Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092380September 23, 1980 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OE BUTTE ) 80_ The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m, pursuant to adjournment. {~ Present: Supervisors Aolan, Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America Invocation by Supervisor Moseley 1475 APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the hearing date of December 9, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of excess tax proceeds as set out in minute order 80-1372, August 26, 1980 minutes was rescinded. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan unanimously carried, the minutes of August 26, 1980, minute order 1397 was corrected to reflect the following: On motion of Supervisor eler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, the architect was horized to proceed with design for the jail addition for the purposes. the grant with the scope of the project to be $1.2 million with the e on the motion as follows:. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley; eler and Chairman Lemke. Abstaining: Supervisor Winston On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan unanimously carried, the minutes of September 16 and 17, 1980 were owed as mailed. 1476 UTHORIZE AUDITOR TO WITHDRAW UESTIONED!'COSTS AG~LTNST BUTTE COLLEGE (CETA) On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler nd unanimously carried, the Auditor was authorized to withdraw the questioned osts claim against Butte College in the amount of $174,431.75. 1477 ETA ADMINISTRATIVE REIMBURSEMENT POLICX TO REMAIN AS IS Jim Rackerby, personnel director, set out the background of the equest from CHIP for administrative money to operate their CETA programs. ere is also a request from the City of Chico for administrative money for heir CETA programs. Many agencies have augmented their administrative ection with CETA participants to do part of the work. This provides a ood work:°::training program also. Supervisor Dolan stated that a nonprofit organization is suppose to have the money to pay up front and that is the reason why advancement is being requested. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler carried, the existing policy relative to administrative reimbursement cy for CETA is to remain as is. AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, ton and Chairman Lemke. NOES: Supervisor Dolan. '.1478 WAIVE FIRST READING OF S On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, the first reading o£ the salary ordinance amendment which implements the new positions and reclassifications set forth in the FY 81 budget, with the exception of the Sheriff's Department positions was waived. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley nd unanimously carried, position ~~6 detailed in Memo dated September 19, 980 relative to a Probation Officer was deleted from the Salary Ordinance mendment. Page 243. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1480 50-1474 a WAIVE FIRST READING OP SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Jim Rackerby, personnel director, set out the background of the salary ordinance amendment that implements the FX 81 budget positions for the Sheriff's Degartment. These positions would be for general clerical personnel working in the general administration, planning and training. Supervisor Dolan realized that this was the first reading of the ordinance amendment. It seems like when the Board set aside the money that it was agreed there would be discussion and an analysis of where the money would go. She wanted to know where the personnel would be used. Supervisor Winston stated that the Board had received a memo from Sheriff Gillick relative to the barking dog complaint received by the Board on September 23, 1980. ~np:ervisor~67i:nston°stated that Mr. Heckers statements were in direct conflict with Sheriff Gillick's comments. In view of the fact that Mr. Hecker had called animal control and was advised to do what he did with the dog, he felt Mr. Hecker's letter should be sent to Sheriff Gillick and perhaps the Sheriff and Mr. Hecker could meet and reconcile their difference. ' Supervisor Winston commented on a letter in the Oroville ,Mercury relative to the benefits received by the cities for their share of law enforcement. Tf the writer of the letter would like to contact the Auditor's Office and the Finance Director of the City of Oroville he would find that when Supervisor Winston asked for the figures that he quoted during budget session, they were figures on patrol costs only. The people in the city are willing to absorb the costs for the jail and court. The $44 per capita figure is the patrol services only. it was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Winston that the first reading of the salary ordinance amendment that implements the FY 81 budget positions for the Sheriff's Department wi5ieh includes three typist clerks, three jailers and three deputy sheriffs be waived. Supervisor Wheeler wanted to know where the people were going to be placed and how soon $ie people would be added. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke NOES: None Motion carried. 1480 14x1 REJECT CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, the coatract amendment with. the Drug Enforcement Administration to institute a program for locating and eradicating marijuana fields in the county that would provide fox the advancing to the county of an additional $2,500 was rejected. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Winston and Chairman Lemke. ABSTAINING: Supervisor Wheeler ACCEPT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SMALL CITIES GRANT On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the grand award in the amount of $500,000 per year for a three-year community development program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development was accepted and the Chairman authorized to sign. Page 244. September 23, 1980 80-1482 'b 1483 1484 1485 September 23, 1980 APPROVE RURAL SENIOR SERVICES AND SENIOR NUTRITION SUPPORTIVE SERVICES WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING (CAA) On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, the contract with the Area Agency on Aging to continue the rural senior services project and the supportive services components for the senior nutrition program for the period October 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981 in the amount of $96,981 which includes $65,182 for the rural senior services project and $31,799 for the supportive services component was approved subject to approval by Community Action Agency Board and the Chairman authorized to .'sign. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler, and Chairman Lemke. NOES: Supervisor Winston. AUTHORIZE AUDITOR TO PAY ONGOING EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO CARRY UNTIL THE END OF OCTOBER UNTIL REVENUE COMES IN RE: RURAL SENIOR SERVICES AND SENIOR NUTRITION SUPPORTIVE SERVICES WITH AREA AGENCX ON AGING ECAA) On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, the Auditor was authorized to pay the ongoing expenses £or the rural senior services and senior nutrition supportive services in the amount of $10,000 to carry the program until the'end of Octobex until the revenue is received. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler, and Chairman Lemke. NOES: Supervisor Winston. ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-204 AUTHORIZING AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER TO SIGN 1980-81 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SUBVENTION APPLICATION Discussion of the 1980-8I Air Pollution Control subvention application held at this time. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that the interesting aspect of this subvention application is that the program is costing $102,000 for a state mandated program. Colusa County has been conservative with regard to this program. Supervisor Winston stated he had learned something about the rice burning. The rice industry has developed a new strain of rice that requires forty percent less burning. This incfcates that the industry is spending considerable amount of money to combat the problem and are making progress. Supervisor Wheeler suggested that the Board members take a trip to the Biggs Rice Research Station. This is where the work is being done. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the 1980-S1'.air.''pollntiori::controlsubvention . application in the amount of $146,763 (county, $102,437 and state subvention, $44,326) was approved; Resolution 80-204 authorizing the Air Pollution Control Officer to sign the 1980-81 air pollution control subvention application was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET A public hearing date of October 14, 1980 at 10:OO.a.m. was set for consideration of the following: 1. Tom A. Beaver petition for variance to Sections 19-IO and/or 19-12 of the ButtA County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 28--13-003, La Porte Road, Bangor area. Zoning: "A-5" 2. E11ie Mae Bradley petition for variance to sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 27-04-27, 31 and 23; P.O. Box 341, Palermo, CA. Zoning: "A-5" Page 245. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1480 80- 1486 d 1487 1488 1489 1490 APPROVE RENEWAL OF VARIANCE On motion of Sugervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 26-25-32, Lone Tree Road, Palermo area, zoning: "A-5" for Charles and Gloria Rust was approved. APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS: ADOPT ORD1N_ANCE.2137 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, the following Public Works items were approved: 1. Added Health Department condition as follows: Prove that the required quantities of domestic water are available to each parcel for tentative parcel map for James Potestio, AP 62-23-91, four lots, located on the southwest corner of Sald Rock and Rockefeller Roads, Berry Creek area that was considered by the Board on September 16, 1980. 2. Waived the second reading of the ordinance establishing speed limits on Evans-Reimer Road and Thresher Avenue in the southeast Gridley area at 35 mph; Adopted Ordinance 2137 and the Chairman authorized to sign. 3. Approved contract change order No. 1 in the increasing amount of $881.88 providing for the placement of additional concrete for the bike path crossing of Lindo Channel, Project No. CBW 80-1 with funding available in the approved budget for bicycle ways and the Cha~an authorized to sign. 4. Accepted the work of Richard A. Horton for bicycle path crossing of Lindo Channel from Madrone Avenue to Madrone Avenue contract No. CBW 80--1; authorized the Chairman to sign the notice of completion and directed the Clerk to record said notice with the Recorder. 5. Authorize release of $4,465.84 from the Shasta Union Drainage Assessment District fund 1890 to Dan Drake for Joshua Tree 4~2 tentative subdivision, AP 44-05-73 and AP 44-43-18, south side of Highway 99E, 650 feet east of Lassen Avenue, Chico area. 6. Authorized invitation of proposals for operation of the intercity transit project. ADOPT RESOLUTION 80-205 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC HIGHWAX EASEMENT ON OLD LARKTN~ ROAD On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, Resolution 80-205 setting a public hearing date of October 28, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of abandonment of public highway easement on old Larkin Road was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. ACCEPT PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION AND AUTHORIZE RETURN OF $357.70 TO RAYMOND B. VELLIQUETTE FOR BUILDING PERMIT FEE REFUND On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, Public Works Director`s recommendation was accepted and $357.70 of Raymond B. VelliqueEte's building permit fee was authorized to be returned. WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION I4-50 TO THE BUTTE COUNTX CODE REGULATING OVERNIGHT PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the first reading of the ordinance adding Page 246. September 23, 1980 80- 1491 ________ ~_September-23,_1980_T-__---___~~_ Sectionr3.4-50 to the Butte County Code regulating overnight parking of commercial vehicles with the addition of Burnap and Panama was waived. POLI"CY:73IRECTION RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COBRT Discussion of the Family Conciliation Court held at this time. Clif Michelson, administrative officer, stated he had been advised that Bob Crisan is willing to have the Auditor transfer $20,000 from his budget, which is part of the general fund money, to the courts as his contributian toward the operation of the court instead of having it in his department. Family Services Association have been voluntarily conducting the counseling. They will no longer be used unless there is a contract under the courts. Supervisor Wheeler questioned whether this was a direct violation of Proposition 4 fox the state to implement the grogram and indicating the possibility that this could be paid. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, did not think the county would know the cost of the program until it had been operational for at least. one year. If the fees do not pay for the increased cost, the county would file a claim with the state through Proposition 4. He thought the Board would see more legislation on that type of program where it is a cooperation type of situation where there is a charge for fees. The county is going to have a conciliation court. The question is whether or not the Board is going to charge a fee to defray the cost. Orrin B. Stratton spoke regarding the Legislature and what they are doing to the counties. He read from Article 13B of the Constitution. Whenever the state mandates a new program that has a higher level of services, the state will provide the funding. He felt the state was bound by the Constitution to fund the program. He would be willing to back the Board in refusing to.:fund the program. Discussion of whether a conciliation court had saved any time ld at this time. Mr. Nickelson stated tfiere had never been any report. Mr. Blackstock stated the Legislature mandates that an additional $15 in marriage fees be gaid for this program. As £ar as the Legislature is concerned they are saying this .amount will pay for the program. In the event that it does not work that way, the county would be filing a claim with the state for reimbursement. Everytime a motion is filed in court regarding court matters involving child custody or support an extra $15 fee would be charged:'.- This will be the main source of funding for the program. The Board can decide they do not want to fund the program and they cannot charge the additional fees. The Superior Court is the conciliation court and they will pursue the matter without additional employees if the Board does not impose the fee to cover the additional personnel. The effect would depend on how much time the court will be spending as to their ability to meet the civil caseload. It was moved by Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler that the county will proceed as they have been with regard to the Family Conciliation Court at the present time and will not raise the filing fee to include the costs far said program. Supervisor Dolan felt that family matters were better handled at this level than with the Superior Court. She believed that the county is being allowed to raise fees for financing of the program. Supervisor Wheeler felt it was the state's responsibility to be more clear in their definition. Page 247: September 23, 1980 80- b September 23, 1480 - Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke NOES: Supervisor Dolan Motion carries. .1492 APPOINTMENTS TO FEATHER RIVER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT AND RICHVALE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the following appointments were made pursuant to Section 23520 of the Election Code: Feather River Recreation and Park District 4 year term George C. Barr Kathy A. Bryson Henry C. McQuown II F8u1 J~-: CroWe•~ 2 year terms George B. Schwindeman Richvale Recreation and Park District 4 year terms Donald H. Rystrom Audrey G. Stephens 1493 1494 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO THE 1979-80 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT - CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 The Board of Supervisors` resonse to the 1979-80 Grand Jury Final Report was continued to September 30, 1980. RECESS: 10:11 a.m. RECONVENE: 10:23 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: OTIS W. SPARKS - PETITION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 19--10 AND/OR 19-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE FOR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON AP 27-23-29. ROUTE 2, BOX 2722-0, COX LANE, PALERMO_ AREA. ZONING:"A-5" The public hearing on Otis W. Sparks petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 27-23-29, Route 2, Box 2722-0, Cox Lane, Palermo area, zoning: "A-5" was~eld as advertised. Phil Nelson, environmental health department, set out the background of the petition. It is in order. Hearing open to the public. AHearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. 1495 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-i2 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 27-23-29, Route 2, Box 2722-0, Cox Lane, Palermo area, zoning: "A-5" for Otis W. Sparks was approved for a period of one year. PUBLIC HEARING: ANTHONY SANTOS, ET UX (GARY CORIA~ - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF LAND CONSERVATION ACT AGREEMENT The public hearing on Anthony Santos, et ux (Gary Coria) considera- tion of proposed negative declaration and petition for cancellation of Land Conservation Act Agreement was held as continued. Page 248. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1980 80- Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the retition'. This is a continued hearing to consider one parcel applied fox. 'he committee did not object to cancellation and recommended that the pest of the Land Conservation Act agreement entered into with Anthony Santos ~e noticed. for nonrenewal. They did not object to immediate cancellation ,y the different property owners in this agreement. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Neil McCabe. Mr. 4Cabe stated there are three parcels involved in the request for :ancellation. The request by Hall and Isom was before the Board in :he past. The same issues are before the Board today. This property is tot devoted to agricultural use. He presented a letter from Al Mitchell -egarding the Hall property. The property is not now fenced.. It is ;seep and not viable for grazing or any other agricultural uses. The area is shown as agricultural residential on the General Plan with a tensity of one to forty acres per unit. In 1970 the county agreed to -equest a road connection from the state for this area. Development ras contemplated during that time. That is inconsistent with the ideas ~f the Williamson Act. The zoning is for forty. acre parcels. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board 1496 1497 On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was -ecommended. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, the cancellation of the Land Conservation Act agreement with Gary Carta on AP 56-05-31, AP 56-05-36 and AP 63-02-52 ras approved; noting that the cancellation is not inconsistent with the >urposes of this change . and that the property is no longer being used .`or the purposes of the contract; further that cancellation is in the public interest being that there is no other reasonable or compatible agricultural use~to which the land may be put; further finding that the =ees in the amount of $9549.50 must be paid. tEMAINDER OF PROPERTY IN THE ANTHONY SANTOS, ET UX LAND CONSERVATION ACT AGREEMENT TO BE NOTICED FOR NON RENEWAL AND AVISING THAT THEY CAN APPLY 'OR IMMEDIATE CANCELLATION IF THEY SO DESIRE On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimously carried, the remainder of the property contained in the Anthony Santos, et ux Land Conservation Act Agreement are to be noticed .°or nonrenewal to start the ten year period; further that the people be advised that they can apply for immediate removal from the Land :onservation Act. ,,DOPY ORDINANCE 2138: PUBLIC HEARING: M. W. BALICEN - PROPOSED NEGATIVE )ECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "TM-10" (TIMBER MOUNTAIN - 10 ACRE PARCELS) '0 "TM-5" (TTMBER MOUNTAIN - 5 ACRE PARCELS), PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NEST SIDE OF COUTOLENC ROAD, APPROX. 300 FEET NORTH OF PONDEROSA WAY, IDENTIFIED AS AP 65-23-2, NORTH OF PARADISE . The public hearing on M. W. Balkan proposed negative declaration and rezone from "TM-10" (timber mountain - .10 acre parcels) to "TM-5" ;timber mountain - 5 acre parcels), property located an the west side of ;outolenc Road, appxoximately 300 feet north of Ponderosa Way, identified as AP 65-23-2, north of Paradise was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of :he rezone. Page 24g, September 23, 1980 80- a September 23, 1980. _ _ Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. Hearing open to .the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed: to the public and confined to the Board. 1498 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was accepted. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, 'citing policy D on page 31 of the General Plan and noting a negative declaration has been considered the rezone from "TM-10" (timber mountain - 10 acre parcels) to "TM-5" (timber mountain - 5 acre parcels), property located on the west side of Coutolenc Road, approximately 300 feet north of Ponderosa Way, identified as AP 65-23-2, north of Paradise for M. W. Balken was approved; finding the project is consistent with the General Plan; Ordinance 2138 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. ADOPT ORDINANCE 2139: PUBLIC HEARING: THERON WALKER AND JIM MOORS - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL) TO "FR--S" (FOOTHILL RECREATIONAL - 5 ACRE PARCELS), PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF OREGON GULCH ROAD FROM CONDOR ROAD 1/2 MILE SOUTH AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF CHEROKEE ROAD FROM CONDOR ROAD 1/4 MILE NORTH, IDENTIFIED AS AP 41-25-29, NORTH OF OROVILLE The public hearing on Theron Wllker and Jim Moore proposed negative declaration and rezone from "A-2" (general) to "FR-5" (foothill recreational - 5 acre parcels), property-located on.the east and west sides of Oregon Gulch Road from Condor Road 1/2 mile south and on the' east side of Cherokee Road from Condor Road. 1/4 mile north, identified as AP 4~-25-29,:north of Oroville was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. This rezone is to fulfill the requirements for a tentative subdivision map. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and unanimously carried, finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was accepted. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, finding the negative declaration has been considered and the proposed change is in conformity with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and all of the other elanents of the General Plan the rezone from "A 2" (general) to "FR-5" (foothill recreational - 5 acre parcels), property located on the east and west sides of Oregon Gulch Road £rom Condor Road 1/2 mile south and on the east side of Cherokee Road from Condor Road 1/4 mile north, identified as AP 41-25-29, north of Oroville was approved for Theron Walker and Jim Meore; Ordinance 2139 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. Page 250. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1980 80- 1499 a 1500 ** Bachman & Associates, Chico, The engineers, on behalf of Larry McKinney, appeal the Advisory Agency's denial of negative declaration and tentative subdivision map for McKinney Manor Subdivision, AP 47-2b-184, eight parcels, property located 327 feet east of Highway 49 and 151 feet south of Keefer Road, north Chico area. Set for hearing October 21, 1980 at 10:15 a.m. Arthur Graff, Magalia. Mx. Graff writes appealing the Advisory Agency's condition 9~1 C60 feet of access to public road) and condition 4~2 (provide traversable access) on an application for determination, AP 58-15-48, one parcel, property located 1/2 mile north of Hoffman Road (a private road), west of Concow Road, Lake Oroville area. Set for hearing October 21, 1980 at 10:30 a.m. David D. Mackey, Oroville. Mr, Mackey, on behalf of Alex Harmon, writes requesting the placement of interim "AR-MH" zoning an AP 36-31-105, Dresher Tract Road, Oroville area. See motion, following communications. ADOPT INTERIM ORDINANCE 2140: INTERIM ZONING AP 36-31-105, DRESHER TRACT ROAR, OROVTLLE AREA INTERIM "AR-MH" Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the request for the interim zoning for AP 36-3I-105, Dresher Tract Road, Oroville area. The application fox permanent "AR-MH" is currently in Environmental Review. There are about 25 acres in the application for rezoning. The request for interim zoning is for one parcel, Tt was moved by Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supexvisor Moseley, that interim zoning "AR-MH" be placed on AP 36-31-105, Dresher Tract Road, Oroville area be.app.ravei~ for :a 'period of l2fl:days; £3nding for;ahe protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public; Ordinance 2140 was adopted and the Chairman be authorized to sign. Aavid Mackey stated he had sent the Board a letter on this matter. He read the letter at this time, There are 80 percent of the property owners in favor of the interim and rezone, Vote :on motion: AXES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke NOES: None Motion carried. 1501 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2141: PUBLIC HEARING: RICHARD HORTON - DRAFT EIR AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL) AND "S-H" (SCENIC HIGHWAY) TO "R-1" (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND "SR-3" (SiBTJRBAN RESIDENTIAL - THREE ACRE PARCELS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTkE SIDE OF THE SKYWAY FROM 1/2 MILE EAST OF BUTTE CREEK BRIDGE TO THE POWER TRANSMISSION LINES TWO MILES EAST, IDENTIFIED AS AP 40-02-59 & i20, 40-41-97, 40-43--ALL, SOUTHEAST OF CHICO The public hearing on R~I~a,~rd Horton draft EIR and rezone from "A-2" (general) and "S-H" (scenic highway) to "R 1" (single family residential) and "SR-3" (suburban residential - three acre parcels), property located on the north side of the Skyway from 1/2 mile east of the Buttte Creek Bridge to the power transmission lines two miles east, identified as AP 40-02-59 and 120, 40-41-97, 40-43-ALL, southeast of Chico was held as advertised. Page 251. September 23, 1980 80- ________=--=September 23,_1380____-___.~_______ Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. This rezone follows a General Plan amendment. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the EIR. There is a potential of 114 lots in this area. There are some environmental concerns because the creek is close to the property. Mitigation measures are available to allow the approval of the subdivision and protect the rare plants. Mr. Nelson suggested that the Board might want to consider a habitat conservation zone as an alternate tool for preservation of these rare plants. Mitigation of the easement at the time of subdivision is available. This new zone would be a option for both the county and the developer. He would have to work ®ith the Planning Department to draw up the habitat conservation zoning. Mr. Nelson stated that there were some changes that needed to be made to the memo he had previously sent the Board. The net result of the changes would be that there would be a finding that there could be significant effects on the environment but they cannot be mitigated at this stage. Del Siemsen, deputy county counsel, stated that the problem the Board has is that the project, which is a rezone, is not conditionals The Board will have to determine if there are significant effects. The Board does have to address the impacts at this level. That is the reason for the overriding considerations. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Jeff Brouty and Jim Jochurst from CLAPS. Mr. Brouty stated his organization had performed a botanical survey on the project. Along the edge of the bluff on this property, there is-one rare and endangered species of plant. This area is proposed as a building setback zone. They felt a habitat conservation zone would Ile better than the building setback area for protection of this plant. He suggested that the Board initiate a rezone proposal for this area. Mr. Jochurst stated that in Butte County they are actually pursuing rare plants. They are finding they on a variety of different projects. There should be a habitat conservation zone to protect the plants. He did not want to hold this project up until this zoning could be approved. 2. Kelly Mayor, Honey Run Butte Creek Canyon Committee. Mr. Mayor spoke regarding the EIR. The EIR states that a water permit for the existing Grand Mall Mutual Water Company had expired and they were in the process of having the permit renewed. At the Planning Commission hearing, he found the permit had not be granted. He wondered if the permit had been granted as of this time. There is a sewage lagoon on the front of Butte Creek Canyon where there is leaking at this time. His concern was how the project proponent could prove .the sewage system is going to work. He was also concerned about the water issue. The EIR states there is no drainage plan but it will be worked out and approved. He wondered what action had been taken regarding the drainage plan. He was concerned with residual pollution into Butte Creek. He wondered who would clean the drainage traps of the sedimentation. He felt this might be a big problem during the rainy season. The sewage ponds axe on the ' flood plane. He was concerned about the effects on the riparian habitat. He was concerned about public services and the effect on the schools. Page 252. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1980 80- He was concerned with. the fire hazard in the area. He did not feel it had d been given enoug~CCOnsideration in the ETR. There is a problem with Sheriff's protection. He would like to see responses on these issues. Del Siemsen, deputy county counsel, stated that the agenda item refers to a draft EIR when in fact this is a previously certified EIR. The Board would have to make a determination as to whether the EIR was sufficient for this project. 3. Richard Horton. Mr. Horton stated they are still working on the mitigation measures with the environmental people. His concern relative to a habitat conservation zone would be that the county would obligate itself to enforce the zone. The plant is not located in the area where the building would take place. He felt that most people would respect the fact that there was a rare plant in that area. Discussion of the possible removal of rare plants held at this time. Mx. Nelson stated that removal to a nursery situation has been tried and in some cases with varying success. He felt it might be to the developer's advantage to have the habitat conservation zone because it would allow them to proceed with the development. Ms. Blair read the proposed habitat conservation zone sent to the Planning Commission by the Plant Society. In her mind they could not allow pedistxian and equistrian uses in the area for endangered plants. This was considered for Butte Creek Canyon. It was not imposed at this time. She was a little concerned because she directed the applicant to pursue zoning before they filed the subdivision map. This is "A-2" zoning and would allow the subdivision map to be filed. This is a ghase of the project. The habitat conservation zone she has seen, she did not believe would.~sefiteve-what they have been referring to. There would be nothing to prohibit the Board or Planning Commission from starting hearings. Mr. Nelson stated there were two issues being discussed at this point. One is the approval of the zoning for the project, which has one area of rare plants that needs to be mitigated before the subdivision map is approved. The other issue is whether the county would like to have a habitat conservation zone. As far as the criteria for the zone is concerned, this would have to be considered during public hearings. During the Butte Creek Canyon rezone the Planning Commission indicated it would like to see a type of zoning brought foward. The Board would make the final determination. Supervisor Winston stated the earth had been around for 20 million years. He did not know how many rare and endangered .species of plants and animals have gone and come. He felt that if ehe county imposed another law, which would be called habitat conservation zone, the county would be doing a dis-service to the public. He was opposed to the zone. He felt that when government went in and told a person. they must set aside a portion of their property without gust compensation, this was inverse condemnation. If the public wants these areas preserved for any reason, he felt it was grossly unfair to ask the property owner to make the single sacrifice. Supervisor Wheeler stated she did not object to the endangered plants, but she did object to the fact that the people who want this kept expect the property owner to give the property. She felt the property owner should be reciprocated for that property. Page 253. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1980 80- b 4. F_aul DeTorry. Mr. DeTorry was concerned about the vegetation along Bute Creek and the effects of that vegetation when the development is constructed. The ETR states that riparian habitat has been destroyed due to disturbances in the past. There has been regeneration of the riparian forest. He has seen it on the creek. He wondered where the drainage system would dump into the creek. He was concerned with the increase in the cubic footage of the creek during the rainy season. This could create flooding downstream. The riparian forest along the creek is only less than one percent of the riparian forest left in California. He felt that dumping in the creek would effect the aquatic bacteria and therefore the fish. in the creek. He felt that with good sensitive restrictions planning of development, that development of new homes that still leaves part of the wild area there will help. Ms. Blair suggested that the Board might want to continue the hearing on the rezone until after the subdivision map has been considered so that the questions would be answered. The Board could continue the hearing until late November or early December. Mr. Horton was agreeable to the continuance. fihey were not as far into the engineering as he would like to be. They have filed tentative map. Supervisor Dolan felt this was a better way to go. The conditions would be placed on the map and the Board would know what measures had been added. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board, On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and carried, finding that the ETR certified on July 22, 1980 is applicable to this project, and Further finding that it was reviewed and considered in arriving at a decision; finding that development which. occurs on the site pursuant to this rezone may result in significant effects on the environment which will both occur and can be mitigated in connection with the processing of a tentative subdivision map. Mitigations are not possible at this approval stage; finding that alternatives either do not accomplish project objectives, or reduce the economic viability of the project, including feasibility of improvements and utilities, the third alternative, a redesign of the lot layout, would be appropriate to consider for implementation in consideration with processing of a subsequent tentative subdivision map; finding that although there may be significant environmental effects associated with this project, the possibility of mitigation at the subdivision map approval stage constitutes an overriding consideration in support of project approval; other overriding considerations include county growth policies which encourage growth away from prime agricultural soils, and the need to provide a surplus of available parcels to provide for free market competition among suppliers of building sites; finding that the project is consistent with the Butte County General plan; the rezone for Richard Hnrton from "A-2" (general) and "S-H" {scenic highway) to "R-1" (single family residential) and "SR 3" (suburban residential - three acre parcels), property located on the north side of the Skyway from 1/2 mile east of the Butte Creek Bridge to the power transmission lines two miles east, identified as AP 40-02-59 and 120, 40-41-97, 40-43-ALL, southeast of Chico was approved; Ordinance 2141 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke. NOES: Supervisor Dolan Supervisor Dolan stated she could not support the motion for reasons stated in the memo. She felt they should note.the mitigation .measures. Page 254. September 23, 1980 September 23, 19.80 80- EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Hoard recessed at 11:50. a.m, to hold an executive d session regarding litigation. RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 12:05 p.m. following an executive session regarding litigation. No announcements to be made at this time. RECESS: 12:06 p.m. *** RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m. 1502 STATUS REPORT ON NORTH CHICO SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND SOUTH CHICO SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Ellis Rolls presented the status report on the North Chico Sewer Assessment District at this time. Mr. Rolls spoke regarding a map that had been prepared fox the proposed district. There was a survey taken of the properties that would like to participate in the district. As a result of the study, he set out the proposed formation o€ the district. They have recently sent out an informational mailout. There was a meeting with .the property owners and 80 to 90 percent expressed their opposition to the district. They are trying to determine which properties are opposed and which properties are interested in participating in the district. There will be further modifications of the boundaries. The original proposed boundaries were those identified by the county Health Department as being relatively poor soil. There will be probably another mailing and a personal contact follow-up on these, mailings. North Valley Plaza is not within the boundaries. Chairman Lemke read letter from J. Maynard Peterson in opposition to the district. Supervisor Wheeler read a letter from Irving Huneven. She was not in attendance at the meeting held regarding .this district. He has been hearing that the people are very angry with government. The people feel that the county has given authority to the City of Chico to proceed with formation of the district. Mr. Rolls stated this was a meeting of property owners called by a committee.. There is no legal status far the district at this point. The meeting was to receive input and answer questions. Mostly likely the Drake project will proceed regardless of the district. Ed Ness, bond counsel, stated that at the meeting these questions had been answered. There has been nothing formal as yet. They are trying to come up with boundaries of the district. At some point in time when they can establish the boundaries of the district, they will be going to the city having them request jurisdiction from the county. If the county grants Jurisdiction, then the city council passes a resolution if intention. Formal public hearings will be held at that time. There is the question of how large the lines should be. They are trying to get answers. now and sre natreceiving complete and accurate responses. He expected that some people would still be missdd in the responses. Mr. Ness stated they have given a preliminary estimate of charges in the previous mailouts. They -would have to take a look at the boundaries and charges to see i€ there would be changes by changes in the boundaries. If the properties are reduced the cost of the system would change. There are some people who have asked to be included in the district who were not in the original boundaries. They could be included. One septic tank person said he had 38 calls during .the past year for this axes. If someone had listened at the meeting, they would think there were no sewer problems in the area. Page 255. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1380 80- 1503 Nr. Rolls stated they were going to evaluate the attitude of the people. Tf the evaluation does result in suFistantial reduction in the area and the people want in on a checkerboard pattern the figures for each property would be figured differently, if they get into a situation of only serving a portion of the properties, they probably would not be able to form the district. district. Lynn White read a letter petition regarding the proposed Supervisor Wheeler objected to the inunedo about Mr. Rolls and his ethics. She has the highest regard fior Mr. Rolls. She felt an apology was in order from the people in that area. Ms. White stated the people were trying to express their feelings.. They were not trying to cast aspersions on him. The people feel that the position might have been better served:,. with'a different engineer for this proposed district. She presented the petition at this time. Mr. Ro11s set out the background of why, the south side of East Avenue was excluded from the boundaries. There is a difference of soil type. South of East Avenue the Health Department indicates a bng use of septic tanks should not be a problem. Dan Cook presented the status report on South Chico Sewer Assessment District. He presented an informational packet to the Board. The district is made up of 17.0 property owners. The vast majority of :Hess property owners have contributed cash to pay for the General Plan amendments, ETRs, rezone and annexations in preparation for the district. There are 1,600 acres within this proposed district that will be annexed to the city. He anticipated that this would occur prior to the first of the year. He outlined the schedule of events that will be taking place as presented in the report. They are anticipating construction early spring of 1981. Mr. Cook spoke regarding the groposed lines that would run through orchards. There are a series of archs along River Road where the lines will pass. These people have been involved. The property owners agreed to study for alternate routing of the lines. They have in excess of 95 percent signatures for annexation and formation of the district. Mr. Potter read a letter regarding the potential financial impact of the Sheriff`s initiative and asked for fiscal information relative to the initiative. They would like to have this public information so it can be provided to-people interested. Supervisor Wheeler stated she had asked the Personnel Department to provide her with information relative to the Sheriff's initiative. 2t does not have the cost breakdown in it. She would like this information from the Auditor and Administrative.Officer. C1if Nickelson, administrative officer, stated he could meet with Mr. Potter and get the information to gether for him and the Board. Chairman Lemke instructed'~he Administrative Office to prepare the information for the Board members and make a copy available to BCEA. Page 25&. September 23, 1980 September 23, 19.80 80- 1504 AAt3PT ORDINANCE 2142: PUBLIC HEARING: B. A. AND B. J. SMITH - REZONE (ITEM DETERMINED TO SE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW) FROM "A-R" (AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL) TO "AR-MH" (AGRICULTURAL RE~EDENTIAL -- MOBILE HOME), PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOWER WYANDOTTE ROAD, APPROX. 1/2 MILE EAST OF UPPER PALERMO' ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS AP 36-31-88, SOUTH OF OROVTLLE The public hearing on B. A. and B. J. Smith rezone (item determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review) from "A-R" (agricultural - residential) to "AR-M[i" (agricultural residential - mobile home), property located on the south side of Lower Wyandotte Road, approximately 1/2 miles east of Upper Palermo Road, identified as AP 36-31-88, south of Oroville was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. Hearing open to `the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. 1505 On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, finding that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review, the rezone for B. A. and B. J. Smith from "A-R" (agricultural - residential) to "AR-MH" (agricultural residential - mobile home), property located on the south side of Lower Wyandotte Road, approximately 1/2 mile east of Upper Palermo Road, identified as AP 36-31-88, south of OrQSU11e was approved; Ordinance 2142 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN R. LECHNER - APPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO PREPARE AN EIR IN CONNCECTION WITH A REQUEST TO REZONE 9,..12 ACRES FROM "TM-5" TO "TM-2-1/2" TO FACILITATE A THREE PARCEL DIVISION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED EAST OF HWY 32, APPROX. 1-1/4 MILES SOUTH OF THE COMMUNITY OF FOREST RANCH, AP 63-13-03 The public hearing on John R. Lechner appeal of requirement to prepare an EIR in connection with a request to rezone 9.12 acres from "TM-5" to "TM-2-1/2" to facilitate a three parcel division and residential development, located east of Highway 32, approximately 1-I/4 miles south of the community of Forest Ranch, AP 63-13-03 was held as advertised. Dick Molcar, environmental review department, set out the background of the appeal. This project is based on small rezone from an existing large "TM-5" zoning district of 120 acres. There are cumulative considerations. This was the reason an EIR was required. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Mrs. Margie Provenchere. Mrs. Provenchere spoke in opposition to the rezone. There is a known fact that there is a shortage of water and sanitary problems in the Forest Ranch area. This would set precedent to starting tearing down the "TM-5" zone. 2. Bill Burch. Mr. Burch stated he was representing the Forest Ranch. Community Organization. He requested that the Board deny the appeal of Mr. Lechner. The sentiments of everyone at the meeting held by the organization was that in 1976 the "TM^'5" designation was established. He felt that whenever there was a reduction in the size of the parcel requirement an EIR should be required. Discussion of the Dan Hays EIR that was prepared in the Forest Ranch area held at this time. Page 257. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1980 g0- Mr. Molcar stated that ETR addressed a different area. 'The EIR was 'prepared for five-acre parcels. This is the first smaller rezone request since the original zoning in 19.76. Tfiere was an ETR done for the original rezone but it was based on five-acre parcels. The main impact on this rezone is the cumulative impact of the entire ridge and therefore the impacts need to be identified and addressed. 2. Cal Bachman. Mr. Bachman was respresenting Mr. Lechner. Mr. Bachman stated there had been a great deal of discussion regarding the "TM-5" zoning district. The parcel that is in question is quite flat and is not dropping into the canyon. The request for zoning th2s property to "TM-2-1/2" was suggested in the 'Planning Department. At the time the ,:zoning was requested it was originally for "TM-3" zoning. This is the spliting of nine acres. There is one existing home and the proposal is to construct two more homes on the property. There would be no problems with the construction of these homes. There would fie very little removal of vegetation. There is one existing well. There are some areas of "TM-5" zoning that could not be split in that area. This parcel has good soil and percolation. He did not feel an EIR was needed. 3. James Schwarta. Mr. Schwarta stated that Mr. Bachman had spoken about the relative flatness of the property. About two acres on the property is off the back of the canyon. The soil conditions are quite poor. He does grow Kiwis on his property. The soil is acid and Kiwis can survive in that type of soil. The majority of the people in that area still pre€er "TM-5" zoning. There are many 20 to 40 acre parcels in Forest Ranch that .could i;e divided. He would like to see an EIR required. There was a shortage of water on the ridge were this property is located. Chairman Lemke stated that the reason the EIR was being required was because of cumulative effects if everyone in the area were to divide lower than the five acre minimum. From the testimony presented, it did not look like the project would be approved. Why then should the Board require the expense of the EIR. Supervisor Dolan stated the cumulative effect starts with the first division of land. Everyone that is in Forest Ranch at this time could want to remain in "TM-5" zoning, but if this were approved it could be the determining factor of reducing the other parcels in size. She felt an ETR should be required. 4. Michael Machah. Mr. Machah spoke in opposition to the appeal. He felt an EIR was needed. There is definitely a problem with Che well on the property. They are concerned about the septic systems and possible contamination of other wells. Mr. Molcar felt that apparently the water and septic questions should be looked into and an EIR would provide that information.. 5. John Lechner. Mr. Lechner stated there were five owners pf the property. This parcel would lend to a three parcel division. Lt is one of the most level acreages found .in the Forest Ranch area. There is a well on the property. They have had no problem with the well. The quality of the water was checked. The well is about 450 feet deep. The well driller, Mr. Willis, says that down to 650 feet there is sufficient water in the area. He was for the preservation of agricultura3. Land and felt that this area should be developed instead of the prime agricultural land. Page 258. September 23, 1980 80- a September 23, 1980 Mr. Bachman stated that in checking with the Health Department there would be no problem with the septic requirements. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. 1506 On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and carried, the appeal of John R. Lechner of the requirement tb. prepare an EIR was denied. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Wheeler and Winston. NOES: Supervisor Moseley and Chairman Lemke PUBLIC HEARING: CLAUDIA NORMANDIN - APPEtY.OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FLEA MARKET TN AN "A-2" ZONE, AP 30-22-03, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORO DAM BLVD WEST, APPROX. 500 FEET WEST OF 12TH STREET, OROVILLE. The public hearing on Claudia Normandin appeal of proposed negative declaration and Planning Commission's denial of a use permit to allow a flea market in an "A-2" zone, AP 30-22-03, property located on the south side of Oro Dam Boulevard West, approximately 500 £eet west of 12th Street, Oroville was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the appeal. Dick Molcar, environmental review department, set out the background of the negative declaration.. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Jack Reese. Mr. Reese stated they have another plan that has been scaled; down from the original proposal presented to the Planning Commission. There will be no amplified noise. They have taken into consideration the dust and there will be shavings on the ground. There will be a refuse, area. They have also cut down the time of operation. The will only have ten sellers and 41 parking spaces. Supervisor Moseley stated she had looked at the project. She felt that the project as first submitted would be almost impossible. This is a completely new look that is being proposed. The matter was referred back to the P1"arming Commission for consideration of the revised application. A full hearing to be held on this matter. The hearing was continued to October 21, 1980 at 10;45 a.m. 1507 1508 RECESS: 3:12 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:27 p.m. CONTINUED HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 & 24 OE THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE REGARDING REGULATIONS AND CONTROL OF SUBDIVISION AND TO ZONING REQUIREMENTS CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 AT 1:30 P.M. The continued hearing on the ordinance amending Chapter 20 and 24 of the Butte County Code regarding regulations and control of subdivisions and to zoning requirements was continued to September 30, 1980 at 1:30 p.m. DISCUSSION OF UTILIZATION OF CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR HCD PROGRAM Discussion of the utilization of consultant services for HCD program was held at this time as continued. CHAIRMAN LEMKE ABSENT AT THIS TIME Page 259. September 23, 1980 80- d September 23, 19$0- - _ Ward Connerly felt that it would b.e appropriate for the Administative ffice to make their presentation at this time. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated his office has a rough. draft of a proposed contract from Connerly and Associates. Among other things the contract deals with the amount of compensation and payment not to exceed $33,500 for this one year. He was not to clear as to whether the contract envisions spending $33,500 or not in excess of $33,500. He was not too clear as to how the reimbursement for these services would be handled. He felt that NIr. Connerly needed to explain exactly what the intent of the contract was and the estimate of cost to be for some of the functions. Supervisor Winston stated as he read the contract, it was on services as called for basis with a schedule of fees that would not Geed $33,500 in one year. If the county did not call on Mr. Connerly r services then the costs of the contract would lie zero.' Mr. Connerly stated this was about the fifth contract submitted to the county. They have all been not to exceed contracts. He has discussed this matter with Mr. Lively and Mr. Nickelson about the kinds of services the county might want. He was confused about the amount of the retainer. His own view was that the amount of the contract is far less significant than the amount of quality. If the county does not want to contract that is fine with him. He wanted to do what the county wanted in terms of services. If the county does not define the services, he could not give exact amounts. Mr. Nickelson felt there were instances were the county could ffectively use the services of the consultant. Mr..Connerly has done a ood job as a consultant. He wondered if there were any understandings r misunderstandings about the amount of money that Mr. Connerly expects o earn for next year, Supervisor Winston felt the contract was very straight forward. Mr. Connerly stated if the ~-~ county is going to call for $3,000 to $5,000 worth of services, then he was not interested. He could not te.la the county the target figure until he knew the scope of the services to be requested. He would not be interested for $10,000 for the year. If the county did not call on them for services, this would be a completely different type of situation. Supervisor Winston felt that the contract did not say that. It just says a maximum of $33,500 in charges with the set amounts per hour to be charged by the various personnel. His relationship with Mr. Connerly began before he was on the Board when he was the Mayor of Oroville. He and Mr. Connerly were in an ai7versaryposition. He has been without a doubt the prime mover in serveral areas that have been of benefit to certain areas of the county, south side of the City of Oroville, hopefully in the future with Chapmantown and the El Medio ditch that runs through E1 Medio. Through is ~_efforts this is being taken care of. Supervisor Winston felt Mr. Connerly*s services have been extremely valuable to the county. He would hope the county would continue the relationship with Mr. Connerly. He understood that consultant fees were part of the grant funds. Supervisor Dolan understood that consultant fees were allowed but it was up to the local agency to decide whether they would use tine consultant services. Page 260. September 23, 1980 _ _ _ Sep_temh_er 23, 19.SQ _ _ _ _ gp... _ ~ Mr. Nickelson stated there was $24,OQO.included in the $500,000 ~ grant for administrative costs. That would be the total administrative costs. Supervisor Winston stated that from what he understood was missing was the minimum for services. Mr. Connerly stated that woald~beovery simple to provide. When he was at the meeting with staff, he though they were trying to arrive at an understanding of what would be required with the reorganization of services to be provided by staff. They went through the items and said which ones would be done by staff and what would be done by the consultant. He thought they were to come back with a proposal of what he was to provide. He thought that staff would review the contract and come back with a revised proposal and they would go from there. They have not reached that point. Mr. Nickelson stated they did not want to totally dispense with the services of Mr. Connerly, Supervisor Winston asked that Mr. Connerly negotiiate the amount for the minimum based on his conversation with staff regarding what would be required. Supervisor Winston felt that Mr. Connerly had to maintain an office and he could understand the problem. The minimum figure is what must be decided on. He wondered if a minimum of $20,000 would allow for sufficient staff to cover the .needs of Butte County. Mr. Connerly stated that would be based on the amount of a certain level of services. He could not say what the minimum would be depending on the level of services required. They have operated in the past on the type of contract that was submitted. The faith is gone. Mr. Nickelson felt they had a very serious problem then. Mr. Connerly is saying there is a problem. He has not voiced any different level of respect. Mr. Connerly stated he did not deal with. Mr. Nickelson on a day to day basis. His comments were not directed at Mr. Nickelson. He will not continue the contract they had in the past. Mr. Nickelson stated that if the contract were executed today, the county could not use the services of the consultant and never have any payment against the contract. If there was a retainer, the county would make sure they would use the firm to the limit of the retainer. Mr. Connerly stated there were a lot of loose ends. They started negotiating general kinds of activities. The "first thing is the limited use of Consultants. The comments now is they do not want to change to structure.~~He has-sent a draft to Administration and has not had any feedback as to what functions the county wants to peform, The other thing that troubles him very deeply is about whether the county wants to enter into a contract. This is the quality of the relationship. If he cannot have an amicable relationship with Administration he did not want to be involved. Supervisor Dolan felt that if there was going to be a relationship it should be amicable. She asked staff what parts of the program did they thing were needed for a consultant. Page 261. September 23, 1980 September 23, 1980 80- Mr. Nickelson stated that on page one of the contract is i5 details 'of various items where they would Tie inclinded to use a consultant. There were areas as knocking on doors and the homework for the loans could be done inhouse. Mr. Connerly at one time had a department in Oroville and acted more as a department head than a consultant. Mr. Connerly stated he never had the responsibility of acting like a department head. He did not have responsibility for contract managment and that is the thing that made him indignant. There were comments that were implied that they had responsibility that they did not have. Supervisor Wheeler stated she had no difficulty with approving the contract. Mr. Connerly felt the only way to have these things aired was through the Board meeting. If there are comments about the responsibi]ity of Connerly and what was said he had no choice but to bring them to the Board. He did not want to continue the relationship with the comments that are being made. Supervisor Dolan wanted to know what the county needed consultant services for. She knew that for the day to day operation county staff could handle this. Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated there was a meeting in their office regarding what services would be needed. They requested that Mr. Connerly submit a contract to the county. When the contract was received by their office, it was submitted to Counsel and the Auditor for review. The comments about $33,500 and a retainer fee were not set in concrete. Mr. Connerly called him and then responded in writing. That provided a retainer was sufficient to support the staff nece~ary. Mr. Connerly also wanted to know when this would go to the Board. Mr. Connerly stated they had Ueen providing services to the county on the ditch and Burbank School site since July 1, 1980 without pay. Mr. Lively stated that Mr. Connerly seemed concerned about timing and that is what happened. He felt that the HCD staff has learned quite a bit. They have been to training sessions and talked with HUD. They have obtained a complete set of HUD guidelines. He felt theyrwere better able to identify the services that will be needed. He felt a consultant was needed to advise whether the county needed to go for a grant and prepare the grant application and assessment for the block grant program required by HUD. He £elt that a consultant would be needed fox the CHFA that just came in. He felt this would require a retainer fee or hourly reimbursement of some sort. He felt that staff could handle the rehabilitation program. Supervisor Winston stated Mr. Lively was talking about the nuts and bolts of the every day operation of the department. He could remember when Mr. Connerly was out knocking on doors. He dad not feel that Mr. Connex'[y has any argument with that, He hoped that staff has learned anough to take care of the day to day operation. He was under the impression the county was trying to approach that point. He felt it was ridiculous to hire a consultant to do the clerical work. Mr. Connerly has proven to him that he had knowledge and contacts in the HUD offices in San Francesco. He has the expertise to handle these matter in such a manner that the community will benefit. He asked if the county wanted to fly alone without a consultant? Page 262. September 23, 1980 8.0- September 23, 14.80 - Mr. Lively stated that if the Board told them to fly without a consultant they wo~3d do so. Mr. Nickelson stated it was not what they wanted. It is what the Board feels them to do. Mr. Lively has advised the Board of what he feels the services of a consultant would be needed. Supervisor Moseley asked how long it would be before staff would be asking for additional personnel. Mr. Lively stated that for the operation of the program he did not anticipate adding staff. Mr. Nickelson stated he had not said they did not want to use a consultant. Supervisor Wheeler did not thing that staff had the expertise with the federal people as Mr. Connerly had. Mr. Lively stated he had been working with the program on and off for five years. All counties do not have any consultants vtntso ever. They did a survey of the counties north of Sacramento. There are no consultants for the counties of a similar size as Butte County. They checked with twelve counties. The use of a consultant by Butte County is the exception to the rule. He wassnot saying the county should not use a consultant. Mr. Nickelson was concernsed that the county arrive at a retainer amount and what the intent was for teetering into an agreement. It was unfortunate there was a tendency to develop into somewhat of an advesary or conflict of personalities. He felt this had to stop. Either they are going to get along or the Board should find someone to work with Mr. Connerly in a firendly environment. Supervisor'`-Winston.suggested that from what he could understand the county did not waht to loss the services of a consultant. He suggested that both Mr. Connerly and the Administrative Office meet and thrash the matter out. Mr. Connerly stated he was concerned with a series of events that occurred subsequent to the meeting. The county was talking to HUD and those comments had an impact on the good faith. Supervisor Winston stated that Counsel's Office was to participate in the meetings. He has heard the rumors that there are conflicts between Mr. Connerly, Mr. Lively, Mr. Nickelson, and Mr. Musselman. He wanted to get rid of them. This is a bad atmosphere to work in. If they cannot-work things out, he was sure that Mr. Connerly would look to other areas. Mr. Connerly has done an outstanding fob for this county. On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, staff was instructed to arrange conversation with Mr. Connerly and/or Connerly and Associates to discuss the contractual arrangement between the county and~the firm for a contract grant year to further discuss finding reconciliation of any differences in philosophy or attitude towards comments that may or may not have been made to HUD officials and come back to the Board with recommendations. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Wheeler and Winston. ABSENT: Chairman Lemke. Page 2b3. September 23, 1980 80- d 1549 September 23, 1980. CHAIRMAN LEMKE PRESENT AT THIS TIME Ct31+4~UNICATI0N5 CONTINUED Glen S. and Scot T. Newton and Linda G. Poe, Chico. The parties write requesting the Board of Supervisors investigate the possibility of implementing rent control. Letter to be sent advising they that the Board understands their concern of the raising cost but they do not believe at this point the matter warrants an investigation and does not warrant rent control. Cary Schwartz, Chico. Mr. Schwartz writes requesting Board assurance that a building permit be granted for AP 72--26-47. Referred to Public Works. County of Shasta. The Board of Supervisors write asking that the federal g>vernment plans in the reauthorization of the Central Valley Project be opposed. Referred to Counsel for a report back on September 30, 1980. City of Chico. The city sends notfification to the Board'as governing body of CSA 462, Zone 7; CSA 465, Zone 2; and CSA 4614 of a proposed public hearing on the adoption of the Chico Redevelopment Plan for the southeast Chico redevelopment project area that has been set for October 7, 1980. Referred to the Auditor and Assessor for report back on September 30, 1980. Gayle Guynup, attorney, at alw, Santa Rosa. The attorney, on behalf of Roy Reynolds, submits a claim in the amount of $3,000,000 as a result of alleged personal injuries occurring in the county jail on or about August 5, or 6, 1980. See motion following communications. Bob Carrell, Chico. Mr. Carrell appeals the Advisory AGency's denial of proposed negative declaration and tentative parcel map, AP 47-23-49, two parcels, two plus miles east of Cohasset Road on north side of Richardson Springs Road, north Chico area. Set for hearing October 21, 1980 at 11:30 a.m. City of Chico. The city asks that the Board advise them of the county's position concerning the proposed recission of the freeway route on a portion of Highway 99 north of Chico by the California Highway Commission and asks what support the Board would like on the part of the City of Chico. Administrative Office to answer letter advising of action previously taken. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The district writes in support of Proposition 8 on the November 4 ballot. Administrative Office to write letter of opposition. Congressman Harold T. (fizz) Johnson. Congressman Johnson writes congratulating the county on their exhibit at the State Fair. Information; no action taken. Ridge Taxpayers' Association. The association write with regard to the Conciliation Court and feels that the county should challenge the state to provide the funds for any state mandated services. Handled earlier in the meeting. Department of Transportation. The department writes informing the county that there are Federal-Aid Secondary monies in the amount of Page 264. September 23, 1980 80- 1510 1511 1512 1513 September 23, 1880. _ $k23,871 and State Highway Account money for matching in the ^ ` amount of $100,000 for use by the county for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981. Referred to Public Works. J. Maynard Peterson, Chico. Mr. Peterson writes with regard to the proposed sewer district for the area near North Valley Plaza and objects to having property definitely outside the areas considered for inclusion into the district. Handled earlier in the meeting. Waits & Britt, Sacramento. The attorneys write with regard to a rezoning hearing for the Cecil McTntyre, Mary Mclntyy~e. attd Fletcher Brown property to be held on September 24, 1980 before the Planning Commission. Referred to the Planning Commission. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Winston and unanimously carried, the claim of Roy Reynolds in the amount of $3,000,000 as a result of alleged personal injuries occurring in the county jail on or about August 5 or 6, 1980 was rejected and referred to Counsel and Risk Management. ' ADVISE STAFF TO LOOK INTO POSSIBILITY OF HAVING EAGLE PROJECT FOR REDOING THE COUNTY DISPLAY IN THE STATE CAPITOL "$~taff was advised to look into the possibility of having an Eagle project fox the redoing of the county display at the ®tate Capitol. ADDTTTONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Wheeler stated tihat earlier there was discussion of a habitat conservation zone. From what she understood the Planning Commission proposed the zone on May 30, 1478 when the Chairman instructed Environmental Review to institute a habitat conservation zone for Honey Run area, The ball was dropped by Environmental Review. Fetter from Lenoard Prell was referred to the Zoning Investigator. relative to day care on Lindo Lane. Supervisor Wheeler submitted a letter from her constituents relative to the new bike crossing on Madrone Avenue. She commended Public Works Department. Copy to be sent to Public Works. MOTTON TO AUTHORTZE ENVTRONMENTAL HEALTH TO MAKE DECIBAL READING AT APPROPRIATE TTMES AT THE STLVER DOT.AR FAIR FADS Supervisor Dolan stated the Board had received a request from Bob Burrow relative to the noise at the Silver Dollar Fair. The Board received a memo from Counsel on the matter. Dan Blackstock county counsel, stated they were not talking about the noise level above what the county allows. The county does not regulate noise. They ace talking about nuisance. Unless there is a way to show there has been some new noise there is no force. He felt the cnaces of proceeding were small. Supervisor Wheeler could not support the expenditure of county funds. This is state controlled property and the gentlemen should contact the state regarding this matter. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Lemke it was moved that the Environmental Health Department be authorized to enter into an agreement to have a decibal reading taken at the appropriate times for the Silver Dollar-Fair. AYES: Supervisor Dolan. NOES: Supervisors Moseley, Wheeler, Winston and Chairman Lemke. Page 265. Segtember 23, 1980 sa 1514 3 1515 1516 September 23, 19.80_ .ADATITTONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Supervisor Winston asked about the letter from Greyhound about intercity buses. Supervisor Dolan stated that the intercity committee discusses this matter frequently. NOTICES OF NONRENEWAL BE SERVED ON REMAINING PROPERTY IN THE E. L. AND JEAN OSBORN LAND CONSERVATION ACT AGREEMENT On motion of Supervisor Winston, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, notices of nonrenewal to start the ten year geriod to be served:'i on the remaining property in the E. L. and Jean Osborn. Land Conservation Act Agreement. ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Lemke stated Joe Bandy has requested an executive session. Executive session to be held to discuss the matters requested by Mr. Bandy. Supervisor Dolan stated she had received a letter from the Chico Consumer Protection Agency requesting that October 11 to October 15, 1980 be designated as Consumer Protection Week. She would send a letter to the agency supporting the efforts of the --people. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated the Board had received information relative to the financial consultant for the Chico Library. He asked that the Board review the information and consider selection next week. He has checked and does not feel the county staff has the expertise to perform this service. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, September 30, 1980 at 9:00 a.m. ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK- RECORDER and ex-offido Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Page 266. September 23, 1980