Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM051281May 12~ 19-81 OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. OF BUTTE ) sl- y' 762 763 764 The Board of Supervisors met at 9;00 a;-m. pursuant to adjournment. Present: Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheelez 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. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America Invocation by Supervisor Saraceni APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and carried, the .minutes of May 5~, 1981 were approved as mailed with the following corrections: Minute order 81-742, page 297, line 3 to change ends to ins; Minute order 81--752, page 304, paragraph 3 from the bottom of the page, line S to reflect she instead of he. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED BY BOARD MEMBERS AT END OF THE DAY Supervisor Dolan stated that when the Board considers appointments, she has a resignation and appointment to the Housing Task Force Committee. Supervisor Saraceni stated that maybe he would get an'answer to the letter on insurance. Supervisor Wheeler had a Public Works items to discuss with the Public Works Director. AUTHORIZE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR TO NOTIFY BLUE SHIELD COMPANX OF COUNTY'S INTENTION TO RENEW EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982 WITH PROPOSED RATE INCREASE Supervisor Saraceni asked if there was any chance that this matter be conthtued until budget time with regard to the 28.3% rate increase. Jim Rackerby, personnel director, stated that the contract agreement requires a 60-day notice of rate increase on an annual renewal basis. The rate increase will be in effect July 1, 1981. At the end of the year, if the Board wishes to look at the insurance plan and the possibility of self insurance or going to bid, he will keep the Board informed. This has been an excellent plan. There has been no rate increase since 1978 because of the general cost. The rate has been around 12% per year. This speaks well for the employees. Things are starting to catch. up with the county. The company is not prepared to give a three-month extension on the contract. If the trend continues, the county may be in the position next April of noticing the company and having some alternative goals of action. The company is losing money on the old rate. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that if the contract comes up on July 1, 1981, the Board has to make a decision of going with the contract or not going with the contract. If there is some way to move the contract date to August or September, then the county when they received the notice would be able to accept the contract with the amendments or go out for a request for bids. If the date can be moved forward there might be a request that the new premium be paid for that period. Mr. Rackerby stated that at the request of the Board the contract was moved to the beginning of the fiscal year. He could Page 312. May 12, 1981 81= ~' 765 766 rlay_ 12,_ 1881 discuss this wi,th_the company. The contract would .be a one-year contract. The county could dust have a.three=month contract in order to move the date of the contract... He felt the.c~.uestion would.be if the county is trying to reduce cost, are you going to try to mitigate the county's cost by reducing benefits or increasing the employees' costs: Those are negotiable items. He hoped that this rate increase iaould he good in the future. He will notice the. company .that the rate increase has been accepted and that the county is asking for an extension of the contract at the new rate for three months. He could see the advantage of having the contract come up the first of October so the Board has the information before the budget is adopted. if the rate is there and the county is not going to accept the rate, then the county has to provide the benefit. One of the reasons for having the July 1 contract date is because of negotiations with the employees. July is the date for retroactive increase for the employees this year. To delay would only be for going to bid. Supervisor Dolan noted that the Auditor anticipated the rate .increase_at,i3"0%. She would rather have the information relative to the rate cost before the county enters negotiations with the employees. Mr. Rackerby stated that procedurally negotiations should be settled by July. This was one of the reasons this contract was on this schedule. The cost w~.11 still be there. The Auditor anticipated the rate increase. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, the Personnel Director was authorized to notify the Blue Shield Compang of the county's intention to renew the employee health insurance policy for fiscal year 1982 with the proposed rate increase of 28.3% to be effective July 1, 1981. ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-91 AUTHORIZING A MASTER PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH OROVILLE WYANDOTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT (OWID) On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor ee er and carried, Resolution 81-91 authorizing a master property tax exchange agreement with.Oroville Wyandotte Irrigation District whereby they will waive their rights to property taxes for most annexations and .only negotiate on larger annexations where proper notice is provided was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. AXES: Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SERVICE'AREA 21 (OAKRIDGE SEWER) - CONTINUED_ TO_.MAY 19, 1981 It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan that Resolution approving the annexation to County Service Area 21 (Oakridge Sewer) be adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. Mike McEnespy, McCain and Associates, felt it was important to discuss the matter before the Board accepted the annexation. He is representing the owners of undeveloped lots in Skansen Subdivision ~~1. They supported the annexation of the Henning parcel. There are two basic concerns. The ponds that were constructed are designed for only the lots in Unit 1 and Burton's Mesa. There are some current on-going capacity they are attempting to resolve at this time. They were concerned with the new parcels being annexed and the ponds only having the capacity for the existing parcels. Once the parcels are annexed, they are on a first come first serve basis. The original developers and owners built the ponds and paid for them feel they should have the right to the capacity in the ponds. If the garcels annexed connect to the ponds. before the first owners, there could be a possibility where the first owners could not connect to the ponds they had helped pay for. Page 3I3. May 12, 1981 81_ $' •___-_-_____ ~'Y=12, 1981 ___________________ - Dan Blackstock, county counsel, asked if the Board had a xeport From the Health Department. Mr. 2ScEnespy has raised the question of a problem. He suggested that if the issue otas.bei,n.g raised .that the Board get a repoxt fxom the.HealtIt Department. Bill Turpin, LAFCo, stated that when L~'Go considered this project, they had comments from the HealtTi Department and two letters from the State Water Quality Control Board. LAFCo excluded some parcels until the problems are taken care of. The Health Department does feel they have control aver this situation and any new connections. Supervisor Dolan stated everyone knew the ponds were not adequate for any further development. Who has access next has to do something whether this is Unit 1 or Unit 3. Mr. McEnespy stated the system was designed for about 40 lots for Skansen Unit 1. There are some problems with the clay liner and Public Works is aware of that problem. His concern was if there is limited capacity, that the capacity be reserved for the people that paid for the construction. It may be true the system cannot support all the 40 lots. He supported the annexation. The existing capacity should be reserved and the new facilities cost should be apportioned out to the new owners. He had put together some annexation conditions, he hoped could be done. Motion withdrawn. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that if this area is going to start growing, the Board might want to change this from a county service area to a special district with its own governing board. Mr. Henning felt it would be unfair to deny foux lots between the Skansen subdivision units. .Skansen Unit 1 and Unit 3 have been improved.:, The matter was continued to May 19, 1981. 767 768 APPROVE/DENY PENALTY ABATEMENT REQUESTS, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP REPORTS On motion of Supervisor Saracens, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, the following action was taken: 1. Approved request for penalty abatement for David L. Jones, AP 073-22-0-OSO-O 2. Denied request for penalty abatement for Roy D. Casaccia, AP 062-21-0--063-0 APPROVE JAIL Ii~D.'ROVEMENTS NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ACTION PLAN AGREEMENT Supervisor Moseley stated she has always opposed money for studies. This is one of-the requirements the county must accomplish for funding for the jail project. Supervisor Dolan stated that considering all the studies the Board has authorszed, the total money amount is greater than if the Board had hired someone in Administration to perform the studies. She knew a needs assessment had been done for the jail. This is not the only alternative. She understood they did not have the present staff to do the study. Hughes, Heiss Associates have peen retained to do a study for the State Board of Corrections. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, did not feel the study would be completed by the tsme the committee had to attend the seminar. They have had assurances by the state if they are showing good faith. Page 314. May 12, 1981 81- 3, May 12,-1981 On motion ofd Supervisor Wheeler, .seconded by :Supervisor Saraceni and carried,, .the agreement with. Hughes, .Heiss.Assocates for the conducting of a needs assessment related to the prepara,~ion.of plans for expansion of the county detention and correction ~acilities;.jail improvements, in an amount not to exceed $15,000. was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign subject to .review and input from Counsel and the Auditor, AYES: Supervisors Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman 2Snseley. NOES; Supervisor Dolan. ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke. Dan Slackstock, county counsel, stated this would require a transfer from the reserve so there would be a need for four votes. If the agreement is executed and sent out there would be a need for a budget transfer. Supervisor Dolan felt that the work done by the Administrative Office was on a high quality. Supervisor Wheeler understood what Supervisor Dolan was saying. They are limited as far as staff being gone. She felt they needed to look more to staff to took to consultants. ' SUPERVISOR LEMKE PRESENT AT THIS TIME Supervisor Lemke stated that there is no doubt that in order to qualify they will need the needs assessment. He wondered why the money instead of coming from the reserve could not come from the revenue sharing funds for the jail. Bruce Albert, Sheriff's Department, stated their staff does not have the ability to do the needs assessment. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and carried, the agreement with Hughes, Heiss Associates for the conducting of a needs assessment related to the preparation of plans for expansion of the county detention and correction facilities, jail improvements, in an amount not to exceed $15, 000 was approved and the ChaixTUan authorized to sign subject to review and input from Counsel and the Auditor. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley. NOES: Supervisor Dolan. 769 (APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved: B-224 - County Service Areas. Transfers $6,390 from the reserve with $4,150 going to County Service Area 4 (Sierra Del Oro Drainage), $500 to County Service Area 21 (Oakridge Sewer), $740 to County Service Area 34 (Gridley Swimming Pool) and $1,000 to County Service Area 78 (Woodside Street Lighting). The purpose of this transfer is to record loans from the General Fund to the service areas to be repaid during 1981-82 in accordance with Resolutions 81-83,:81-15, 81-22 and Board Minute Order 80-1949. B-225 - District Attorney. Transfers $4,50.0 from regular salaries and wages and $7,500 from employee benefits; with $10,000 going to office expense and $2,000 to transportation and travel in order to cover existing budgetary deficiencies and to provide an appropriation for the balance of the fiscal year. The budget deficiencies were brought about by costs of investigation and processing of murder trials. Page 315. May 12,.1981 '`' .~ ti~ ~ y ___--_____= May-12~-1981 ___________________ 81= B-226. --:Purchasing. Transfers $69- fz~m the'.reserye to rental of ~', equipment in order to cover.tfie cost .of txuck:rentaJ. to deliver .scrap paper ', to a recycling center'in Sacramento. The scrap Taper was sold for $1,109 and the funds were .deposited into the General fund. B-227 = CE~ico Municipal Court. Transfers $2,500 from the xevenue ', sharing jail addition project to extra help within the court's budget in order to cover salary expenses for three extra help employees for the ', period June 1 through June 30, 1981 pending the transiti~:of a similar number of CETA positions to regular status. 770 APPROVE LOW INCOME ENERGX ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT - CAA On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler ', and unanimously carried, the contract with the State Office of Economic Opportunity to operate a Low Income Energy Assistance Program for the period April 15 through August 31, 1981 in the amount of $17,335 with a possibility for an additional similar amount was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. 771 VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY LIVING CENTERS - MENTAL HEALTH - CONTINUED TO LATER IN THE MEETTNG It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan that the contract with Community Living Centers, doing business as "Creekside° in Paradise in the amount of $16,665 that will provide for special board and home care for clients be approved and, the Chairman be authorized to sign. The vote an the motion was continued to later in the meeting. 772 PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET A public hearing date of June 2, 1981 at 10:00 a.m, was set for ', consideration of William H. Stephens petition for variance to sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for:glacement of a mobile home on AP 39-31-b, 81b North Graves Avenue, Chico area. Zoning: "A 10" 773 APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWAL - LARRY D. MAY On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and unanimously carried, renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 28-11-02, LaPorte Star Route, Bangor area, zoning: "A-5" for Larry D: May was approved. ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-92 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ROAD NAME CHANGES OROVILLE AREA On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke and unanimously carried, Resolution 81-92 setting a public hearing date of June 16, 1981 at 10:00 a. m. for consideration of road name changes in the Oroville area was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 774 APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke and unanimously carried, the following Public Works items were approved: 775 1. Waived the first reading of the ordinance establishing a 35 mph speed limit on Obermeyer Avenue from Gilstrap Avenue to Larkin Road in the Gridley area. 2. Approved the letter to the U.S. Army Coxps of Engineers requesting that they perform remedial work on Little Chico Creek near Crouch Avenue and the Chairman authorized to sign. Page 316. May 12,, 1981 1`ia~ l2 ~ 1981 83- {i '' 3, Approved .the agxeewent with.the Town of karadise for the county to provide engineezT.ng services and contract.administration for the Town of Paradise Skyway project between.the southei;ly town limits and Neal Road .which. calls for a-lump sump payment of $21',50A for design work performed and an estimated amount of $35,500 for construction contract administration and the Chairman authorized. to sign. 4. Accepted the work of Butte Creek Rock Company on the Durham-Dayton Highway, Project ~~44201-80-1; authorized the Chairman to sign the notice o£ completion and instructed the Clerk to record said notice with ,the Recorder. 5. Approved contract change order 3 fior Sacramento Avenue Assessment District in the decreasing amount of $12,300 that provides for the deletion of some of the work for the project and the Chairman authorized to sign. 6. Approved contract change order 5 which provides for placing additional utility openings on the bridge for NoxCa1 Cablevision for which the utility will be paying all costs; and contract change order 6 which provides for increasing the diameter of utility openings for the City of Orovi]Je sanitary sewer with no costs involved for the Tab 1e Mountain Boulevard Bridge across Feather River, Project No. 28491-76-1 and the Chairman authorized to sign. 776 (APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR OROVILLE QUINCX HIGHWAY PROJECT AND LINCOLN BOULEVARD. PROJECT Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated if they receive good bids for the Oroville Quincy Highway Project they will be fine. If the bids are higher, there are several alternatives to be considered. On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke and unanimously carried, the following plans and specifications were„ approved; the Chairman and Director of Public Works were authorized to sign the plan; the wage scale was adopted; and the bid opening was set for 11:00 a.m. on .Tune 4, 1981 in the Public Works Office: 1, Oroville Quincy Highway, Project No. 27503-80-1 2, Lincoln Boulevard, Project No. 18491-80-1 777 STATUS REPORT ON ROCK CREEK DRAINAGE Clay Castleberry, public works director, reported on the Rock Creek drainage situation. He will be coming back to the Board with proposals to consider for answers to the concerns. 778 ADDITIONAL ITEMS PRESENTED BY PUBLIC WUxKS lliK@;(:'1'Ult Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated the State of California is in the process of considering extensive energy requirements for new homes. He felt they were over concerns. He did not feel they were cost effective. This will raise the cost of homes and inspections. He would like to work with Supervisor Dolan and his staff to furnish the Board with a summary of things being proposed. 779 ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BX BUARD MEMISP:itS ', Supervisor Wheeler stated she had talked-with some of the people on Howard Drive relative to the sewer line being placed in the street. ', The contractor has indicated any damage done will be fixed by the contractor: ', They are watering the street, What she was concerned about was the county does not have the mechanism to notice the people of what will be happening. She felt the county should have a mechanism for notification. Page 317. May 1~, 1981 ', day 12~ 19.81 81''- _ ~Ciay Castlebexx'y~ public works dix'ectox~-stated he would address b that concexn,. Supervisor:Wheeler stated this project.is.because of a city project for tiie sewez. In talking with the con.t7ractor, the pipe is an eight-inch pipe and would have capacity in the ~.utuxe for those homeowners to access. 780 CONSIDERATION OF MOTION IN MINUTE ORDER 81-771 TO APPROyE AGREEMENT -WITH COMMUNITY LIVING CENTERS, MENTAL_HEALTli'DEPARTMENT Dr. Maguire, mental health director, stated that in January, 1981 they requested approval of the concept for a twelve to fifteen bed local facility to serve as an alternate for a long term program. This had become increasingly urgent because o£ the availability for out of county facilities. They are supported primarily from Medical. They have had an increasingly difficult time finding available beds. There are four or five patients that have been returned from out of county facilities. The Mental Health Advisory Board and the family representatives have approved the contractor. They went for a request for proposals and advertised several months ago. At that time, they envisioned using $75,000 to $80,000 per year for a twelve to fifteen bed facility over and above the basic $401 per month rdmbursement. The $75,000 would be divided between $50,000 of savings related to the fact they are not using out~of county facilities and about $26,000 of new amounts. At the suggestion of CARCH, they developed a selectioncommittee that was also made up of staff members. That committee reviewed both pxoposals that were received. They made a recommendation for one of the applications. On that basis they proceeded. The only significant change was in the recommendation to merge the $50,000 and the $26,000 into one contract. He recommended approval. Coleen Barksdale stated she had one of the proposals. She submitted a letter on the matter. She was not asking that the proposal not be approved. She had two questions; one was about the $79,000 as opposed to the $50,000, and the other question had to do with the type of people in the facility. Those questions were answered. She would like to know if the Board was approving the contract with the budget that was attached to the letter. The recommendation was that the committee opted for quality. She agreed that the location was better but felt there as a real question about quality. She felt that was a poor choice of words. She asked that the Board clarify the $5556 on the budget on page one under item one relative to fencing, utility and salary. In the proposed budget there is no expense amount for that fence. The proposed budget for May 12 to June 30, 1981, ins: one quotes twelve beds at $501 per month for $12,181 that is income for clients. She felt the amount would be $7916.60. The budget covers 20 days in May and 30 days in June. There is a copy of the letter from the Mental Health Department of the state to the county shoH3ng a breakdown. She felt the figures should be more accurate on the budget and should be revised. Chairman Moseley stated Mrs. Barksdale had read the proposal in the paper and decided to bid. The proposal in the paper states for $50,000 and wants '.15 beds. She wondered if that was the same as bids. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that a request for proposal was technically not the same as a bid. It is distinguished from a building contract where everyone is bidding on the same thing, This is receiving proposals in which the decision of the Board has to be made on a number of factors other than the bid price. it is not the same as a bid, however, all parties should he making proposals on the same thing. Page 318. May 12, 1981 ___--_____- Ma~12~ 19.81 =___=_ =_______ _____ 81- ~ Mrs. Barksdale answered Cha~,xman Moseley.c~uestion as to whether b', she was aware of the•$26~000 available, The ~xopoaal.sent to .her was ', for $50,404.- In talk~,i~g to Mental Health: it was-said .that Do-It Corporation ould provide the additional services, .She iaas.not opposing .the fact that these homes are.nece§sary in the county, .She .felt the budget should be brought into line before the Budget is approved, There was a portion in the RFP for travel. Jim Musgrove, mental health department, felt that the deficient really the difference between the time they anticipated getting the tract started and the time before the Board. This will not come back the Board this fiscal year for additional funding. The $16;665 is mentioned the contract. Any shortfalls will not be the responsibility of the tal Health Department. Originally the fence was going to be an item grammed in to be taken care of over a two-year period. There is a delay getting the fence started. He felt that they should use some of the itional allocation for authorizing some portion of the expense for the ce this year. The fence has not been built. The $5,000 would be ject to department approval based on the claims submitted to it. The ce would be a part of that cost. The operator has received no money this point. They are now at the contract stage. Before they were the proposal stage. The number of beds is less than the RFP. This a proposal and they were not confined at the same requirements of bid. The department had originally asked for fifteen beds and y have accepted twelve beds. Any proposal submitted would~have been Fran Holcomb objected to the contract. A contract is filled fact not on assumptions. She understood that under this program the e would be taking care of people out of convalescent hospitals and of county inorder to save county money. She felt they should specify chronically disabled and disordered. These people do not qualify their homes. There is to be both indoor and outdoor facilities for lve active adults. If they are that capable, what are they doing in valeae~ttt homes. The county would be paying $2,000 per month. In first letter nothing was said about from twelve to fifteen beds. letter said fifteen beds. There is the requirement far ten employees and the clock. All that is in there for the operator to do, it would• be time enought in a day to do it. Everything in the contract is raises. She hoped that this home would not be filled at the expense every one of the homes in the county. Dr. Maguire stated that the issue of $2,000 irf convalescence the difference between medical convalescence and psychiatric convalescence closest fadlity is Sacramento for young adults. There are no physical blems. Supervisor Dolan stated the purpose of the program was to back to the county the residents from other counties where there been no alternatives presently for long term care. Dr. Maguire advised that would have been the fact a year ago. most all of them are back in the county. There are only five '.out of unty. There are five or six sitting in facilities waiting for somewhere be placed. They do not have the beds out of county. There are the ve or six in the inservice facility that axe not acceptable for acement for board care homes. Charylene Cavanaugh, representing families for recovery, felt .t was rather unfortunate that the complaints were not made earlier than ~t the final hour. The one-week delay has caused undue hardship for Page 31g. May 12, 1981 81- ^b kiay I2, 19.81 the people oraitin.,g to..he.~laced in the ~acil~,ty, ~ls a..member of the selection cammittee,:the process was a Yety ogen.one. Thew was a committee of very knoatledgeable.people. The decision was urianimaas. The community acceptance was a factor. The reeighhors of one of the proposed operators were hostile. The Facility that was chosen has a much more homelike atmosphere. There is no isolation of the clients in little reoms. The proposal chosen has room for a ;garden animals and physical education. She felt it was a much superior neighborhood for such a facility. Discussion closed to the public and confined to the Board. ** Supervisor Zemke stated the Auditor and Counsel have looked at this contract for budgetary purposes. He was ready to call for the question. Supervisor Dolan felt the process was open. She understood the concerns and felt that in some instance there will be some disagreement. Chairman Moseley felt that some of the problems could have been resolved in the paper. She felt every operator should have been given both figures. Supervisor Saraceni was opposed to the contract because of the• difference between the twelve and fifteen bed operation. Chairman Moseley had some reservations about the committee when there were five staff members, one family member and one provider. Mrs. Holcomb felt that the $2,000 was still quite a bit of money per day. Tt is a cost of $45 per day to the county. She did not receive the information about twelve beds until Monday. She was not aware of it. VOTE ON MOTION FROM MINUTE ORDER 81-771: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke and Wheeler NOES: Supervisor Saraceni and Chairman Moseley Motion carried. RECESS: 10:35 a.m. RECONVENE: 10:45 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: WILLIAM H. NOLAN - APPEAL OF DRAFT EIR AND PLANNING COMMI55ION DENIAL OF REZONE FROM "FR-10" (F(?OTHILL RECREATIONAL - 10 ACRE PARCELS) TO "FR-5" (FCIOTHILL RECREATIONAL - 5 ACRE PARCELS), PROPERTY LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF CRAIG RECREATION ACCESS ROAD, APPROX. 500. FEET NORTH OF LUMPRIN ROAD. IDENTIFIED AS AP 71-15-01, APPROX.. I.5_ MILE5 NORTHEAST OF OROVILLE 781 The public hearing on William H. Nolan appeal of draft environmental impact report and :Planning Commission denial of rezone from "FR-IO" (foothill recreational - ten acre parcels) to "FR-5" (foothill recreational -five acre parcels), groperty located on both sides of the Graig Recreation Access Road, approximately 500 feet north of Lumpkin Road, identified as AP 71-15-0.1, approximately 15 miles northeast of Oroville was held as advertised. Chairman Moseley advised that Mr. Nolan has requested a continuance until June or July. Bettye Blair, planning director, stated the Board must take take action before June~30, 1981. Page 320. May 1~, 1981 81- 3'' 782 May 12, 1981 - Hearing open~to the public. Appearing: No one. The hearing was continued to .Tune-23.~ 1:981 at 10;00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT R. DAX r APPEAL Oy PRO1?OSED-NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PLANNING COI~RIIS.SION' S .DENIAL OP 11ARTANCE TO MTNTMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF TWO PARCELS ON PROPERTX.ZONED "TM~-2" (,TIMBER MOUNTAIN - TWO ACRE ,PARCELS)., LOCATED QN BOTH STDES Ok' MAPLE LANE, APPROX. 350 FEET EAST OF COHASSET ROAD, APPROX. 1-1/2 MILES NORTH OF VILAS ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS AP 56-1291, COHASSET AREA The public hearing on Robert R. Day appeal of proposed negative declaration and Planning Commission's denial of variance to minimum lot size zequirements to allow the creation of two parcels on property zoned "TM-2" (timber mountain - two acre parcels), located on both sides of Maple Lane, approximately 350 feet east of Cohasset Road, approximately 1-1/2 miles north of Vilas Road, identified as AP 56-12-91, Cohasset area was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the variance. The Planning Commission denied the variance. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. The negative declaration was recommended because of the small size of the groject. There is a question as to whether one of the parcels can meet the sewage disposal requirements. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Robert Day. Mr. Day stated he had been trying to sell this property for~two years. The problem with selling the parcel is there is not enough:. interest in a lot split by a road. He was unable to be present at the Planning Commission hearing. 2. Charles E. White, Cohasset Community Association. Mr. White stated the displays or maps were prepared by the association. This garcel was zoned "TM-2" in 1972. When the zone went through, there were no parcel sizes of less than two acres. There were several parcels created in compliance with the zoning. He referred to map ~~1. The red lines indicate parcel divisions within the zone. The blue Line is the "TM-2" boundary. The road frontage is "TM-2" zoning. There are small parcels in the area and they realized the zoning could not cure the problems. Map ~i2 is a blown up area showing the original parcel_ sold in December, 1974 and the area is bordered by green. The parcel was sold in 1977 to another person who made a boundary Tine adjustment. This increased the size of the total properties in there, parcels 90, 91 and 92 and he thought 93. In some way there was a division that occurred that made parcels 91 and 92 separate parcels. Map ~~3 is a blow up of the existing parcels purchased in March I1, 1979. This parcel drains into Anderson Branch which is an intermittant stream, with sub terrain flow. They are concerned about the increased density in the area because a portion of this property is rather steep. He felt the pictures would show this. The upper portion of the property would be easier for~onstruction of a home. The easement going through the property is a 60-foot easement and that makes .45 of an acre for the roadbed. He could understand the problem with the road going through the parcel. He asked that the Board consider rejection of the appeal. This would create a great density of two parcels with less than two acres, There is a greater problem of density and pollution of the stream. Maple Lane was put in by the people to the east of the area bordered by the green line. There is a growth of homes to the east of these. Tt has existed for may years. Page 321, Ma y 12, 1481 ,:-., :. ,, g.l_ b' May 12, 1481 Mr. Day stated .that Mr.-White had .mentioned that to the southern portion of the property the Planning staff had indicated a problem with that portion of the property. Mr. Nelson had indicated that the only proti].em was with sewage disposal, The othex problems are pointed o.ut in .the checklist. There is concern that erosion could he transported'to-Anderson Branch. It was not felt to be enough of a problem to warrant an EIR and therefore he xecommended a negative declaration. Mr. Day stated the staff findings and environmental report were fine. He felt there was a good reason for the exception and asked that the Board reverse the Planning Commission's decision. That particular property does not enjoy the same privileges. Supervisor Dolan asked Mr. Day if he was aware of the findings necessary to grant the variance, such as size, shape and topography of the land. Mr. Day stated that some of those findings were spoken to in the staff findings. The staff did find that was true. He is trying to sell the property. He has a policy of title insurance on the property. He purchased the property from David Everett. There was a 20 foot section added because of the boundary line modification. 3. Mr. Mortinson. Mr. Mortinson stated he had originally purchased the property in 1969. He sold the property to Mr. Bean. Mr. Bean sold to Mr. Everett. The property at that time was still the original piece of property. Mr. Everett changed the boundaries. He found out later it was never accepted. He did not feel the property should be split any further in that section. He lives across the street on three acres. He moved up from southern California to have space. Mr. Day understood what Mr. Mortinson was saying. He felt the area was split up at this time. That entire rectangle of property is split except from his property. 4. James Bamford. Mr. Bamford stated years ago the zoning was placed in the Cohasset area, which he felt was good. He felt this would set a precedent. Cohasset has a very limited supply of water. If this area is divided into small lots, there would be no may to get a septic system 100 feet away from someone's well. He felt five acres was reasonable in that area. 5. James Hanson. Mr. Hanson felt that Mr. Day had a piece of property he could not use. If the people want to keep him from being able to sell his property, they should possibly try to buy the property. Mr. Mortinson did not say he could not use his property. Mr. Day is able to use the property. All he is trying to do is keep from breaking the property up. Ms. Blair sued that in researching the legality of the property, they have not been able to come up with. the approval of a parcel map .for the creation of parcels 90 and 41. That probably is not a great problem. The burden of proof is on the applicant that the parcel map would have to be approved. She could not respond to how the parcel was created as it relates to the 9ub.division Map Act. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised-.that this was the variance itself. The Board has heard no evidence to grant the variance. Page322. May 12, 1981 May 12, 1981 81~ d' The Board would have a difficult situation approving a subdivision as they have to make findings consistent with the zoning. There was no .evidence relative to the granting of a variance, assuming two acre zoning is consistent with the General Plan. Hearing closed to the public and cozt~ined to the Board. It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler seconded by Supervisor Dolan that the variance for Robert R. Day be deaied. Supervisor Lemke stated Mr. Blackstock had talked about the fact the Board had heard no evidence to grant the variance. He could s'ee the evidence. The opposition presented the perfect evidence that there are two physical parcels ~ lit by a road. If you put a house on one side of the road, a person would not want to cross the road to go into their back yard. It is not just drawing a line on the map. It has been physically divided into two parcels. He could not see how it did not qualify. Supervisor Bolan recognized that the driveway was physcially-- there. What is on the north side of the driveway is more than one acre. She could see from the map that other properties have the same type of physical conditions. There is concern to the south of this property. There is the possibility of no septic permit. It could be that by approving the variance the Board would be creating a parcel that could not be used. Supervisor Saraceni felt they had to look at the surrounding area, He realized the zoning was for two acre parcels. There are smaller parcels in that area. He could see the circumstances that this was not just drawing a line through the property. It has a line through it, the road. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley Motion failed. On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and carried, finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was recommended. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley. NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler. On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and carried, finding that ba~ause of the:•size, shape, topography;-location or surroundings the strict application of Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under identical zoning dassification; and the variance to the minimum lot size for the Robert R. Day property, AP 56-12-91 was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Two resulting parcels are to be created, one on each side of Maple Lane. 2. Parcels shall be created pursuant to the requirements ~f the State Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code. 3. Any division or development shall meet the requirements of the Butte County Department of Public Health and the Butte~County Subdivision Ordinance. Page 323. May 12, 1981 8T- 783 784 -__-_-__---_-=May=12, 1981==== ______________ 4. Due to lot sizes, pzoaf of domestic water will.be required. 5. Applicant must also comply with all other applicable state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler PUBLIC HEARING: RONALD J. EVANS - APPEAL OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS EENTAL OF REZONE FROM "A-20" (AGRICULTURAL - 20 ACRE PARCELS) TO "A-5" (AGRTCULTURAL - 5 ACRE PARCELS), PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ESPLANADE, APPROX. 1,700 FEET NORTH OF GARNER LANE, IDENTIFIED AS AP 44-02-52, NORTH OF CHTCO The public hearing on Ronald J. Evans appeal of proposed negative declaration and Rlanning Commission's denial of rezone from "A-20" (agricul- tural - 20 acre parcels) to "A-S" (agricultural - 5 acre parcels), property located on the west side of Esplanade, approximately 1,700 feet north of Garner Lane, identified as AP 44-02-52, north of Chico was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. The Planning Commission denied the rezone. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. All the items ware marked no even though this is in the agricultural area and he did not feel an ETR was necessary. He recommended a negative declaration. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Roy Roney. Mr. Roney agreed with staff and felt that a rezone from 20 to 5 acres vast of Highway 99 was inappropriate. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, finding that the Environmental Review Department evaluation has been considered; and finding that the proposed rezone is not consistent with the Conditional Zoning and Development criteria, Nas. 1 and 3 under the Orchard and Field Crops Designation on Page 46 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; the rezone for Ronald J. Evans from "A-20" (agricultural - 20 acre parcels) to "A 5" (agricultural - 5 acre parcels), property located. on the west side of Esplanade, approx- imately 1,700 feet north of Garner Zane, identified as AP 44-02-52, north of Chico was denied. WORK SESSION FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS, LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON CONSIDERATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TENTATIVE SCHEDULED FOR MAY 19 1981 Lee Colby, chairman of the Land Development Committee, stated there is a work session on the Land Development Committee report scheduled for this afternoon. It was previously scheduled for last Thursday. The committee has a conflict of time and cannot be present at the work session later in the day. He asked that the matter be continued to May 14, 1981. 1:30 p.m. The matter was tentatively scheduled for May 19, 1981 at 785 (DISCUSSION OF VETERANS SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE'POSTTION James Hayes,-chairman of the Butte County Veterans Committee, submitted some information to the Board zelative to the filling of the position of .Senior .Veterans Service Representative. The announcement Page 324. May l2, 1981 81= ~'' May 12, 1981 for this position came out as being open. They started people contacting to fill the position. About April 6, 1981, he.leaxned that the ,position had been filled. They hecame confused and so did the people applying for the position. At a meeting of the Veterans Council in Paradise on April 28 he was appointed the chairman of the fair employment committee. They asked to meet with BCEA and did so on May 1, 1981. They proposed some questions to the Director of Personnel of :Butte County which was set out in a letter dated May 4, 1981.:, This is listed as Exhibit B of the handout. They•wanted to know why the job.. announcement under the Personnel Merit System was not complied with. One of the things in particular, was looking at the current person working in the position. Does the current incumbent have one year of experience explaining veteran benefits to applicants. They have found this is not exactly true because the incumbent is not a veteran. Why wasn't the employment procedures followed? Why was the placement of an individual to Senior Veteran Service Representative over qualified individuals experienced? They know by virtue of their meeting on April 21 of a name of a veteran who applied for this position. Some had even worked in the office under the CETA program. There were others very qualified. The longest phone call he received was from southern California from a gentleman with the Veterans Affairs Department of California Disabled American Veterans. That gentleman is asking these same questions. Why wasn`t a CETA employee, a veteran working in the office considered for the position. Why wasn't alternatives looked into forstalling the closure of the Chico office and suspending the outreach .program in Gridley and Paradise? The big questions he looked at was ~~7 in what is the job promotion opportunity of the Veteran Service Officer; if the individual does not qualify for the position under State Military Code, Section 1 to end, Volume 4& which provides the Veterans Service Officer must be a veteran. He has been in conversations with Mr. Yhee and Mr. Vial of the Department of California to verify that the appointment must be in accordance with the Military Code. If for s~nme reason the Veterans Service Office is no longer employed who would be more logical to take over the office but the Veteran Service Representative. If for some reason the Veterans Service Officer is not a veteran the county would lose the subvention funds from the state. Mr. Hayes asked if it was the intention of the county to phase out the Veteran Service Office. He knew the Board was aware of the money that comes into Butte County through benefits, $6 million to $8 million. There is also retirement pay that comes into the county. He referred to the letter from the Personnel Director, attachment D, dated May 4, 1981. In paragraph 2 3t says that many of the questions asked involve policies outside the authority of his office. He also had reviewed the procedures and found that the position was filled in compliance with the rules. Mr Hayes stated that if that be the case, he referred back to attachment A, relative to the experience required for the Veterans Service Representative. He did not want the county to be placed in a bad light particularly when the Governor of the state signed SB 74 prohibiting discrimination on veteran preference. He asked that the following actions be considered by the Board and possibly the Personnel Director: that the job announcement be reopened again; that sufficient temporary help be hired in order that the Chico and Oroville offices stay open; and that the outreach program for Gridley and Paradise be reinstated; that all eligible persons be considered and there be an oral interview by veterans; that the selection be allowed without outside pressure: of Butte County government. They have met with BCEA because of being unfair with regarding to the merit promotional rules. The faith of the people in the merit promotion system leaves questions. These questions are in the minds of many veterans in - the county. Page 325. May l2, 19.81 May 12, 1981 81 Supervisor Wheeler stated Mr. Hayes had made a statement about undue pressures--with regard to the hiring o~ the person in the Veterans Service Office.' She stated that the Veterans Service Officer does work at the pleasure of the Board and the Board as a whole work for Butte County. There is no undue pressure being done. Supervisor Lemke stated that the appoittbment procedure was through the bumping procedures. The BCEA is very well aware of-this. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that undue pressure was discussed. There were. no pressures applied as it relates to that position. Supervisor Dolan stated the Board had received the-request that the job announcement be reopened to comply with the job procedures. That was followed and the person is qualified. The person is qualified for that .job. She took a voluntary demotion and was determined to be qualified. The committee has asked if the procedures were .followed. The members of the Board did. Yes, the procedures were followed and yes, she is qualified. She could understand why someone not getting the job would be upset. She knew people did not apply unless they were qualified. There are not enough jobs for everyone that wants that particular one. She was not willing to go through the procedures already followed first. She wanted to clear this up. Since her office is across the parking lot from the Veterans Service Office in Chico, she knew it was not closed. The Board has never expressed an intent or desire to phase out the Veterans Service Office. She felt that the memo from the Personnel Director to the Board sums that up. There is a good person dcing a good job. She would like the matter to be at rest. She would like the job to be done. Mr. Hayes stated that as far as procedures being done, he would rather have BCEA speak to that matter. The person in the position came from HCD with another department. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated the Board had established a firm rule about job applications. He felt it was improper to discuss the application. The Board could be put 3n a position of having people trying to allow it in other cases. These are not public records and BCEA have a right to want the employee records kept confidential. James M. Hurst, representing Butte County Veterans Council, stated the flyer was put out and the applications were taken. He believed that on the first day of May the incumbent in the position was interviewed by the Veterans Service Officer. Chairman Moseley felt they were getting back into discussing personnel. She felt the discussion should be closed off now. It is the concensus o€ the Board, that they have followed the rules and regulations they have had to follow. Mr. Hurst stated he wished to speak regarding the fact that no pressure was applied. Chairman Moseley advised Mr. Hurst that the Administrative Officer had pointed that out. Supervisor Lemke wanted to establish- if there was pressure. Mr. Hurst stated that the Veterans Service Officer interviewed the incumbent on May 1, 1481 and rejected her and she was not hired. He again interviewed her on May 2, 1481 and on May 3, 1981 and hired her. Page 326. May 12, 1981 81- 5' 786 787 __ __________rsa_y_la, 19x1 __ _____________ Lf that isJnot pressure it is not pressure. .This is .the statement the Veterans Service .Officer made in front of a groin of people in a veterans' meeting. He was threatened with closuxe of the office. Mr. Blackstock asked that the matter .be continued and that the people be subpoenaed and that a court repoxter be ~xesent. And, anyone else who wants to proceed including the president of the BCEA and proceed to clear the air of undue pressure and influence. APPEARANCE: JAMES HANSON Mr. Hanson spoke bgiefly with regard to the Veterans Service Representative position considered earlier. He would like to see a day set and a letter submitted to the various organizations of when the matter will be considered. Mr. Hanson stated he had recently attended a school board meeting. It has become the habit throughout government to pass a plan. If they did not pass the plan, it would be against the law. lust how many times has the Board heard that demand from the state. That is coersion. The people elected to office have a right to say no. DISCUSSION OF VETERANS SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE POSITION Bobbetta Erown, president of BCEA, stated she was going to speak to the fact that the BCEA is bound to make sure the Personnel Rules and MOU is carried out. They submitted a letter to the Personnel Director. They contacted the Personnel Director because it is their responsibility to look into it. She has heard that the incumbent took a voluntary demotion instead of a layoff.. The procedures were not followed properly. Tf it was not done according to the rules she will appear under penalty of perjury to so testify. Tt was not done correctly, if this was done as she has heard. C13f Nickelson, administrative officer, believed the issue was the question of whether there was pressure exerted, not as far as testimony under oath. There is not the question of whether the procedures were followed as far as being under oath. Ms. Brown stated that Mr. Hurst had spoken to that matter. She was speaking to the following of proper procedures of the Personnel Rules, if this was a demotion in place of a layoff. The incumbent's position was to end April 14 and took a demotion in Lieu of a layoff. Again, this was an administrative decision because of lack of work. Supervisor Dolan stated a string of events happened and there was a decision of the Board on a four to one vote that eliminated the positions. The Personnel Rules were followed. She felt satisfied and supported that the rules were followed. Ms. Brown stated she had talked to the incumbent and asked her if it was a voluntary demotion or what. She was advised she took a demotion in lieu of a layoff. Section 7:17 stated that a person being laved off must contact the Personnel Director prior to asking for a demotion and it must be within the department. The Veterans Service Office is not within the Administrative Office. They have a responsibility to all the employees. They are interested in keeping people within the job force. Two people applied for the job.. it was said that in 1973 this procedure was used. This was prior to 14.76 when the county implemented the merit system. The merit system does not .demote: as stated like this. The BCEA wished to know what procedure was followed and if this was not a demotion in lieu of a layoff. What was the procedure? Page 327. May 12, 1981 May 12, 1981 87 Mr. Weyand stated the Board had continued .this matter to next week to Bear their charges and wanted to know if .the SCEA was going to be included in this matter: He has listened to all ,five of the Board members, and the Board feels that everything has taken place slang the lines. Many people do not feel that way. The Personnel Directox was asked to meet with BCEA to go over the rules. He wanted to make sure they were represented. Chairman Moseley resented this matter today because this was holding up the hearings scheduled. coming up. Mr. Mickelson advised they would notify everyone. Supervisor Lemke asked that the Personnel Director be instructed to inform the Board of the proper procedures and cite the Personnel Rules. Mr. Blackstock advised that the Board should thank him for The matter was continued to May 19, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY - APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S DE1~'AL OF BUTTE CREEK EAST TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION MAP (ITEM ON WHICH AN EIR WAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), AP 40-01-25, 40-02-130, 40-02-132, 40-41-2, 40-41--3, 46-38-50 & 46-38-56, ONE LOT, HONEYRUN ROAD AD30INS ON NORTH SIDE JUST EAST OF SKYWAY, CHICO The public hearing on Baldwin Contracting Company appeal of Advisory Agency's denial of Butte Creek East tentative condominium subdivision map (item on which an EIR was previously certified}, AP 40-01-25, 40-02-130, 40-02-132, 40-41-2, 40-41-3, 46-38-50 and 46-38-56, one lot, Honeyrun Road adjoins on north side just east of Skyway, Chico was held as continued. 788 Earl Nelson, environmental review director, stated that last week a technical comment came up as to whether the buildings are considered as one or individual units as to whether they are allowed under the existing zone or not. As far as the environmental concerns, they would be identical either way. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Chris Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin stated that the answer to County Counsel concerning which development the tentative map followed is that the presentation is the same. The question was did it follow the PA-C or the "FR-5" zone. The answer is both. Under a "PA-C" there is the requirement to file a tentative map subsequent to Board approval. The question also came up as to whether the two maps were different, the tentative map and the development plan. Yes they are different. There is no where that says they should not be. In addressing single family dwellings, following the "PA-C" submitta, first under the "FR-5" as a separate application, their position is that the map is consistent with the present "FF~-5" zoning. 2. Keith Lyde, representing Baldwin Contracting Company. Mr. Lyde stated that under the present zoning, under the "FR-5" which is presently in effect because of the suspension of the "PA-C" zoning by referendum being filed, that the development plan approved, by one year's inactivity it should be approved. He xe#erxed to page 44 in the zoning ordinance and felt that the language :brings.-them to the conclusion - there is not a specific five acre lot that is required for one dwelling but rather an average of the whole. The minimum .required area for lot {per residential dwelling shall not be less than five acres in the FR-5." Page 328. 1Kay I2, 1981 I'~ 1 ~I ~ ry rtay lz, ~9s1 8] This map is consistent with those words from page 46. On page 44 the same generalized average is carried ouC for horses, swine and goats. For each horse or head of cattle there is 8,.125 square feet needed. It taxes the logiml to have to tether an animal in the middle of 8,125 square feet in order to fulfill the requirements of the ordinance. This same analogy ~-n °thc: par~~l:anguage for a .single family dwelling points in the same intent of the average of fiye acres per dwelling. He asked that the initial preliminary plan together: with the map already approved that the map should be approved. Baldwin Contracting Company has at all times complied with each step as required by the county under the law. Supervisor Dolan asked Mr. Lyde if in quoting from two sections of the zoning ordinance that in comparing parcel size per and square footage for animals that the two dash lines are referring to per. Mr. Lyde stated he was saying that does not mean if a person builds a house in that area and elects to run 100 head of cattle or whatever that he must have for each one for the animal 8,125 square feet either by corraling or tethering. The person would. be allowed to have 100 head of cattle ar X number of cattle by the square footage just as a single Family dwelling which uses the word per is an average of not less than five acres per dwelling. . Supervisor Dolan stated she could not find the word per under animals which do move .and find that houses do not move. Mr. Lyde felt that this made an even stronger argument for averaging. He did not believe that the Board envisionsed exactly 8,000 square feet and a cow must be tethered to that geographical space. That leads to the averaging of residences. *** 3. Kelly Meagher. Mr. Meagher felt that what the applicant is trying to do is not possible under the present zone. The record shows where they stand on the condominium developments. He understood that Mr. Baldwin had a right to apply for this. He felt this was an effort to stop the referendum election on the "PA-C" rezone. He did not feel that a 75 unit group development could meet the requirements of the "FR-5" zoning. If this would work, why didn't Baldwin apply for a subdivision map instead of a rezone originally. He felt the record was cleat that the map was not consistent with the "FR-5" zoning. He felt the Board had only one course of action and that was to deny the application. 4. Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams stated she was a member of the committee that helped draft the "FR" zone. The committee spoke with nearly all the residents anal land owners within the boundaries at that time. A clear majority expressed a wish to keep the area rural. They felt the zone would be preserved and it is obvious that condominiums or condensed housing is contrary to the zone. Section C of the ordinance says no more than one residence per five acres. Houses do not move, they require well and septic tanks. Consideration has to be made for these things. The present proposal before the Board does not conform to the zone regulations. This seems to be a way to circumvent the wishes of 13,000 voters who placed the referendum on the ballot. 5. Charles Heyl. Mr. Heyl stated he was a member of the committee that~rked on the original. zoning. They used the zoning handbooks from 1974 or 1975 to get the wording for the zoning district. In all the proposals there.:is'~wording as far as uses~.p.ermitted, He :noticed in the new zoning books that in most cases of the agricultural zones the wording is changed to read. one single family residence..per parcel. The zoning proposal was not changed as the rest were.. It was never the intent to allow cluster developments. Page 329. May 12, 1981 -,~,.~ a.. ~! ~.._ ~, 81- d' _Ma_y-12, 1981 - _ _ r - - - _ = = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r.. .- .- _ = _ _ _ - - - - - - 6. Paul Qersons, representing. the Committee for Responsible Zoning. Mr. Persons spoke regarding the failure to approve the .zoning within the one .year limitation, He has seen letters from the Health and Environmental Review Departments as late as ,four months prior to granting the zoning as to how things were not complete. He felt this hearing was on the appeal of the tentative subdivision map. He wondered if you could really average or bank land. There are a number o£ issues about this subject. He referred to Government Code Section relative to the fact the proposal must be consistent with the existing zoning. The Subdivision Map Act requires that the map must be in compliance with the existing zoning requirements. He did not feel this map complied. It is mandatory in the findings as to why there is non-compliance or why the county will allow the map to be approved. He disagreed with Mr. Lyde that the word per does not mean specific unit. He felt that point had been brought fairly close to home that buildings do not move. Those buildings are set in a fixed area from the property line. The other argument that this is really a single family residence he did not feel was right. He did not feel that a condominium was a single family residence. He believed that condominiums were purchased on air space. T'ive acres was the established minimum. He quoted from page 65 of the zoning ordinance that the minimum lot area shall not be less than five acres for "FR-5." He felt it would be unjust and would be creating a new theory of law. 7. Theresa Kent. Ms. Kent requested that the Board deny~the appeal. She recognized that it was the developers privilege to request anything whether it was consistent with the "FR" zone. To come before the Board is placing an undue burden on the Board. The effort is to get the identicial project through as the rezone. In 1974 when a surburban subdivision was requested for the canyon, the concerns residents stated there were opposed to suburban subdivisions in the canyon. She asked that the appeal be denied. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, gave some comments on the legal question. He was going to suggest a contrary position. It is true that in some of the language in the "FR" zones the use of dwellings, plural, was used. However, in history. of interpretation of the ordinance at no time was this considered a critical issue. In subparagraph C of Section 24--112.1 the county required area for a lot per residential dwelling unit and it goes on five acres. Next is subparagraph D that has to do with lot.width, front and side yards. He .read the section. He suggested that the Board look at the proposed plan and the minimum required is not longer than 10 feet. From a legal standpoint, if the Board allowed this subdivision ignoring the fact that it is more or less the same development as that set by the referendum. The county's position would not be that strong in court. The concern on behalf of the court would be that the Board after approving a "PA-C" and after suspending it by referendum approved the map by interpretation of the ordinance which the Board has never done before. With regard to the one and one-half year matter, yes there was about two months to ten weeks spent in the Planning Commission stage because they held extra hearings. There were two hearings before the~oard. There was maybe another 30 days spent in Environmental Review. he remainder of the time was spent by the applicant's engineer doing their own ETR. During the time this project was in process, the procedure was changed by the Supreme Court who said you must speak to the people opposed to the project. That had not been done in the EIR. The county suggested that the applicant do so. -This brought about an additional three month delay.. The question of whether this was already approved would have to be determined by a court. Mr. Lyde stated that the proposed project has 375 acres and he contended that because of one year inactivity they were .entitled to the approval Page 33 Q.. May 12, 1981 May 12, 1981 a The project is a one lot condominium for Sald*ain Contracting Company. The law says it has to be xt least £ive acres. All the evidence submitted here does not have any parceling or division or .residential units. It is all one homogeni:us lot and complies with the section .that only one lot for setbacks and they are complied with. Mr. Persons did not feel the. entire issue was the terming of the lot. He looked at the many issues and the entire concept of side lot and difference between condominiums and single family dwellings. There are many factors to be considered with the "T'R-5" zoning. It is many things that make up the entire zoning ordinance which lends to the interpretation that when it says the minimum area required shall not be less than five acres what is being said is one dwelling per five acre lot. Mr. Heyl stated that the intent of the zone using the word minimum was to limit the density factor to five acres. Tt was to not go below that point. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, the appeal of Baldw;rn Contracting Company was denied. 789 PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT E. AND JUDITH I. SHEPHERD - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO CHANGE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 181 EAST 9TH AVENUE CHICO AP 45-061-17 FROM RESIDENTIAL USE TO COMMERCIAL USE The public .hearing on Robert E. and Judith I. Shepherd request for waiver of improvements for building permit to change property located at 18I East 9th Avenue, Chico, AP 45-OB1-17, from residential use to commercial use was held at this time. Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the request. The appeal is on the urban improvements. The ordinance requires that hen buildings are in the urban area it requires urban improvements e put in. The location does not have these improvements. He personally did not see fit to make that decision since the Board and he have had any complaints about traffic conditions and the drainage is extremely oor in this area. This would be perhaps inappropriate in itself. Supervisor Wheeler submitted some photos on this matter. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Robert Shepherd. Supervisor Wheeler stated that in Mr. Shepherd's letter fie indicated was willing to participate in a cooperative improvement plan in the ture. She felt to encumber Mr. Shepherd, she felt was a little bit much. Mr. Shepherd stated he was willing to participate in an ssment district or improvement district. He felt the total area in need of improvements. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke unanimously carried, the request for waiver of the drainage, roadway street widening improvements for Robert E, and Judith I. Shepherd building permit on AP 45-Ob1-17, located at 1$1 East 9th Avenue, o was approved. Page 3.31. clay 12, 1981 81~ ~'', 790 791 792 May_12, 1981 _____ _____ RECESS: 12:50 p.m. RECONVENE: 2;00'p.m. CONSIDERATION OF EMERGENCY-ORDINANCE-ADDING CHAPTER 36 TO THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING TREE REMOVAL IN THE FOREST RAN CH. AREA TAKEN OFF AGENDA Supervisor Wheeler stated that in discussing the proposed tree removal ordinance with the community and with the Forest Service for the state, she felt this should be referred to the community.. The "TM" zone does allow for the harvesting of trees.. She received many letters on this matter. She asked that this be referred back to the community as it would require a change in the zone if they wanted some measure of control. The responsib~.ty is with the community. The State Forester supplied her with the provisions for the Forest Practice Act. The operator and landowner in the area has complied with the license for a permit under the Forest Practice Act. She suggested that this matter be sent back to the community and if they see fit they can pursue application for a zone change.. CONSIDERATION OF WAIVING FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 26-8, 34--1, 34-2, 34-3 & 32-12 TO THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE-RELATIVE TO AGRICULTURAL NUISANCES Supervisor Wheeler stated the Board had received letters relative to the proposed ordinance on agricultural nuisances. California Women in Agriculture have some amendments they would like to add to the ordinance. She suggested that this be sent back to Counsel for consideration of the amendments. Nancy Skinner, California Women in Agriculture, stated she had some revisions she would like to see added to the ordinance. She would submit these in written form. She has talked to several people in the farming industry and they are basically in favor of the nuisance ordinance. There are a few changes she felt that should be made. Discussion of AB 585 relative to this matter held at this time. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that a public and private nuisance were set out in the civil code. One other provision that is relied on that presently exists is that anything done under authority of the statutes is not a nuisance. This is used in zoning. He will come back later with this ordinance. Supervisor Dolan felt this proposed ordinance should be sent to the cities for comment. She asked that the Agricultural Advisory Commission hold a hearing on this matter. Ms. Skinner stated that basically the issue is the rights of someone who is there first. This does not seem to be a problem with others but it is a problem with agriculture. When agriculture is there first, they should have the right to continue their operation. The matter was continued to .7une 9, 1981 with Counsel to go over the recommendation from the California Women in Agriculture and mail out the changes to everyone involved including the cities. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATTON OF OPPOSITION TO STATE RESOURCES AGENCY PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A SACRAMENTO RIVER PARKWAY - CONTINUED TO MAY 26, 19s1 Discussion and consideration o~ opposition to State Resources Agency proposal for establishment of a Sacramento River Parkway held at this time. Pei?_-332, May 12, 1981 $1_ ~' May 12, 1981 Supervisor Dolan stated that several people had seen the article in the paper relative to this matter. .They-have asked that this be set for another agenda with more-notice. Karen Vercruse, California Women-in Agriculture,. stated the Board should have received a letter from their organization relative to this matter. A great deal of interest has been generated with this project. The agricultural and land owner :interests became concerned because of the concerns not being considered liy-the report on this matter. Support for the parkway was gained without both sides of the issues being discussed. The only information being made public relative to this project by the Resources Agency is a four color brochure:: The concerns are that agriculture is the major use along the river. The land along the river is extremely valuable. She felt the parkway project would pre-empt the primary use along the river. The recreational interest should not be considered a priority over the land owners on their concerns and wishes. This project is not specifically for development of recreation. The Resources Agency main interest is in management of the river. They are proposing to create a regional form of management of the parkway system. This project would cross county lines and be controled by the Resources Agency. This would include control over the flood plans, riparian habitat and the amount of water in the river. She believed the plans were for the river and SB 200. Part of the problem is the problem between the state and the-U:S. Army Corps of Engineers. The money would probably come from recreation bonds or off shore drilling taxes. The state is not interested in buying the whole strip of land on the river. Supervi~r Dolan has heard that this is in the conception stage. The people she has talked to in Sacramento have said there will be no pre-emption of county regulations. She knew the conflicts over the uses will exist with or without any formation of the parkway. Ms. Vercruse stated that yes there were local concerns and problems but to suggest the answer is a regional form of government is not warranted. Supervisor Dolan was not suggesting that a regional form of government would be the answer. She recognized the Sacramento River did not begin and end with Butte County. There could possibly be the solving of problems through a park bond that does not encumber the county's rights on the river. She would be willing to look into the matter. Some of the people she talked to asked that a public hearing be held on this matter. Ms. Vercruse stated that in 1973 a study was done for the Sacramento River Boating Trail. This is basically some of the same language. The boat trail goes the same distance, has the same access points and the same maps. This was done by Parks and Recreation. Somehow this report got to the Resources Agency. This study is being blown into a management system concept. She was aware of what happened with Proposition 8 and SB 200. These are the kinds of decisions being made now for the future of .northern California. They should nob b.e naive to think these things are not connected. Supervisor Wheeler stated she had met with some of the people proposing this concept. She advised those people she felt as a Soard member the idea would be acceptable if it were acceptable to the agricultural community, because those people will have the greatest impact. This could cause more trespassing on agricultural property. Page 333. May 12, 1981 81 ~~e~r 793 794 k~ay 12, 1981 The matter-was continued to .May 26, 1981.-at 1:30 p.m. Steven-Dill, .rep resenting the Farm Bureau, stated .the Farm Bureau is in opposition to the proposal.. Many of the things discussed will become fact. There are many property rights; both public and private, that need to be looked at. Souae sort o,f posCion_must.be axrived at that does not compromise the Farmers abiltp_to farm .near ..the river. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CHICO LIBRARY Dan Blackstock, county counsels set out the requested amendment to the plans and specifications fox the Chico Library. There was inadvertently placed an alternate bid for the sidewalks, including the parking, and paving with the concrete. This includes curb, gutter and sidewalks and sprinkler system. He asked that those be removed fxom the alternate bid. This should be included in the primary bid. This refers to ' Section 2.61, 2.62 and 2.74 of division 2, site 1, Chico specifications. He suggested that the Board approve the amendment to the~~.plans and specifications to remove those three items and place them in the base bid. There will be one alternate bid and that is for landscaping. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the plans and specifications for the Chico Library were amended to remove Section 2.61, 2.62 and 2.74 of division 2, site 1, Chico from the alternate bid and place those sections ux the base bid. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO BUILDING CODE FOR OWNER- BUILT DWELLINGS IN DESIGNATED RURAL AREA (AS MODIFIED FROM CALIFORNIA "K" CODE) The public hearing on consideration of modifications to building code for owner-built dwellings'in designated rural areas (as modified fxom California "K" code) was held as advertised. Robert Boyden, committee on "K" housing code, introduced the members of the committee. Based on the last meeting there wexe changes made to the proposed code. T7iey liminated the five acre minimum acreage requirements. They reduced the permit fee schedule and number of inspections. They added a little more flexibility for another request. They held the line on the subject of waterless or compost toilets. Aseptic tank is still required. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Paul West. Mr. West read a prepared statement which was submitted for the record. He would like to see several changes made in the proposed code. SUPERVISOR WHEELER ABSENT .AT THIS TIME Mr. Boyden did not feel that Mr. West's suggestions were unsound. He wondered if Mr. West would like to have the code continued until these matters were considered or if he was willing to have the code adopted and then changes could be made if needed. Mr. West felt that no regulations would be considered the ultimate. He did not want to delay the adoption of the code. Before he was willing to say he accepted the code he would like a chance to review the last revisions. He was sure the septic tank provisions would be debated. He would not like to see the issue continued, i~ he could be assured the Board would be open mined at a later date. 2. Rolland .Berger. Mr. Berger presented a prepared statement at this time for tfie record. He felt the "K" code was timely consideration. Page 334. clay 12,, 1981 May 12, 1981 al- ~' The interest cost for building are largely established at the national level and are not under local control. To jCeduce-interest costs it is necessary to find-ways to reduce the amount of money needed for the home. He set out the items in his prepared statement at .this time. 3. Harold Sullivan, member of the committee, Mr. Sullivan stated that affordable housing is no longer available. He felt a home was a basic need. The code as presented is the first step in the right direction for affordable housing. He urged the Board to adopt the code. Mr. Boyden stated that Dr. Berger had presented a great many subject the committee never hoped to even touch:. He felt the code was nothing more than the first step. He asked that the Board consider adoption of the code as soon as possible. The matter was continued to May 26, 1981 during the regular agenda items. APPEARANCE: MRS. PALMER Mrs. Palmer stated she was a residential home care operator in the county who takes General Assistance 'patients. She does not get paid for these people. She had a gentleman in the audience that had been taken to her home in January and on February 1, 1981 she was paid for the 16 days in January. She has not received any money since that time for his care. 795 Administrative Office to meet with Mrs. Palmer to try and help her solve her problem. 796 ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 81-93, 81-94 & 81-95 SETTING•PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND RECREATIONAL EASEMENTS IN PARADISE PINES AREA On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke and carried the following resolutions setting a public hearing date of June 16, 1981 for consideration of the following abandonments were adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign: 1. Resolution 81-93 setting a public hearing date for James H. Craig abandonment of public utilities and recreational easement Paradise Pines Unit No. 10, Lot 72 2. Resolution 81-94 setting a public hearing date for Donald H. Ford abandonment of public utilities easement, Paradise Pines Unit 4, Lot 65. 3. Resolution 81-95 setting a public hearing date for Arnold W. Johnson abandonment of public utilities and recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 11, Lot 87 797 .REPORT TO BOARD ON IMPLEMENTATION "R-2" ZONING IN AREA BORDERED BY YUBA AVENUE, COLUSA AVENUE 9TH STREET AND 7TH. STREET THERMALITO Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the report to the Board on implementation of "R-2" zoning in area bordered by Yuba Avenue, Colusa Avenue, 9th Street and .7th Street, Thermalito. The Board referred this matter to the Planning Commission for possible "R-2" zoning. The Commission's report is very clear they did not want to get into this area until there is input-from the Orovi.Lle area. The area is presently "A-2 Ltd" zoning. Supervisor Dolan stated the Board had received a petition opposed to the "R-2" zoning. She asked tk~at the Planning Department advise the people of what was h'agp~tiing. Page 335.. May 12, 1981 81- 798 a 799 •_____---__= May 12,-1981 =~________________ REPORT TO THE BOARD ON PLANNTNG COMMiSSION'S.REVIEW Ok' PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT'PROGRAM.ON-'1981-$2 BUDGET ~. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out .the background of the report to the-Board on.the Planning Commission's review of Public Works Capital Improvement Program on 1981-82 budget. This is required pursuant to Government Code. She had supplied .the Board-with: copies of the Planning Commission minutes and concern about the status of the projects. The main point .was the status of Ophir and Ord Ferry Roads. Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that before the Board approves the budget, he hoped to have an extensive discussion with the Board on roads and the priorities. REPORT TO THE BOARD ON COMNff SSIONER SCHRADER'S COMhTENTS RELATIVE TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON AGRTCULTURAL NUISANCES Bettye Blair, planning. director, reported to the Board on Commissioner Schrader's comments relative to the proposed ordinance on agricultural nuisances. She would like to take the ordinance back to the Planning Commission if the ordinance is amended. The report to be referred to County Counsel. 800 801 802 ADOPT ORDINANCE 221b AMENDING SECTION 10-9 OF THE COUNTY CODE HIGHWAY AND STREET SECTION REGARDING FENCES IN SETBACK AREAS Bettye Blair, planning director, stated the Board had received a letter from the City of Chico relative to this proposed ordinance. Their concern is in the residential areas. The city requires a use permit for anything in excess of four feet. She has talked to the City of Chico. relative to this matter and advised them this would be discussed. They wanted the Board to be aware of their concerns. They were concerned about notice of the two contiguous property owners and the one across the street. It might be to cover this it could be done through notification of the traffic engineer to the two property owners and the one across the street. She felt the ordinance could be made workable. She was sure the Chico Planning Department was not aware of the court decision that a six-foot chain- length fence was considered openwire fencing. Del Siemsen, deputy county counsel, advised that the court was saying if this is not considered as an openwire fence, the county should be specific. On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, the second reading of the ordinance amending Section 10-9 of the Butte County Code Highway and Street Section regarding fences in setback areas was waived; Ordinance 2216 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley. NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Wheeler ADOPT ORDINANCE 2217: WAIVE SECOND READTNG OF ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.3 (SB 1960) CONCERNING MOBILE HOMES On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and carried, the second reading of the ordinance implementing Government Code Section 65852.3 (.SB 1960) concerning mobile homes was waived; Ordinance 2217 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor Wheeler REPORT ON MC KINNEY BROTHERS, INC. LETTER CON.CE'RNxNG ZONING ON AP 47-2b-183 - CONTINUED TO MAY 19;-1981 The report on McKinney Brothers, Inc. .letter concerning zoning on AP 47-26-183 was continued to May 19-, 1481. Page 336. May 12, 1981 Ma 12, 1981 - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ = Y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T = - _ _ 81- 803 APPOINTMENT TO BUTTE COUNTY HQUSING AUTHORITx, DISTRICT 2 - TAKEN OFF $' AGENDA TO BE: PLACED ON AGENDA BY. SUPERVISOR;.DOLAN The appointment to the Butte County Housing Authority,.District 2 was taken off the agenda at the Xegnest of Supervisor Dolan<to be placed back on the agenda by Supervisor Dolan at the time there is an appointment by her. 804 805 APPOINTMENT TO HOUSING'ELEMENT'TASK FORCE On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and carried, Gerald Everhard was appointed to the Housing Element Task Force, District 5. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and carried, Marianne O'Malley was appointed to the Housing Element Task Force, District 2 to replace Jim Jessee. CONSIDER.9TION OF POLICY CONCERNING REAPPORTIONMENT FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES FOR SENATE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS Consideration of policy concerning reapportionment for northern California counties for Senate and Congressional districts was held at this time. Supervisor Lemke advised that he had attended the meeting by Senator Boatwright as an individual and not representing the Board. They could lose `114,000 in Senator Johnson's district and everyone has to lose around them. The entire northern counties are over. There is not enough population for another district at the present time. One of the suggestions he made was to take-Trinity and Siskiyou Counties and move them into the coastal counties district. They would then have to take off a little of Placer County to make the difference. The Board has until June 15, 1981 for a written reply relative to this matter. 80b COMMUNICATIONS William H. Nolan, San Marino. Mr. Nolan requests that the public hearing on his rezone appeal schedule for May 12, 1981 be rescheduled for late June or July. Handled earlier in the meeting. incott Surveying, Paradise. The surveyors, on behalf of Keith Babcock, appeal the Advisory Agency's Condition 13 {provide circulation pending Board of Supervisors direction to the contrary}, AP 64-62-08, four lots, property located on the east side of Nimshew Ridge Road, south of Humbug Road, Magalia area. Set for hearing June 2, 1981 at 10:15 a.m. Oroville Title Company. The firm writes submitting. information relative to the proposed ordinance under Board consideration relative to agricultural nuisances. Handled earlier in the meeting. Sutter-Butte Chapter, California Women for Agriculture. The organization writes stating their opposition to the proposed Sacramento River parkway. Handled earlier in the meeting. Leash Law. Letters in support of a leash. law for the unincorporated areas have been received from Mrs. June 3Li:chal and Thomas S. Yukic. Information; no action taken. Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. The district ,forwards its resolution 4-81-3 which provides for .the elmination of property tax negotiations unless otherwise requested by:-the District. Handled earlier in the meeting. Page 337. Tray 12, 19s1 87 3 807 May 12, 1981 Family Service Association o~ Butte and G1enn,Counties. The association writes forwarding its request for. revenue sharing funds in the amount of $31,810. To be.eonsidered at the revenue sharing hearing.. The association to be notified of .the hearing. Arthur D. Little, Inc., San T'raneisco. The firm,.as par t. of an evaluation of the County Justice System Subvention Program, writes requesting input concerning alternative performance measurement criteria as part of the program. Referred to Chief Probation Officer and Administrative Office. Northern California Emergency Medical Care Council. The council writes indicating their willingness to accept the delegation of emergency medical service responsibility on behalf of the county. Discussed; referred to Dr. Svihus for a written report to the Board. State Department of Water Resources - Reclamation Board. The department forwards information with regard to estimates and assessments for state maintenance area budgets, including those in Butte County. Referred to Administrative Office. State Department of Health Services. The department fowards information and its report on the status of local environmental health programs. Information. No action taken. Institute for Local Self Government. The institue forwards information concerning energy contingency planning project which was initiated by the Energy Commission, CSAC and the League of California Cities. Referred to Civil Disaster Director. Saate~Department of Water Resources. The department forwards its estimated charges for 1982 fox the state water supply contract. Information; no action taken. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The department forwards information relative to a complaint of the Chico Housing Improvement Program (CHIP} and requests a written response. Referred to Counsel and Connerly and Associates for preparation of response and report back to the Board on the proposed response. Bertram D. Janes, associates justice (retired). Justice Janes forwards his report to the Board on the public defender system. Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler, Administrative Office, current contractors for Public Defender appointed to committee for recommendation. ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Lemke stated the Board had received a memo relative to economic development., He asked that the Administrative Officer be instructed to follow through in getting PIC and BEDCo for a preliminary meeting as soon as possible. The state has said they will attend the meeting. Chairman Moseley had a problem with the contract for the Mental Health Department that was discussed earlier in the meeting. She felt that everyone considered this a contract bid. and not a request for proposals at $50,0O.O.for fifteen beds. It then ended-up being $80,000 for twelve beds. She would like to see any proposals or contracts coming through Administrative• Office or Purchasing. Off ice. This would keep the figures the same for everyone. ;?age 338. May 12, 1981 1 ____-______ May 12 1981 ______________ ___=_ 81~ Ban Blackstock, county counsel, advised.he.reeeived two '~ ', letters that were hand delivered yesterday relative to the Public Defender's study. Thew being nothing further before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p. m. to reconvene on Tuesday, May 19, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chairman, Board of pervisors By Page 339.. May 12, 1981