Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121978December 19, 1978 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF BUTTE ) The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment. Present: Supervisors Lemke, Madigan, Moseley, Richter and Chair man Winston, Clif Nickelson, administrative officer; Dan Black stock, 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 78--2815 APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and unanimously carried, the minutes of December 12, 1978 were approved as mailed. 78-2316 ADOPT ORDINANCE 1980: URGENCY SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the reading of the salary ordinance amendment to correct Ordinance 1974 allocating the number of bailiff positions to be transferred to the Sheriff's Department effective January 8, 1979 was waived; urgency Ordinance 1980 to. take;.effect-immed2ately~;was'adgpted~ and=the'. Chairman authorized to sign. 78-2317 ADOPT ORDINANCE 1981: WAIVE SECOND READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Madigan .and unanimously carried, the second reading of the salary ordinance amendment establishing entry level classifications £or a variety of class series provides flexible hiring patterns and reclassified several positions was waived; Ordinance 1981 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 78-2318 DISCUSSION: DATA PROCESSING EMPLOYEES LEAVE AND VACATION ACCRUALS Chairman Winston stated that the Board had received a memo relating to benefit accrual for the Data. Processing employees. ', Infoxviation; no action taken. 78-2319 APPROVE ANTI-RECESSION FISCAL ASSISTANCE AND FEDERAL REVENUE SHAR~iNG REPORT FOR THE 1977-78 FISCAL YEAR On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the anti-recession fiscal assistance and federal revenue sharing use report wasapproved for the 1977-78 fiscal year and the ', Chairman authorized to sign. 78-2320 REJECT BID FOR REROOFING OF CHTCO MEMORIAL HALL AND PARAPET WALLS AT SUPERIOR COURT IN OROVILLE - BID 24-79 On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by.Supervisor Madigan and unanimously carried, the bid for reroofing of county buildings, Chico Memorial Hall and the parapet walls at Superior Court in Oroville, bid 24-79 was rejected, 78-2321 DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN OROVILLE PARKING LOT AND POSSIBLE LEASE Discussion of the downtown Oroville parking lot and possible lease field at this time. Tt was felt that no action should be taken regarding leasing the property. 78-2322 AWARD BTD - ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES Clif Nickelson, admin~.strative officer, reported that the Board had received a letter £rotn~Pfi7: Mace asking hat ~he t~~ttg~7~e continued, Page 1, ecem er , ~~.. December 19, 1978 Chairman Winston advised that the Board had not made a decision at the previous Board meeting. He had received a call from Mrs. Coleman asking that the matter be put off. It was decided to delay awarding of the contract at the Board meeting and not before the meeting. Dr. Robert A11an spoke regarding the Animal Control Health Services Company (ACHSC) bid, He set out the histony of what has taken place in the county regarding animal control. Butte County is one of the worst rabies areas, The program that has been established with the veterinarians working with the Health Department is a model program. •There has never been a case of rabies in humans. The veterinarians' association was concerned with Mrs. Coleman's proposal and that is why they got involved. The Company has agreed to every item that staff has asked us to. They have agreed to hire the permanent employees on the staff at present. They have also agreed to work closely in the transition. There rhos: been enough capital put up to keep the company ~;going~; for four months in the hole. Their bid was a little high because of the requirement for bonding. 11r. A11an stated that they would like to have three to six months to make the transition. There is an agreement with every veterinarian to issue licenses in their offices. It was moved by Supervisor Madigan, seconded by Supervisor Richter that the bid foraani~aal control services be awarded to Animal Control Health Services Company (ACHSC) in the amount of $120,000 with the contract to start 90 days after the award of the bid. Supervisor Richter stated that the Board .had called far bids twice and only received one bid. The bid is better than what the county would be paying under the present program, He felt that by the end of the contract the county will discover that higher license fees have been collected and the county contribution should drop in proportion, This matter will be clear when the contract comes up for renewal. The cost for licensing will drop with a two-year fee, The program should be paid for by the users and not the taxpayers. Uoteuanotheimotfon: AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Madigan, Moseley, Richter and Chairman Winston, NOES: None. Motion carries. 78-2323 APPROVAL OF BID SPECIFICATIONS FOR'JANTTORTAL SERVICES CONTRACT CONTINOED TO JANUARY 2, 1979 Consideration of the approval of bid specifications for janitorial services contract was continued to January 2, 1979. 78-2324 CLAIMS. OF ROSS. ,H, SMITH ANA.DOR.IS M, MART.I.N ON THE I.IVE,STOCK INDEMNITY FUND TABLED UNTI2, JANUARY 23. 1979 AND MATTER REFERRED TO COUNSEL Mrs. Doris M, Martin was present to discuss her claim on the Livestock Indemnity Fund, She set out the background of the matter, There were four and one~half months spent investigating this matter.by the Auditor and Counsel. The claim was approved but the money-was never paid, She contacted the Auditor's Office as was told that there was well over $10001) in the fund as of June 30, 1978. The Auditor sent a memo to the Board saying there was no money in the fund,. The Auditor has not responded to her calls. She had been advised that the claims must be followed by affidavits of people who witnessed the killings. The original claim was filed in 1960. She was given a general claim form by the Auditor's Page 2, December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 Office and was not told at that time that she neededlaffidavits, She filed the general claim form and attached copies of the hivestock Indemnity Fund. and Mr, Burkett's report. On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by: Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the claims of Ross H. Smith'. and Doris M. Martin on the Livestock Indemnity Fund were tabled for thirty days to January 23, 1979 and they were referred to Counsel. ', 78-2325 APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved: B-42 Sheriff - Incarceration. Transfers $3,000 from overtime to extra help to cover an existing deficit in the extra'. help account and to provide an apgropriation for the balance of the fiscal year. B-43 Chico Marshal. Transfers $86,35 from office expense to extra help in order to cover existing budget deficiencies in the extra help account, 78-2326. ADOPT RESOLUTION, 78-206 DESIGNATING THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. OF BUTTE On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, Resolution 78-206 designating the unincorporated area of Butte County for California Housing Finance Agency Mortgage Assistance Program (HCD) was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 78-2327 AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - VACUUM CLEANERS FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL On motion of Supervisor Moseley, aeconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the purchase of two vacuum cleaners for use in the Gridley Home Base Program and the North Butte Home Base Program offices of EOC at a total of $169.16 was approved, ', 78-2328 APPROVE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL (EOC) ITEMS On motion of Supervisor Richter, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the following Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) items were approved: ', 1. Approve continuation of program operations into 1979 in the event final approval of the program and budget is not received prior to the end of December, 2, Approve grant application in the amount of $45,100 to complete home weatherization of 115 low income residents from October 1, 1978 to September 30, 1979 and the Chairman authorized to sign. 3. Approved food and nutrition program extension request to operate the program one additional month and the Chairman authorized to sign. 78-2329 APPROVE CLINICAL SUPERVISION AND CASE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT WITH CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY On motion of Supervisor Richter, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and unanimously carried, the clinical supervision and case consultation agreement with Children's Home Society fn the amounfof $21,156 for the period January 1 through June 30, 1979 was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign, Page 3. December 19, 1978 ~_.._. December 19, 1978 78-2330 PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET A public hearing date o;E January 9, 1979 at 10:00 a.m, was set for consideration of Thomas L. and Eva E. Brock petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Sutte County Code for placement of a mobile home at 7323 Pentz Road, Paradise, AP 50-01-3-006, Zoning: A-2 limited. 78-2331 APPROVE PARADISE PLAZA FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP ANA SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and unanimously carried, the Para~3ise Plaza Subdivision final map was approved; public utility and drainage easements offered for dedication and granted in fee were accepted; sub~3ivision agreement was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. 78-_2332 APPROVE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUiSI'TION AGREEMENTS FOR SALE On motion of Supervisor Lemke; seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried the follo+aing right-of-way acquisition agreements for sale were approved; the Chairman authorized to sign; and the Auditor authorized to issue warrants upon demand of county's escrow agent: Clark Road 57452-74-2 G. Post 0.01 Ac. $283 No. Impr, Total $ 283 Clark Road 57452-74-2 E, Gordon 0.017 481 No. Impr. Total 481 Clark Road 57452-74-2 C. Lockwood 0.004. 113 No, Impr, Total 113 Skyway (Wagstaff8 Pentz Magalia) B. Fraser 1, 0' 16,000 No Impr, Total 16,000 78-2333 APPROVE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDE:[tS 1 AND 2 - SKYWAY, FAS PROJECT N0, Y742(1 On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, contract change order No. 1 providing for revising the method of measuring imported 'borrow fmm volumetric to weight with no cost involved; and contract change order No. 2 in the increasing amount of $15,272 providing for furnishing .and installing metal beam guard railing at various locations for safety purposes with funds available in original contract amount due to underrun o:E imported borrow contract item were approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. 78-2334 PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET A public hearing date o;E January 16, 1979 at 10:30 a.m, was set for consideration of Frank G. Bentnett EIR and rezone from "A-2" (general) to "SR-1" (suburban residential - one acre parcels) property located on the southwest corner of Garner Lane and Keefer Road, identified as AP 47-26-171, containing 102,46 acres, more or less, Chico, 78-2335 DISCUSSION: MEMO TO BOARD REGARDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION AND PARCEL MAPS Discussion of the memo to the Board regarding conditions of approval for subdivision and parcel maps was held at this time, Bettye Blair, planning director, asked for clarification as to whether the Board intended for them to continue to condition at the tentative level or to entirely abandon the requirement for seeking zoning, 'Che Planning Department has received five requests for refund of fees for zoning. Should~'they blanket and review all requests for refund or bring to the Board for approval. Page 4, December 19, 1978 I December 19, 1978 It was^felt that if the rezoning was in process the fees should be refunded. The maps should be conditioned that zoning be diligently pursued. RECESS: 10:02.a.m. RECONVENE: 10:20 a,m. 78-2336 RESCIND ACTION OF DECEMBER 12, 197.8 MINUTE ORDER 78-2312 TO NEGOTIATE WITH. COMPUTER,SCTENCE CORPORATION FIRST,:.,, AUTHORIZE NEGOTTATION WITH SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION It was moved by Supervisor Madigan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley that the action of December 12, 1978, minute order 78-2312 regarding negotiations with the data processing facilities management companiesbe rescinded and authorized negotiations with SGT first and then CSC if negotiations break down. Supervisor Lemke stated that he could not agree with the motion. The ethics of being handed references of one company about another has been bandied 'about. He .felt that this is one of the underlying considerations being contemplated by the Board.. It seems strange to him that when he sat on the animal control committee when two firms were being investigated that it was okay and ethical at that time for the Vets to produce evidence about Mrs. Coleman. He was charged with finding out everything he could. It will be easy to make decisions and leave the d;ciso~,;;. with the remaining Board members to cope with. It was explained to him when he asked Ed Brown who he would work with best and who could do the job best Mr. Brown said CSC. Supervisor Lemke felt that after the county had spent millions of dollars on the data processing problem with equipment, manhours and eight different directors, it would be imprudent and frugal not to go after the best. He felt that the difference in money was very little between the two companies, Supervisor Richter stated that he in no way found fa~hlt with anything that Supervisor Lemke had done. He felt that Supervisor Lemke attempted to get the information he thought was valid, There is a judgment to be made about the information. He disagreed with Supervisor Lemke's conclusion. Supervisor Lemke felt that the Board had reached a unanimous decision last Tuesday. He resented SCT playing one Board member against another. He offered ;them every courtesy. Chairman Winston stated that he had talked to two of the people from SCT. He asked them to put into writing about the comments made and they did. One of the points was where did the name of Phillip Martin come from. It was not clear. It was not GSC. This was clarified in this memo that Mr. Martin is not associated with the University of Maryland. He is with the State of Maryland. A news article states that Mr. Hampton was on assignment in Westchester and would not be available here. The memo says that Mr. Hampton remains available for assignment and they were disappointed that no attempt was made to clarify this. In our opinion the cost difference is substantial. Chairman Winston stated that he had talked with Mr. Martin, management information systems with the state of Maryland and in budget and finance. He had also talked with Robert Brown of the University of Maryland. In Mr, Martin's opinion there was some difficulty on the phase out. He said he did not know how much could be blamed on the contract. Both Mro Brown and Mr. Martin stated that the $400,000 involved programming in the hospital billings and was an extra charge. Based on the Page 5. Aecember 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 report made by the committee and based on the unanimous recommendation he voted for the recommendation. In light of the information he now has he echoed Supervisor Richter's comments about Supervisor Lemke's statements. He cannot be supportive of any high proposal of CSC. Chairman Winston asked Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, what he thought about the matter? Mr. Mickelson stated that both companies were fine companies. Based upon the money differences he could not justify going other than SCT because of the money difference. This is reflected in the minutes of the meeting. There is no question as to whether or not the county could work with CSC. The money question is a policy question of the Board. If they were closer all he could suggest is the Board flip a coin. Supervisor Richter stated that in the conversations with Mr. Martin and Mr. Brown it was evident that there was quite a strong feud between the University of Maryland and the state of Maryland. The final conversation with Mr. Brown had nothing but praise for SCT and in fact the deputy to Mr. Martin also stated what you said. He had no way of making a statement that SCT had anything to do with the difficulties as a result of in-house take over, Supervisor Lemke stated that when he talked with Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin had said they disengaged after a lot ~f instances at their request. The conversion was not smooth because there was not communications. He Guessed that someone changed Mr. Martin's mind. Supervisor Moseley asked where the $227,000 was going to come from? That is the difference between the budget for Data Processing of $886,000 and $1,093,000. Mr. Mickelson stated that the bids from the companies are tang about a different contract year than the fiscal year. There could be about a 5 to 10% inflation faction in the budget for next year. Supervisor Richter stated that the whole purpose of data processing is to be able to program functions that are not now on that computer in order to save money. Supervisor Lemke stated that he had talked to Mr. Eastman from SCT regarding concurrent negotiations. If the county were not able to go with CSC then the county would be time ahead if they had the other company doing the same negotiations. This would be out of the way. Ile agreed that this should be done. If the Board votes to rescind their action, he will vote against it and make a motion that concurrent negotiations be allowed with both companies. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors 1Kadlgan, Moseley, Richter and Chairman Winston I30ES: Supervisor Lemke Motion carries. It was moved by Supervisor Lemke that concurrent negotiations be established between 5CT and CSC. Motion dies for lack of second. Page b, December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 78-2337 ADOPT ORDINANCE 1982: PUBLIC HEARING: C17ARLES J. MARTIN - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "S-R" (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO "R-4" (MAXIMUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED SERVICE) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CCRES AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE, IDENTIFIED AS AP 48-30-45, CONTAINING 0.46 ACRES MORE OR LESS CHICO The public hearing on the Charles 3. Martin proposed negative declaration and rezone from "S-R" (suburban residential) to "R-4" (maximum density residential - restricted service) property located on the northeast corner of Ceres Avenue and East Avenue, identified as AP 48-30-45, containing 0.46 acres, more or less, Chico was held as advertised. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. The property is a small parcel. Because it is such a small parcel, the impacts are very small. There are no sensitive environmental factors. Mr. Nelson set out the surrounding area at this time. There are other residences, a business and church. The only environmental concern would be that the intersection has had a fairly high traffic: problem. Over the last five years there have been sixteen accidents at or near the intersection. He recommended a negative declaration. Chairman T~inston question the fact that the Planning Commission stated that the rezone would be consistent with the General Plan and the Chico Planning Commission said that it would be in conflict with the Butte County and City General Plans. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the finding that it was in conformity with the General Plan. This is relating to surrounding 7aod~us~s. It is designated five to eight medium density residential. The Planning Commission received the letter from the City of Chico regarding the conflict with the General Plan. The Planning Coumiission chose to not agree with the city's findings. Mrs. Blair felt that it was consistent with the General Plan. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Richter seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment.., a negative declaration was recommended based on review of all of the environmental review factors on the checklist. On motion of Supervisor Richter, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission's recommendation was sustained and the rezone from "S-R" (suburban residential) to "R-4" (maximum density residential - restricted service) property located on the northeast corner of Ceres Avenue and East Avenue, identified as AP 48-30-45, containing 0.46 acres, more or less, Chico was approved with the findings the zoning is consistent with the General Plan which designates medium residential with a density of five to eight units per acre and is suitable for that use and is compatible for the public interest and provides needed residences and even though there are problems with the intersection they would be extremely minute because of the needs; Ordinance 1982 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. Page 7. December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 78-2338 ADOPT ORDINANCES 1983, 1984 1985 AND 1986: PUBLIC HEARING: WYNOKA HOMES AND LEE COLBY - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A-R" (AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL) AND"C-1" (LIGHT COMMERCIAL) TO "R-3" (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), ",fit-4" (MAXIMUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED SERVICE), "C-1" (LIGHT COMMERCIAL), AND "M-1" (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAS PLUMAS AVENUE AND EAST OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALL CONTAINTNG 127 ACRES MORE OR LESS SOUTH OF OROVILLE The public hearing on the Wynoka Homes and Lee Golby proposed negative declaration and rezone from "A-R" (agricultural - residential) and "G-1" (light commercial) to "R-3" (medium density residential), "R-4" (maximum density residential - restricted service), "C-1" (light commercial), and "M-1" (light industrial) property located south of Las Plumas Avenue and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, all containing 127 acres, more or less, south of Oroville was held as advertised. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. This particular project has been before the Board previously as a General Plan amendment. It is processed pursuant to the General Plan amendment and the enviromental checklist. The only e nviromental concerns is traffic increase and drainage. This can be solved on a project by project basis. It would not make sense to put improvements before the project. He recommended a negative declaration. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. This was a follow up application. It was initiated as a General Plan change and is now a rezone. The Board has copies of the minutes and recommendations of the Planning Commission. ', Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Lee Colby. Mr. Colby stated that he would appreciate favorable consideration far the rezone. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board, On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, on the basis of this initial evaluation and finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment a negative declaration was recommended finding no environmental impact report is required. On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the rezone from "A-R" (agricultural - residential) and "C-1" (light commercial) to "R-3" (medium density residential), "R-4" (maximum density residential - restricted service), "C-1" (light commercial), and "M-1" (light industrial) property located south of Las Plumas Avenue and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way; all containing 127 acres, more or less, south of Oroville was approved with the findings that it is in conformity with the General Plan and in the public interest and the following ordinances were adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign: Ordinance 1983 - zoning a portion of the County "R-3" Ordinance 1984 - zoning a portion of the County "R-4" Ordinance 1985 - zoning a portion of the County "C-1" Ordinance 1986 - zoning a portion of the County "M-1" 78-2339 ADOPT ORDINANCE 1987: PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT J. SMITH - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL) TO "A-20" (AGRICULTURAL - 20 ACRE PARCELS) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SHIPPEE ROAD, APPROXI- MATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY. 99, IDENTIFIED AS AP 41-20-50, CONTAINING 181.0 ACRES MORE OR LESS NORTHWEST OF OROVILLE The public hearing on the Robert J. Smith proposed negative declara- tion and rezone from "A-2" (general€) fo "A-20" (agricultural - 20 acre parcels) Page 8. December 19, 1978 December 19,.1978 property located..;on the north side of Shippee Road, approximately 1/4 mile east of State Highway 99, identified as AP 41-20-50, containing 181.0 acres, more or less, northwest of Oroville was held as .advertised. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. The only effect on the project will- be to increase the minimum lot size to 20 acreso There are no environmental problems and he recommended a negative declaration. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. This is a follow up project on the approval of a parcel map. It was a condition to zone. The condition was appealed and was upheld. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Boardo On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was recommended finding that an EIR is not required. On motion of Supervisor Richter, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the rezone from "A-2 " (general) to "A-20" (agricultural - 20 acre parcels) property located on the north side of Shippee Road, approximately 1/4 mile east of State Highway 99, identified as AP 4I-20-50, containing 181.0 acres, more or less, northwest of Oroville was approved with the findings this is in conformity with the General Plan and in the public interest; Ordinance 1987 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. 78-2340 ADOPT ORDINANCE 1988: PUBLIC HEARING: HERITAGE CONSTRUCTION CO. - PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL) AND "A-R" (AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL) TO "S-R" (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KELLY RIDGE ROAD AND HERITAGE ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS AP. 34-50-18 AND 27 CONTAINING 10.48 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, EAST OF OROVILLE The public hearing on Heritage Construction Co. proposed negative declaration and rezone from "A-2" (general) and "A=R" (agricu~- tural - residential) to "S-R" (suburban residential) property located on the southwest corner of Ke11y Ridge Road and Heritage Raad, identified as AP 34-50-I8 and 27 containing 10.48 acres, more or less, east of Oroville was held as advertised. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the negative declaration. The checklist has no on all items and he recommended a negative declaration. _, ,. Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the rezone. This application was a result of a tentative parcel map to bring into conformity. There is also a request for refund of fees. Chairman Winston advised that the fee refund had been approved, Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Mike Glaze. Mre Glaze stated that he would appreciate favorable response to the rezone. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. Page 4. December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 e o o c c~ ... c a e c c o o~~ e e a= o c e o o ~ a o _ On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, on the basis of this initial evaluation finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment a negative declaration was recommended finding that an ETR is not required. On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the rezone from "A-2" (general) and "A-R" (agricul- tural residential) to "S-R" (suburban residential) property located on the southwest corner of Kelly Ridge Road and Heritage Road, identified as AP 34-50-18 and 27 containing 10.48 acres, more or less, east of Oroville was approved with the finding that it is in the interest of the county and conforms to the Genera: Plan.; Ordinance 1988 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. RECESS: 11:06 a.m. RECONVENE: 11019 a.m. 78-2341 PUBLIC HEARING: NORTHWEST CHICO AREA - PROPOSED EIR AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL) TO "S-R" (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL), "RT-1" (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOMES), "A-R" (AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL), AND "C-2" (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF THE ESPLANADE, NORTH OF EAST AVENUE, EAST OF NORD AVENUE, AND SOUTH 0~' MCJD CREEK,, CONTAINING 529 ACRES MORE OR LESS, CHICO - CONTINUED TO J'ANUARI' 2, 1979 FOR APPROVAL . The public hearing for the northwest Chico area proposed EIR and rezone from "A-2" (general) to "S-R" (suburban residential), "RT-1" (single family residential - mobile homes), "A-R" (agricultural - residential), and "C-2" (general commercial) generally located west of the Esplanade, north of East Avenue, east of Nord Avenue, and south of Mud Creek, containing 529 acres more or less, Chico was held as advertised. Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background of the environmental impact report. The EIR was prepared and distributed. The report is quite long. Mr. Nelson reviewed the impacts at this time. The rezone will not cause environmental impacts but subsequent uses under the new zoning could have significant environmental effects. The impacts are summarized on pages 49 and 50-of the report. There will be an increase in population. There will be potential loss of open space. There will be loss of land suitable for agricultural production although it is not deisgnated as agricultural. There will be a change in the local economic and tax base. There will be an increase in the noise level. The change in vegetative cover and wildlife habitat is not significant. A change in drainage will occur. The ambient air quality will change. The visual aesthetics will change between existing agricultural uses and residential areas. The project may contribute to surplus of residential sites which may occur in the 1980s. The water quality character will change. More intense commercialization may occur. The commercialization will likely occur offsite. The traffic valume will increase. The project may create interim inefficiency. These impacts represent the effects that would exist with the maximum possible density, 2,600 to 2,800 dwelling units. This could only be achieved if there were a sewer system. If the area is on septic it would be reduced to about one-half. The density would be substantially lower. However, because sewers are a possibility they had to be considered. It is the responsibility of the county as lead agency on CEQA where environ- mental impacts and where alternatives are suggested the lead agency must give due consideration to alternatives and modify the project for the environmental and findings have to be made. The report is being presented to the Board as a starting point in their deliberations. The Board has the responisibility for the content. The public has the right to reviewo Page 10/ December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 Sugervisor Richter stated that whatever adverse impacts that might not be mitigated if the Board were to find. and could find the socio and economic benefits that even though-the impacts could not be mitigated the Board could approve the project. Bettye Blair, planning i~irector, set out the background of the rezone. She had posted a large map of the property. The recommendation from the Planning Commission after study sessions and public hearings amended the proposal as originally submitted. The"A-R"was deleted and changed to'$-Rar The "C-2" zoning was deleted north of Lassen. The proposed "RT-1" lies west of Cusick and north of Bell being divided by an urban line.- To the east is "R-1" and to the west is "RT-L9" zoning, The General Plan shows low to medium density residential and commercial. The Board has been supplied with copies of the Planning Commission minutes and copies of the letters the Planning Commission received. ..Chairman Winston recognized Frank Bennett, chairman of the Planning Commission; Glen Kendall, former member of the Planning Commission; and Marti Worley, Chico councilwoman at this time. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Russ Croninger, Ringel and Associates, representing Frank Braz3:1. Mr. Croninger stated that Mr. Brazil has a portion of property already zoned R-2 and "A-Z", It was his understanding that it was the "A-2" area that was being rezoned. The property is located at the corner of Henshaw and Cussick, The General Plan calls for a portion of the property to have a density of one to four units per acre and the other portion have a density of five to eight units per acre. On December 14, 1977 they submitted to Planning a tentative subdivision map requesting a "PA-C" zoning. This went to the Subdivision Review Committe on March 1. On March 23, 1978 he wrote a letter to the Planning Department stating the conditions of the parcels and that a request was being made to rezone the parcel "PA-C" from "A-2 " and "R-2 " knowing part of the property would not comply with the General Plane Jim Lawson wrote a memo on March 22, 1978 and stated the area is being considered for a General Plan amendment and advised that the matter should be continued until the General Plan amendment can be considered. Mr. Croninger asked that Mr. Brazil's property be removed from the northwest Chico rezone with the condition that the parcels are in a portion of the General Plan that fit the General Plan. The deletion request is for 3.15 acres of "R-2" zoning, 5 acres of "A-2" zoning and one acre plus or minus on Cussick and Henshaw for a total of 10 acres. The request for "PA-C" is in conformity with the five to eight units but not with the one to four units.. Tt was their understanding that the area was going to be for a General Plan amendment and now find that this is not the case at all it is for a rezone. 2. Bob Payne, San Ramon, Mr. Payne stated that he owns five acres on the south side of Lassen 600 feet west of the Esplanade. He did not beiieve there was any controversy with the "A-R" zoning, He urged the Board to take some action soon on this matter. 3. Mardi Worley, Chico City councilwoman. Ms. Worley stated that it was her understanding that the local supervisors will be meeting with the Chico Inter-Governmental Committee. She felt that the City of Chico would have revenue limits relative to the northwest Chico area. It will be very costly for services. It makes sense to keep the provisions for public services as close to the city as possible. She felt that the Board should consider this in deliberations. Page 11. December 14, 1978 December 19, 1978 4. Joe Ellington, W. Lassen. Mr. Ellington felt that the "A-R" zoning was too restrictive. The "S-R" zoning is too restrictive for livestock. The property out there cannot be developed and they cannot raise enought livestock to make it worth their while. He requested that the area be put in "A-SR" zoning to allow the raising of livestock. Sa Mary Ball. Ms. Ball stated that she was here to protest development because of two factors. She felt that if a depression or recession were to hit there could be a catastrophe. She suggested that all of the area be put into "A-5" zoning and stop development until the nation is on its feet. The area should be left in agriculture. There will be a strain on the streets with traffic and on the schools if mobile homes are allowed. She set out an article in the Christian Science Monitor regarding farm land being taken from agricultural purposes. 6. Gerald Bonds, Churchill Drive. Mr. Bonds set out the letter from Mr. Walling regarding the higher density proposed for the area. Mr. Walling has depended on ten acres of Kiwi to supplement his outside income. He felt this was a buffer zone. Mr. Bonds presented severali other letters to the Board at this time. This area was not included in a drainage area. He asked that the zoning be no less than one acre minimum. RECESS: 11:57 a.m. RECONVENE:- 2003 p.m. 7. Patrick Porgans, SEPA. Mr. Porgans spoke regarding the cost effective analysis that has not been made on the rezone, He questioned whether this rezone would pay for itself. He questioned whether there is a need for this particular rezone. The U.S. EPA has said that in the neighborhood of 19.7 million acres of farm land will be taken by urban sprawal by the 1980s. The Office of Planning and Research says that there are 12,5 million acres of agricultural land.. Of that 620,000 is likely to be encroached upon by 1985, enoughT.to feed a city of over 100,000 people. His organization has substantiated no need to open up more land. If the land is opened up it should be self supporting and pay for itself. 8. Mel Harrington, Durham. Mr. Harrington spoke regarding the proposed "R-1" and "RT-lA" zoning. He represents 60% of the landowners and they are asking that the property be placed in "RT-1" zoning instead of "R-1" and "RT-lA". 9. ElzneTTurner. Ms. Turner stated that she had planted an orchard many years ago. She did not feel that anyone had any right to take excellent land and chop it up and cover it up. Ms. Turner set out the walnut crop that she had off her property for the last two years. at this timee She hoped the Board would use the other side of Alamo Avenue as a buffer zone and keep it in "A-5" zoning. ?Chairman Winston recognized Art Gilman, former supervisor: at this time. 10. IIo Besser, Alamo and Grand. Mr. Besser spoke against the rezoning. 11. James Dunn, Muir Avenue. Mr. Dunn questioned whether this would be the stopping point of urban sprawl. If the area is divided more than it is there could be septic tank pollution of the water table. He would like to see the urban sprawl stop along Alamo Avenue. 12, Mr. Dovico. Mr. Dovico spoke against the rezoning.. It is prime agricultural land. Page 12; December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 13. John Payne, south side of Lassen. Mr. Payne stated that there has been a lot of talk about prime agricultural land. He has five acres of broken down walnut trees. If someone wants to farm his five acres he would be willing to sell it. He felt that the rezoning should be done, 1~. Tom Rogers, Paradise, Mr. Rogers spoke against the rezoning. This county is on the same path as Santa Clara County regarding destroying of thousands of acres of farm land. This is good farm land. 15. John. Dobson, west side of Bay Avenue, Mr, Dobson spoke for Mr, John Chula, His property was proposed for "RT-lA". Mr. Chula has a 30 foot easement and under the "RT-lA" zoning he would not be able to provide the minimum 60 foot load right-of-way, He would like to see the property zoned "RT-1". A11 of the people seem to think the zoning would bring the lot size to minimum lot size. This is not the case because of the need for septic systems unless there was a connection to the city sewer. The lots would have to be at least one-half acre minimum. Mr. Dobson set out other letters that he brought. Mrs. Martha Sampson objects to the zoning. Russell and Mary Katherine Barnes regarding moving to the area to live in the country. Mr, Dobson stated that the people in Chico are upset because of the increase in mobile $ome park rents. The cost of building lots for 1.2 acres is $26,500, one acre Iuilding lass cost $20,000 and one-half acre lots are going for $23,000. He asked that the Board reinstate the "RT-1" zoning. 16. Larry 3ones, Churchill Drive. Mr, Jones presented four letters from Mr. and Mrs. John W. Warner, Mr. and Mrs. Keith 5. Humphreys, Mr, and Mrs. Leroy N. Barker and Mrs. Virginia Blair. Mr. Jones spoke regarding the "RT-lA" and "R-1" zoning proposal. It is his understanding that the Board has been interested in keeping the land to the north and west as agricultural land. It is hard to comprehend dealing with "R-r" and "RT-lA" zoning, It is the highest density. With this type of zoning bordering agricultural land this creates a problem. There is a lot of dust from orchards. If this happens people are going to come before the Board complaining about the dust from agriculture. He hoped the Board would make the zoning progressive and compatible with agriculture. He did not feel there should be any homes and mobile-homes against agriculture land. He asked that the Board draw the line to have compatibility with agricultural uses. 17. Ed Bowen, Churchill Drive. Mr. Bowen presented several letters to the Board in the same pattern. 18. Bob Jeffrey, Gwen Avenue. Mr. Jeffrey stated that he farmed 20 acreso He felt that if the area is zoned a red line should be drawn out there to start at the Esplanade and go around the west side of Chico, He felt this would protect the agricultural interests in the area. '. 19. John Luwas, chairman, Chico 2000. Mr. Luwas gave the Board some material concerning the organization. They are concerned about the rezoning of the area. The organization feels this rezone will drastically affect the Chico area growth development and taxes, They are dedicated to very carefully planning particularly on a major plan. They want to allow growth without eliminating that growth. This is so controversial' for the very reason it is going to have such an impact. They have submitted written comments. They have proposed some minor changes. This is primarily outside of the existing drainage district. Mr. Luwas introduced Tom McCrady at this time. Page 13. .December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 20. Tom McCrady, Rosemary Circle. Mr. McCrady stated that this rezone has a long and bitter history. He hoped that the recommendations of Chico 2000 will help. The organization is basically in support of the Corranission's recommendation with some minor changes for the area south of Shasta and east of Cussick Avenue. There are many apartments in Chico. The "A-R" zoning does allow apartments with a use permit. Their recommendation is that the entire area be zoned "A-SR", It is the same density and allows continuing to keep animals in this area. In the area north of Shasta east of Cussick the organization is not in opposition to the "S-R" zoning. Tkiey would however ask this Board to be careful about planning of the traffic situation in this area. In the area east of Cussick and north of Henshaw the organization would like to see one acre minimums. There is a need for a buffer areao This seems like the ideal area for buffering down. "RT-lA" zoning would be consistent with the one acre but "R-1" and "S-R" is not, The organization is not in disagreement south of Henshaw. 21. .john Luvvas. Mr. Luwas felt that it is clear that their organization is in no way enthusiastic or joyful about the "S-R" zoning. They realize the argument that money has been spent on. the assessment district for those reasons they are not opposing the "S-R" zoning. It is their hope that this compromise can bring a final solution and'stop sprawl. He did not want to see sprawl continuing endlessly. The agriculture point is the main reason for supporting a buffer area. The line drawn by the Commission between the "RT-lA" and the "R-1" is really an artificial line. As far as everything west of Cussick there is no drainage. It is outside the existing drainage district. How is the area going to be drained? One possibility is a new drainage system across the Bell Ranch. It will be a traggdy to loss the ranch. Another alternative would be to hook up with SUDAD. This would create revamping the entire system. This can be done but at major expense. He did not feel that anyone wanted that. Mr. Luwas spoke regarding the rights of property owners. These rights must be considered. If the sprawl is not stopped now there will be continued pressure on more people. The Board has an aideal opportunity that should not be passed by. The pressure .is not yet that great to develop Alamo and Cussick, The land is in no way needed for development. Housing is too high all over the nation. With the area east of Cussick the county's figures indicate will accomodate Chico growth for five years. South of the rezone area there are a good many acres ready to go. There are hundreds of acres further to the north and south of Lindo Channel. The Village southeast of Chico is underwayo That project in going to provide houses for Chico. He felt the answer should be found of how much this is going to cost the taxpayers in the county. The EIR suggests expecting considerably more cost for public services. Is it really going to cost more? How much over how long a period of time and aren.' the people going to ask the question of why didn't the government ask me? Mr. Luwas stated that if the Board were to put the area in a more restrictive zoning than that recommended by the Planning Commission this would not have to go back to them. What they .are proposing is more restrictive. 22, Mr. Dobson. Mr. Dobson stated that as far as Mr. Harrington is concerned the "R-1" is acceptable. Their properties are included in the urban standards requirements and they are assessed to provide drainage. They will pay for drainage. Page 14. December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 23. Frank Brazil, corner of Cussick and Henshaw. Mr. Brazil stated that he is asking that on the southeast corner of Cussick and Henshaw a ten acre parcel be excluded from the rezone. They filed a "FA-C" map in December, 1977. It was his understanding from Mr. Lawson that they could ask for an environmental report on that parcel ..and pull out of the rezoning proposed, The property is adjacent to the drainage district. He asked that his ten acres be removed from this zoning. 24, Bill Payne. Mr. Payne stated that he was in favor of the "A-R" zoning, It is consistent with the General Plan. It was mentioned that there were too many apartment houses in Chico already. Because there are too many apartment houses the rent is too high. The reasons the rents are too high is because there are not enough to cover the demand. 25. Jane Dolan. Ms. Dolan stated that the land use element o£ the General Plan is being revised and not yet completed, She has a lot of concerns about this rezone. She requested that the decision be post- poned until after the land use element has been revised. 26o Karl Ory, Chico City councilman. Mr. Ory stated that the City of Chico cannot afford this development. The policy of the Board is to try to make the developers pay for the development. The impact on the rest of the Chico area needs to be re-examined, He felt-that they were talking about one bridge over Lindo Channel. The estimate for the bridge was $1 /2 million. The pressure will be put on the rest of the area, He understood that the maximum capacity would increase the popplation of the urban area of Chico by 127. It is difficult to raise revenue since Proposition 13 was passed. There is a need for a services plan to identify and assign cost and find methods of costs. RECESS: 3:16 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:26 p.m. 27. James Owens, He stated that there were letters presented to the .Board this morning, These people have requested to have their letters read into the record, They are Mr. Kolbush, Mr. Trany and Mr. and Mrs. McLane. Chairman Winston advised that the Board has seen the letters and they are a matter of record. 28. Bob Payne. Mro Payne urged the Board to retain the "A-R" zoning instead of the "A-SR" zoning. The comment made regarding too many apartments are not entirely true. The reason for vacancies in the apartments is the high rent. If there were more apartments the rents would go down. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. Chairman Winston stated that it is true several people have stated there has been a controversial issue. He appreciated the offer of compromise. The Board has heard a multitude o£ wishes. Making everyone happy cannot do it. Hopefully in deliberations the Board will come up with a solution that will be in the best interest of the people recognizing all of the things said and the letters written. As far as he is concerned there will be no further encroachment on agricultural land. Supervisor Richter made comments regarding the summary on pages 49 and 50 of the environmental impact report at this time. Page 15. December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 1. No one can argue with the population increase. 2. T"he comment about the open space is not completely right. Tf a single family dwelling is situated :_', on a 1,200 foot iot there is about 8S% of open space left on the single fa9uily lot. 3. Most of those lands are standing fallow and are nat effective agricultural land. 4. He disagreed with the essence of item No. 4. He felt the argument can be made that the increase in the economic base by using to a more intensive use and the revenue generated by the use of that land. Supervisor Richter set out the oost of land at this time: 1/4 acre of land, $12,000 or $13,000 for the lot. '.!:They are selling for $20,000 and the improvements are $6,000. At about $14,000 at 10% would be $1,400 per year more back. What kinds of economic benefit would flow regarding earning capability against farming almonds. Use for housing would provide a great economic base and greater increments. 5. The noise level will be increased, 6. Tf an orchard is farmed and herbicides have been used there is not much use for wildlife. This has been effectively removed at this time. There would be only a slight differenceo 7. The drainage characteristics will not be modified with the proposal he is going to make. The drainage district area will be the high density area. 8. Supervisor Richter felt that tfiis was true. 9. The visual aestetics will be modified but how bad or good. He was not sure this will be an adverse impact. 10. This will not be an adverse impact with the proposal. 11o Supervisor Richter disagreed with the statemento The fact that there is a shortage of lots and housing can be demonstrated by the prices of the housing and lots. That demonstrates the shortage of living space in the community. That refutes the thesis there is a great surplus of living spaces. 12. If the area is low density SS% of the water will be leaving and putting in just as when farming the land. There will be a loss of maybe 15% to 20% as opposed to the whole area, 13. There is going to be na commercialization in the living area and adjacent to the area. 14. The Public Works Director has advised the roads were sufficient and when improvements are required this could be taken care of. It will be more congested than it is nota, 15. Supervisor Richter did not know what interim inefficiencies were. There are two fire departments in the area, Nord and Cohasset. They would effectively service the area. It would make use of those departments more ef:Eiciently. The Sheriff would have to increase his efforts. 16. Supervisor Richter suspected that this was true. Page 16. December 19~ 1978 December 19, 1978 y W 17.. Supervisor Richter disagreed with this statement. The Board is zoning to prevent development of agricultural land. On motion of $upervisor Richter, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and unanimously carried, the Board made a motion of intent to adopt the EIR and for Counsel to .come back with the find that the socio and economic effects override any overriding effects that cannot be mitigated by the EIR on the mitigation measures and to be brought back fo the Board on - January 2, 1979. On motion of Supervisor Richter, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and unanimously carried, a motion of intent was approved by the Board to have a draft by Counsel to be brought back at the January 2, 1979 meeting with the deletion of the Frank Brazil parcel and referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration as a "PA-C" zone; with the deletion of the area designated as "S-R" bounded by Bell, Alamo, Renshaw and Cussick and referred back to the Planning Commission for instructions to consider one acre zoning in that area, one acre minimum of the "S-R" zone; to change the zoning now "RT-lA" and "R-1" at Bell and Bay Avenue to "RT-1A" zoning ~,•i for that whole area including a one acre minimum size; with all of the rest of the area to be zoned as submitted by the Planning Commission. RECESS: 3:50 p.m. RECONVEN&: 3:55 p.m. 78-2342 AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO NEGOTIATE WITH CITY OF CHICO RE: PROBLEM OF PARKING TICKETS Judge Ann Houghton spoke regarding the problems the Chico Municipal Court has had with the parking tickets from the City of Chico. Last year there were 67,000 tickets from the City of Chico. The city has:. 80% and the county 20%. The ticket that is placed on the care is the windshield notice. This is placed on an unattended vehicle. The police department issues a citation and files it with the court. After the citation is issued the name of the registered owner must be found. This is done through a check with the Department of Motor Vehicles. A mailed notice must be sent to the registered owner. This is not done if the windshield notice has been paid. The county has been voluntarily doing the investigation work for the City of Chico. I£ the ticket is not paid after the sending of the notice a warrant can be issued or placed as a lien against the registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles. At the present time the only function the court is not performing is the writing of the ticket. They tried to go to the lien system. The problem is that the court has had about 40,000 tickets prior to 1975. The court was behind in processing. The Judicial Council statistics for 67,000 parking tickets gives them the highest per judge rate in the state. This amount should have five plus clerks. She has one extra help and key punch person who is pulled to work on the tickets. The big jump took place two years ago. The city hired an extra meter person and they started writing more tickets. The court is doiiag€ the work voluntarily for the city. The court is to act when a claim is made and the name of the person committing the act is known. The court has no investigative function. This is what the court has taken on for the city. These are the functions the city should be performing fox 68%. Judge Houghton set out eight solutions that the Board might consider at this time. Page l7. December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 1. A voluntary payment plan. This is where the court takes the ticket. The ticket that is paid is marked paid and the one that is not paid just sits there. No action is taken on it. Judge Houghton was opposed to this method. 2. The City of Chico could give the court the employees to assist in processing their own functions. This can be done through Government Code Section 71270. This solution is not possible without the cooperation of the City of Chico. At the present time she did not think that this could be a possible solution. 3. It is essential the courts are not in the business of making money or profito Paying parking tickets is the exception. A11 of the other matters are a matter of endangering lives and property. Parking tickets are not. This should be put on a violator pay basis. The city and county could each figure out their budgets and total them to have this self supporting. This could be reviewed every two years. This is not possible until the city is willing to talk with the county. She tried to talk with the city on October 1, 1978 with no success. Mro Davis advised her that the court should be making a profit. 4. The court could cease to do the city's work for it. The court could accept the ticket and file it. They could accept payments and receive the 22% for the county and the city can receive their 78%. After a reasonable time when a name has been submitted, the court could proceed to act on the person. When the second notice money is paid the court can accept payment and make the 22% - 78% distribution. There have been opinions issued in San Diego, Los Angeles and Lodi that it is not the court's duty to investigate these. 5. Give the city the entire job. When they have completed the functions then the court could act by taking the money and share the 22% - 78% and 100% of the first notice. Do not accept tickets starting January 1, 1979. File the windshield notice and accept the money. When the time comes to process the ticket or one is paid the county will get 22% of the payment. When they have sent out the notices then the tickets can be brought to the court. The crime is not complete until the notices have been sent. The money will start coming in after the second notice< 6. The court not even take the tickets. Do no. processing until the court has the name of the owner and then only receive the 22% - 78% after the second notice. 7. After the windshield ticket has not been paid no longer give them any share of the money collected. If the windshield copy is paid give them 78%o If the court is going to undertake the investigation the county should take 100% of the revenueo This was an Attorney General opinion. 8. Continue as is. Continue doing as has been done and the county give the court more employees to be more efficient. Increase the prices of the tickets. There are a number of problems to this method, .judge Houghton set out different cases that would not pertain to this county because we are not in the same District Court of Appeals. If they were to reach the Supreme Court, then they would affect the county. Page 18. December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the Administrative Officer was instructed to negotiate-with the City of Chico regarding the parking tickets giving them two alternatives: 1. Get the 22% - 78% split on the windshield tickets and bundle all the ones up not paid and have the City of Chico process them. 2, The same as No. 1 but process the ones that are not paid and take 100% of the revenueo 78-2348 AUTHOI2I2E SENDING OF HAL BROOKS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TO FBI ACADEMY ', Ken Leach, district attorney, spoke regarding the request for the Board's authorization to send Hal Brooks to the FBI Academyo He requested a timely appropriate request to be placed on the agenda. It was not placed on the agendao This item was the subject of a memo to him wine copies to the Board on December 15, 1978 so the matter could be heard, The reason for wanting the matter placed on the agenda was so his office would know what to do, whether to accept the invitation to the FBI Academy or not. He brought this to the Board's attention so they would be aware of what had happened. Chairman Winston advised Mr. Leach that the Board had the packet regarding this matter and it would have been heard today anyway. Mr. Leach stated that his office has received a request for Mro Brooks to attend the Academy. This would include Mr. Brooks salary for about two months. There would be no travel expenses. There would be an additional cost of $750. Mr. Leach set out the way that the absence would be covered within the office. It is going to cause some people to have to pinch hit. Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated that the Chief Investigator does not receive overtime pay. The Investigators receive overtime. There could be a need for more overtime than there is right now.. There are going to be overtime costs. Mr. Leach advised that his office does not pay avertime. The policy is to require them to take time off to save the county maney,.. The personnel is adjusted for the time off. In some cases where a person works on the weekend he is required to take Monday off and adjust the workload. Mro~Leach was questioned as to whether or not he would be able to live within the out of county travel budget policy that was set by the Board. Mr. Leach stated that perhaps but he was not sure. He indicated in his memo that this is a working type of academy that will produce experience and knowledge that law enforcement desperately needs. He felt that all of the problems connected with his office and looking at the operation and covering the workload for a long period of time the sacrifice in adjusting personnel was worth ito The people are willing to accept thato This is really a great opportunity. He would Iike to see those that qualify be able to do so. The entire office will benefit from this matter. This same resource,-. could be made available at any future time as decided by other agencies. He felt there was a potential of maybe two other people who might qualify for the same honor, Page 19. December 19, 1978 : J December 19, 1978 It was moved by Supervisor Madigan, seconded~by Supervisor Lemke that the request be granted and Hal Brooks be authorized to attend the FBI Academy and that the sum< of $800 be allocated. Mr. Nickelson stated that there is only $950 in the District Attorney's out of county budget. Their office has received a request for Will Mattley to go t'a the District Attorney's conference in the amount of $150. The District Attorney's budget cannot stand ito Supervisor Richter stated that he was unable to vote on this matter unless he received additional information. Supervisor Richter asked Counsel whether it would be proper to ask questions regarding Mr. Brooks` qualifications in open meeting or whether this should be done in executive session. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to discuss those issues in public. On that basis he recommended the Board hold an executive session on the matter. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board recessed at 4:40 p.m. to hold an executive session regardin questions about the employee in the District Attorney's Office. RECONVENE: The Board reconvened following an executive session at ';4:47 p.m. In executive session the Board discussed personnel matter invo~,ving Hal Brooks. Mr. Nickelson advised that there was not enough money in the District Attorney's travel budget for out of county to cover the request. Mr. Leach agreed with Mr. Nickelson. Chairman Winston stated that the thrust of the message that was made was to reduce out of county travel of all kinds. If the Soard starts making precedents every other department head has every right to say what about us. Vote on motion: AXES:. Supervisors Lemke, Madigan and Richter NOES: Supervisor Moseley and Chairman Winston Motion carried, Discussion of what will happen after the money has been spent in the budget held at this time. On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the motion to approve sending of Hal"'.Brooks to the FBT Academy and allocation of $800 in funds was rescinded. It was moved by Supervisor Richter seconded by Supervisor Zemke that the Board authorized the sending of Hal Brooks to the FBI Academy and all of the expenses. that the county will cover is his salaryo Motion withdrawn. On motion of Supervisor Richter, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and carried, Hal Brooks was authorized to attend the FBI Academy and that no transfer of funds and no applications of funds from the xeserve will be made and if this can be taken care of in the existing out of county travel budget and if this cannot be handled then Mr. Brooks will have to pay expenses himself. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Madigan, Richter and Chairman Winston. NOES: Supervisor Moseley Page 20. December 19~ 1978 December 19# 1978 78-2344 APPEARANCE: JUDITH ROPCZYCIZI J Ms. Ropczycki spoke regarding the development of a structure in the back of her property. She asked fora rezone from "A-2" to "A-2 multi-family dwelling". She has a-guest house that has 517 square feet and the "A-2" only allows for guest houses of 500 square feet. Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that he dould not under- stand the problem. There is only one "A-2" zone. It is an unrestricted zone and certain uses require a use permit. He felt the proper way to handle this matter would be to refer Ms. Ropczycki to the Planning Department. He assumed they would then instruct her to file for a variance. Ms. Ropczycki set out the location of the property at this time. It is located on the corner of 7th Avenue and Sherman. She was improving the property. She was advised that she was putting too much in there and it was another single family dwelling and not a guest house. They would have to re-evaluate the permit. She put in a kitchen and bathroom and storage on an existing buildingo Mr. Blackstock felt that the best way to handle the matter would be to get together, with Planning to work out the procedure for approval since she is not expanding the building. There is no way the Board can grant any approval at this time. There may be a request for a variance needed and then there may be no problem. Ms. Ropczycki was advised to meet with the Planning Department to solve her problem. 78-2345 APPEARANCE: JAMES OWENS Mr. Owens stated that he was representing four people regarding the Elizabeth Eisenhour rezone. They are: Mary Ball, William Jones, Robert Besser and Evelyn Mar. This concerns the notices that were mailed out to some of the people. A11 of these people are within the statutory requirements. It is their constitutional right to receive notice of the hearing. Mr. Owens was advised to give the names and addresses of the people to the Administrative Officer so that the matter could be referred to the Planning Department noting that notices were not given to these people. 78-2346 APPEARANCE: ART GI7.MAl~T Mr. Gilman stated that he had a copy of a letter written to the Reclamation Board. He is getting tired of being, harassed about a project he did an his property he has owned far a number of years. A member of the Reclamation Board was in attendance at the time. If the Board could be specific of what they are belly aching about. If the ', Board has anything to say he is available to show what has been d one. There was some mention in the newspaper so this Board could defend itself. Against what he would like to know. The contention is that what he did somehow damaged a county road. The only reason he is mak3:ng a fuss is because the Board rthad a letter written and sent. Chairman Winston stated that he will plead guilty to not knowing what Mr. Gilman has done. He will be very happy to come out there.. Mr. Gilman stated that it is not true and never was done. The drainage has been enhanced. He is tired of being harassed about it. Page 21. December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 78-2347 APPEAR9NCE:T JOELENE BLAKE - - _ Mrs. Blake stated that she would like to see the Board be cautious with, regard to the data processing facilities management concept. She would like the Board to refrain from contracting out any more county departments. The Board should have time to study the proposals and act on the 1976-77 interim report on the excessive and needless cost of county government where the Grand Jury says it is not operating efficiently. It was the opinion of the Grand Jury that the CAO has been derelict in his duties in his recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding data processing. The reason data processing was set up was that it was going to be more efficient. This was done in 1968-69 with a budget of $346,882, Now the budget is $866,000 in 1978-79, 78-2348 RESIGNATION FROM THE BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEAE,& The Administrative Office to prepare a letter of appreciation to Wilbur Mills far his service on the Building Code Board of Appeals for the Chairman's signatureo The Administrative Office to post vacancy, 78-2349 APPOINTMENfi TO BUTTE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimouslyc;carried, W. H. Thebach was reappointed as a member of the Butte County Mosquito Abatement District. 78-2350 APPOINTMENT TO BUTTE COUNTY JUSTICE SYSTEM ADVISORY GROUP - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 2. 1979 The appointment to the Butte County Justice System Advisory Group was continued to January 2, 1979. 78-2351 COMMUNLCATIONS Robert Braun, Paradise. Mr. Braun writes appealing the Advisory Agency's conditions on a tentative parcel map, AP 55-25-23, four lots, northeast quarter of Section 34, T22N, R3E, Paradise, Set for hearing January 16, 1978 at 10045 aom. Harry McKeen,~Magalia. Mr. McKeen writes appealing the negative declaration granted to C. W. Trent for a use permit to allow a recreational vehicle park on property zoned "A-2" located on the west side of Humbug approximately 1/2 mile south of Skyway, A~ 65-08-25, north of Paradise. The matter has already been set for January 16, 1979 at 10:00 a.m. Michael G1aag,Heritage Construction Company. Mr. Glaze writes requesting a refund of $275 for a rezone application fee that was a requirement on a parcel map, AP 34-50-27, southwest corner of KeIIy Ridge Road and Heritage Road, east of Oroville, The matter was taken care of earlier in the meeting. William P, Mace, attorney at law. Attorney Mace writes concerning the contracting for animal control services. The matter was handled earlier in the meeting. 78-2352 ADOPT RESOLUTION :7.8-2+0:7 COMPLIMENTING FORDYCE SICKLES FOR HIS WORK AS OROVILLE CONSTABLE FOR..PRESENTATION TO HIM AT HIS RETIREMENT DINNER On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, Resolution 78 207 complimenting Fordyce Sickles for his work as Oroville Constable for presentation to him at his retire- ment dinner was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign. Page 22. December 19,.1978 December 19, 1978 78-2353 ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Winston commented on the memo from the Administrative Officer regarding the lack of a quorum for LAFCo. Supervisor Richter resigned from LAFCo at this time. Chairman Winston will attend the LAFCo meetings in the interim until another member has been chosen. Chairman Winston stated that the Board had received a memo from the Administrative Office relative to business licenses. The matter to be discussed at budget time next year. Chairman Winston advised that the Board had received a memo from the Administrative Office xelative to the digest of statutes and SB 2713 regarding library services. The services have to be maintained on the 1978-79 level or else they cannot. participate under programs under the Library Acto Memo regarding the question of the Chamber of Commerce appropriations discussed at this time. Mr. Nickelson reported that the payment was being made for the previous budget yearn This is now a wipe out of the previous budget, Chairman Winston announced that Harlan Duncan requested a meeting with Supervisor Lemke, the Administrative Office and himself, He will be here on January 16, 1979. Chairman Winston acknowledged the letter from David Thode resigning from the Oroville Mosquito Abatement District. A letter of appreciation is to be prepared for the Chairman's signature and the vacancy to be posted. Chairman Winston stated that the Board had received a letter from the Center of Commuaityl:~I7eve3,opmBrit. This information has been brought to the Board's attention. It appears to deal with Humboldt County. Chairman Winston advised that the representative with CHAD would like the Board's permission to make a presentation to the employees' group. Referred to Personnel and the Administrative Office. Supervisor Madigan stated that at a recent meeting of CSAC one of the things on the agenda was a questionnaire sent out by the County Clerks' Association to all clerks for the purpose of looking at the fees chargedo Colusa and Butte Counties were the only ones that did not respond. County Clerk to be requested to make a written report tn~-. the Board on this matter. 78-2354 COMMUNICATIONS CONT~ZNUED McCain & Associates, Chico. The Engineers, on behalf of Ronald Sauer, appeal the Advisory Agency°s conditions I, S and 6 on tentative condominium subdivision, AP 42-07-75, one parcel, located at the northwest corner of Alamo and East Avenue, Chico. Set for hearing January 16, 1979 at 10<45 a.m. Page 23. December 19, 1978 December 19, 1978 78-2355 AUTHORIZ$ RESOLUTIONS, OF APPRECIATION BE PREPARED, FOR SUPERVISORS MADIGAN AND RICHTER TO BE PRESENTED AT JANUARY 2, 1979 BOARD MEETING On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and carried, Resolutions of appreciation were authorized to be prepared for Supervisors Madigan and Richter to be presented at the January 2, 1979 Board meeting. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Moseley and Chairman Winston. ABSTAINING: Supervisors Madigan and Richter. 78-2356 MOTION TO CONCURRENTLY NEGOTIATE_~!WITH SCT AND CSC AT THE SAME TIME FOR DATA PROCESSING FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS FAILED It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Moseley that concurrent negotiations with SCT and CSC for data processing facilities management contracts at the same point in time be approved. ', Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that his office could handle the concurrent negotiations ff the Board instructs them to ', do so, They would have to be at separate times. ', Supervisor Lemke felt that this should be done to sasae time. He is willing to work with whatever firm is finally chosen. Vate on motion: AYES: Supervisors Lemke and Moseley NOES: Supervisors Madigan,aRo~chter-and Chairman Winston Motion fails. 78-2357 MOTION TO APPROVES .' AGREEMENT WITH JUDGE HOUGHTON FOR DONATION OF HER SALARY INCREASE FOR BOOKS FOR LAW LIBRARY FAILED Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, set out the agreement between Judge Houghton and the county for donation of her salary increase to buy books for the Law Library. It was moved by Supervisor Madigan, seconded by Supervisor Lemke that the contract with Judge Houghton for donation of her salary increase to buy books for the Law Library be approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. Supervisor Richter felt that the agreement should not be approved. This would bind her into an agreement. If she wanted to donate her salary increase somewhere else she could not do so. She was the only judge who made such an offer. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisor Madigan and Moseley NOES: Supervisors Lemke, Richter and Chairman Winston Motion fails. 78-2358 DESIGNATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AS COUNTY OFFICIAL ON THE REPORTING OF COUNTY JUVENILES ON THE STATUS OFFENDERS PURSUANT TO AB 95$ The Administrative Officer was designated as the county official to coordinate on the reporting of county juveniles on the status offenders pursuant to AB 958. Page 24. December 19, 1978 December 19,_19 ADJOURNMENfi fihere being nothing furt er before the Boar at t is ime, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. to reconvene n esday a ary 2, 1979 at 9:00 a.m. ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLE and ex-officio Clerk o£ the Board of Supervisors ~ B t~ ~C. Ct, y 1"~ ________ 'rman, oard of Supervisors Page 250 December 19, 1978