico Area General Plan wfi~ch.is presently under
consideration and requests the Board to move as rapidly as
possible to adopt the comprehensive land use plan. Information;
no action taken.
City of Chico. The city sends notification of early consultation for the
annexation of unincorporated areas within the Chico primary
sphere of influence. Information; no action taken.
Marsh & Marsh, attorneys at law. The attorneys, on liefi~.lf of Butte
County Law Enforcement Association, writes requesting that the
existing overtime policy being applied to deputy sheriffs be
reviewed on an urgency basis with the Personnel Director.
Matter already handled.
State Department of Parks and Recreation. The department sends notification
of the nomination of St. John's Episcopal Church on Salem Street
sn Chico to the National Register of Historic Places and advises
that comments may be submitted to the commission in advance of
their May 7, 1981 meeting. Information; no action taken.
U.S. Department of Labor. Carolyn M. Golding, regional administrator,
writes asking if the Board would like further explanations
as to the planned phase-out of programs under Titles IID and VI
pursuant to the President's recommendations. Referred to
Personnel Director.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Wheeler spoke regarding items brought up during the
meeting that are not on the agenda. Since she has been on the Board there
have been matters brought up that were not listed on the agenda. She could
understand the concern about unscheduled subjects that come up. Smnetimes
there is no alternative. Agendas are conveneient tools to organize and
make efficient scheduling for presentation by county department heads
and other citizens. She felt the Board should support the policy to keep
these off agenda items to a minimum. The agenda cannot be used as a
strait jacket approach. She asked that possibly they have a committee of
two Board members to work on the policy of off-agenda items.
544
Supervisor Aolan felt that nothing should be brought up off-agenda
except for emergency matters.
Supervisor Zemke did not feel the Board could go with not having
anything that was not on the agenda. There is correspondence that is
brought up. There is the 11:00 a.m. time period when anyone may make a
presentation of any kind. He did not feel there was anything wrong with
the Board bringing something up that was not on the agenda.
Supervisor Dolan felt that matters should be placed on the agenda.
She felt everyone should be prepared for what will be discussed.
Supervisor Wheeler did not want to be precluded from bringing
something up just because it was not on the agenda.
Chairman Moseley appointed a committee .o.£ Supervisor Dolan and
Saracens to discuss a salary s~ridy'~before budget time.
Page 201.
March 13, 1981
81~
3
March 31~ 19-81
RECESS: -The Board recessed at~3:50 p,m. to .reconvene on Thursday, -
April 2, 14-81 at 4:00-p,m, in the Chico Cit~r<Council Chambers.
*******April2, 19-8I*******
545
546
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 4:00.p.m. in ahe'Chico City Council
Chambers pursuant to recess, Present: Supervisors Bolan,
Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley. Clif Nickelson,
administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and
Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk
to the Board. Absent: Supervisor Lemke
DISCUSSION OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH CONNERLY AND ASSOCIATES FOR TRANSFER
OF HCD PROGRAM OERATIONS - CONTINUED TO APRIL 7, 1981
Discussion of the contract amendment with `Conne~ly-and Associates
for transfer of the HCD program operations field at this time.
Supervisor Dolan stated she had just3-received the information
r elative to the contract. She did not feel the Board should consider
this matter at this time.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that the Board on
March 31, 1981 find authorized the contract without having it before them.
He felt the contract should be clarified.
The consideration of the contract amendment with Connerly and
Associates was continued to April 7, 1981.
JOINT MEETING WITH CHICO CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING PROPOSED LIBRARY FACILITY
The joint meeting with the Chico City Council concerning the
proposed library facility was held at this time.
Chairman Moseley stated the county wanted to offer the city an
opportunity to participate in the library facility. The financial plan
Eor construction needs to be resolved soon. This is a $1,850,000 project.
The county will be calling for bids about April 7, 1481 and calling
Eor bids for financing on June 2, 1981. The Board needs to know if
the city will participate in order to conform the bid documents.
Information was presented to the Councilmembers at this time.
Fred Davis, city administrator, stated that over the past
severa}: months there has been correspondence between his office and the
county Administrative Office asking the city to waive the sewer fees of
$11,000. He responded to the county at that time.th~t the present sewage
ordinance did not provide for waiver or elimination of any fees. He also
iad correspondence from the county as to whether the city would waive the
,torn drainage fees. The city has not waived the fees. He read in the
newspaper the county had interest in asking the city to cooperate in the
€inancing arrangement for the library. He asked the county to indicate
chat type of cooperation they were asking for.
Chairman Moseley advised the county would like to have the
city do the landscaping, parkways, frontal areas and parking
sreas that would be about $78,600.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, set out the schedule at this
time. The present schedule is not entirely under the county's control.
Phis is a lease and lease-back arranagement. They have to obtain IRS
clearance. They were hoping to go out for construction bids by April 7.
Page 202.
Apr£1' 2, 1981