County of Inyo

Board of Supervisors

Public Comment

The Chairperson announced the public comment period.  There was no one from the public wishing to speak.

Co. Dept. Reports

The Chairperson announced the County Department Report period.  Dr. Susan Holgate, Director of Health and Human Services, addressed the Board to provide a legislative report on Health and Human Services issues.  Dr. Holgate informed the Board that she intended to write a letter opposing AB 1470(Vargas).  She explained that this legislation would allow the wages and/or benefits of In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) workers to be increased via local voter initiative, instead of being controlled by the Board of Supervisors.  The County Administrator, René L. Mendez, presented the Board with the County’s brochure providing information on terrorism and disaster preparedness.  He explained that the brochure provided general information on being prepared and that more detailed preparedness information was available on the County’s website, www.countyofinyo.org.   Additionally, Mr. Mendez reported that the notice for RFP’s for Fire Prevention funds has been published.  He reminded the Board that the eligible agency category has been expanded and requested the Board’s assistance in notifying qualified groups in their respective districts.

Introduction

The County Administrator introduced Mr. Jon Manning, Purchasing Specialist in the County Administrator’s Office, to the Board. 

CAO-Purchasing/ Rotary File Cabinet P.O.

Moved by Supervisor Bear and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to award Bid No. 2002-12 for and approve the purchase of Rotary File Cabinets with accessories for the Planning Department per Staff recommendations.  Motion carried unanimously.

CAO-Purchasing/ Ice Machine P.O.

Moved by Supervisor Bear and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to award Bid No. 2002-13 for and approve the purchase of an ice machine for the Jail kitchen per Staff recommendations.  Motion carried unanimously.

CAO-Info Serv./ Printers P.O.

Moved by Supervisor Bear and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to approve the purchase of printers and associated accessories from GovConnection, a CMAS vendor, in an amount not to exceed $22,996 as recommended by Staff.  Motion carried unanimously.

CAO-Info Serv./ Laptop Computers P.O.

Moved by Supervisor Bear and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to A) approve the purchase of laptop computers and associated accessories from GovConnection, a CMAS vendor, in an amount not to exceed $12,256; B) approve the purchase of necessary Microsoft software for the laptops from Insight Public Sector, a CMAS vendor in an amount not to exceed $1,926; and C) approve the purchase of other software from CDW-G in an amount not to exceed $127 as recommended by Staff.  Motion carried unanimously.

H&H-Behavioral Hlth./Contract Amendment Mono County Residential Treatment

The Chairperson asked that the date of the Contract as reflected on the Agenda be changed from July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2002.  Moved by Supervisor Bear and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to approve Amendment No. One to the Contract between the County of Inyo and the County of Mono for the provision of residential alcohol and drug treatment increasing the contract by $20,000 to an amount not to exceed $100,000, for the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003; and authorize the Chairperson to sign.  Motion carried unanimously.

Rd. Dept./ Kleinfelder Contract Engineering Services

Moved by Supervisor Bear and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to approve the Contract between the County of Inyo and Kleinfelder, Inc., for the provision of Geotechnical Engineering Services, in an amount not to exceed $30,000, for the period of April 15, 2003 through October 30, 2003, contingent upon the Board’s adoption of a FY 2003/04 Budget; and authorize the Chairperson to sign, contingent upon the appropriate signatures being obtained.  Motion carried unanimously.

Rd. Dept./Tree Removal

Moved by Supervisor Bear and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to authorize County Road Department personnel to remove A) a large Sycamore tree in the County right-of-way at the southeast corner of Inyo Street and Highway 395, in Independence; and B) a large tree in the County right-of-way at 181 N. Hay Street in Lone Pine.  Motion carried unanimously.

CAO-Info Serv./ Computer Purchases

The County Administrator provided additional information, further justification and responded to questions regarding the purchase of computers.  Mr. Mendez explained the process used to evaluate the request for purchases of computers, accessories and software.  Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to A) approve the purchase of desktop computers from Gateway Business of North Sioux City, South Dakota, a CMAS vendor, through the WSCA contract program, in an amount not to exceed $33,309; B) approve the purchase of Microsoft software for the computers from Insight Public Sector, in an amount not to exceed $6,260; and C) approve the purchase of other software from CDW-G, in an amount not to exceed $402 as recommended by Staff.  Motion carried unanimously.

District/So. Inyo Fire Protection District Ambulance

Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to A) declare Ambulance VIN S36ZHJG4800, Inyo County Asset #4797, is no longer used by the County of Inyo and surplus/scrap the ambulance; B) declare the donation of the ambulance to the Southern Inyo Fire Protection District serves a public purpose; and C) donate the ambulance to the Fire District and authorize the County Administrator to sign all documents which may be required to facilitate and complete the transfer of this ambulance.  Motion carried unanimously.

Planning/Clark Contract

Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Bear to approve the Contract between the County of Inyo and Andrea Clark for provisions of personal services as the Planning Director, beginning March 15, 2003, at the rate of $6,187 per month; and authorize the Chairperson to sign.  Motion carried unanimously.

CAO-Personnel-Planning/Execu-

tive Search Contract for Planning Director

The County Administrator provided additional information and further clarification on the Contract to hire an Executive Search firm to recruit candidates for the Planning Director.  Moved by Supervisor Williams and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to A) approve the Contract between the County of Inyo and Ralph Andersen & Associates for the provision of executive search services for the Planning Director recruitment, in an amount not to exceed $19,500, for the period of April 7, 2003, through September 30, 2003, contingent upon the Board’s adoption of a FY 2003/04 Budget and authorize the Chairperson to sign, contingent upon the appropriate signatures being obtained; and B) amend the FY 2002/03 County Budget as follows: increase appropriations in Personnel Budget Unit 010800, Professional Services (Object Code #5265) by $19,500; and decrease Contingencies Budget Unit 087100, Contingencies (Object Code #5901) by $19,500.  Motion carried unanimously.

Recess/

Reconvene

The Chairperson recessed the regular meeting at 10:03 a.m., reconvening at 10:15 a.m., with all Board Members present.

Water/DWP Status Report Owens Lake Project

Mr. Jerry Gewe, Assistant General Manager of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Mr. Rick Harrisch, Owens Lake Project Manager, updated the Board on the project to mitigate dust at the Owens Lake.  Mr. Gewe invited and encouraged the Board to attend the tour of the project area scheduled in conjunction with an upcoming Great Basin Air Pollution Control District Meeting in May.  The Board and the representatives of the Department of Water and Power discussed the various aspects of the project, with County Counsel clarifying that should a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors attend the properly agendized and noticed  GBAPCD tour it would not require noticing by the Board of Supervisors.

Planning/CUP 2001-12/Stiefel Appeal    

The Chairperson opened the public hearing at 10:40 a.m., with all Board Members present to consider an appeal by Valley Livestock, Inc., of the January 22, 2003 Planning Commission decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-12/Stiefel.  Ms. Andrea Clark, Planning Director, reviewed the Staff Report and recommendations concerning the Appeal.    She requested that a correction be made to the fourth “whereas” of each of the resolutions which were presented in the Staff Report, asking that it read as follows:  “Whereas, the Water Commission recommended that the Planning Commission impose certain mitigation measures, conditions on the project, and monitoring on the proposed project; also, the Water Commission recommended that the Planning Commission find, with the imposition of the recommended measures, conditions and monitoring, that the project would not have a significant hydrogeological and or a significant related environmental impact.”  At the conclusion of her remarks, Ms. Clark requested the County Staff Report, including attachments be entered into the record and it was marked Exhibit A.  Additionally, Ms. Clark requested that excerpts of the minutes of the January 22, 2003 and the February 26, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings, concerning the Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-12/Stiefel, be entered into the record and it was marked Exhibit B.  Mr. David Miller, Inyo County Water Commissioner, addressed the Board to clarify certain statements attributed to the Water Commission in the Staff Report.  Mr. Dan Stueve representing the Appellants, Valley Livestock, Inc., addressed the Board to support the denial of the Planning Commission’s decision.  He provided the Board with copies of a February 18, 2003, Memorandum from Boyde Hill to Russ Behrens regarding Grounds for Appeal to Board of Supervisors and for Writ of Mandate to Court, a letter from the Darwin Community Services District to Mr. Stueve regarding Valley Livestock’s assistance in providing emergency water to the Darwin residents in the case of a failure of their water system, and copies of Inyo Register articles from the February 18 and 20, 2003, editions concerning economic development.  At the conclusion of Mr. Stueve’s presentation he requested the documents be entered into the record and they were marked Exhibit C.  Ms. Melinda Salmonds representing the Olancha Fire District, addressed the Board to oppose the project citing safety concerns for school children and local traffic should the proposed truck traffic associated with the project be permitted.       The Chairperson recessed the public hearing at 11:30 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all Board Members present.  

Ms. Andrea Clark, responded to several of the points made in the Appellants’ February 18, 2003, memorandum, marked Exhibit C.  She reviewed, in detail, Staff’s recommendations and alternatives contained in the Staff Report, marked Exhibit A.  The Chairperson closed the public hearing at 1:40 p.m.  The Board and Staff went on discuss the information presented during the public hearing.  Supervisor Arcularius queried the proponent regarding their agreement to the triggers, which were identified in the Randy Jackson memo, which was included in Exhibit A.  Mr. Stueve stated that they had agreed to the triggers, indicating that he believed they had supplied a letter confirming this.  After further discussion, Supervisor Arcularius articulated her opinion that the proponent had met all of the requirements for granting a conditional use permit with the added trigger provision and supported Valley Livestock’s CUP application.  Supervisor Arcularius went on to qualify her support, by asking that an additional condition be placed on the project that the trucks could not operate within one half-hour of School children’s arrival and departure from the school bus stop.   The Board and Staff continued to discuss the information received during the public hearing in depth and at length.    Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Bear to overturn the Planning Commission’s determination and find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is sufficient, but that 1) the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-12/Stiefel requires special appraisal to determine whether or not the use is necessary or desirable and will be properly related to other uses to transportation and services facilities in the vicinity, and whether or not the use would, under all the circumstances of the particular case, affect adversely the health or safety of persons living or working in the vicinity or be materially detrimental to the public welfare, pursuant to Inyo County Code Section 18.81.100, and that 2) the activity to be conducted pursuant to the Conditional Use permit is neither necessary nor desirable and will not be properly related to other uses and to transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, and the additional loss of 29 acre-feet per year of groundwater is neither necessary nor desirable, and thus the permit application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-12/Stiefel is denied and enact the resolution, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-12/Stiefel, as amended to change the fourth “whereas” as follows: “Whereas, the Water Commission recommended that the Planning Commission impose certain mitigation measures, conditions on the project, and monitoring on the proposed project; also, the Water Commission recommended that the Planning Commission find, with the imposition of the recommended measures, conditions and monitoring, that the project would not have a significant hydrogeological and or a significant related environmental impact.”      Prior to the vote being taken on the motion, the Board and Staff discussed the motion and certain aspects of the project.   The Board went on to discuss the applicability of Ordinance 1004, with the motion makers, Supervisors Hambleton and Bear, supporting the original motion.  Supervisors Williams and Dorame cited additional concerns with the omission of the economic development impact associated with the project as it pertains to Ordinance 1004 requirements.  The County Administrator provided a brief review of Staff’s responsibilities and an explanation of the differences between the alternatives being recommended by Staff, highlighting how and why not all situations fit every recommendation.  Staff reiterated that alternative number four denies the project under Inyo County Code Chapter 18.81, as it pertains to Conditional Use Permits, and not Chapter 18.77, which applies to Water Ordinance 1004.    After further discussion and a request for deletion made by County Counsel, Paul Bruce and suggestions for additions to the language made by Assistant County Counsel, Allen Berrey, Ms. Clark, requested the Board consider making the following additional changes to the resolution identified in the motion:   a)  that the first “Now Therefore Be It Resolved” the third line “mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact is sufficient” be changed to “is sufficient to make the findings required under 18.77.030 and sufficient to determine that the project, as mitigated and subject to conditions of approval set forth, will not have an unreasonable effect on the economy or environment.”   b) that under the seventh “whereas” the last line the word economy be inserted to read “…on the overall economy or environment of the County.”  c)  that Section E of the first “Now Therefore Be it Resolved” be deleted in its entirety, and  d) that under the “Be It Further Resolved” the last line, the following be added “…nor desirable, and that pursuant to Inyo County Code Section 18.77.030(C.) the project would have a significant adverse effect on the economy.”  At the conclusion of the discussion the motion makers amended their motion to incorporate Staff’s recommendations as noted above.  The following is the amended motion, which was adopted by the Board.

Resol. #2003-20/ Deny CUP 2001-12/Stiefel

Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Bear to overturn the Planning Commission’s determination and find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is sufficient, but that 1) the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-12/Stiefel requires special appraisal to determine whether or not the use is necessary or desirable and will be properly related to other uses to transportation and services facilities in the vicinity, and whether or not the use would, under all the circumstances of the particular case, affect adversely the health or safety of persons living or working in the vicinity or be materially detrimental to the public welfare, pursuant to Inyo County Code Section 18.81.100, and that 2) the activity to be conducted pursuant to the Conditional Use permit is neither necessary nor desirable and will not be properly related to other uses and to transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, and the additional loss of 29 acre-feet per year of groundwater is neither necessary nor desirable, and thus the permit application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-12/Stiefel is denied and   Resolution No. 2003-20 is enacted, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-12/Stiefel, amended as follows:  

·                                 change the fourth “whereas” as follows: “Whereas, the Water Commission recommended that the Planning Commission impose certain mitigation measures, conditions on the project, and monitoring on the proposed project; also, the Water Commission recommended that the Planning Commission find, with the imposition of the recommended measures, conditions and monitoring, that the project would not have a significant hydrogeological and or a significant related environmental impact”

·                                 in the first “Now Therefore Be It Resolved” the third line “mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact is sufficient” be changed to “is sufficient to make the findings required under 18.77.030 and sufficient to determine that the project, as mitigated and subject to conditions of approval set forth, will not have an unreasonable effect on the economy or environment”

·                                 in the seventh “Whereas” the last line the word economy be inserted to read “…on the overall economy or environment of the County”

·                                 Section E of the first “Now Therefore Be it Resolved” be deleted in its entirety and

·                                 in the “Be It Further Resolved” the last line, the following be added “…nor desirable, and that pursuant to Inyo County Code Section 18.77.030(C.) the project would have a significant adverse effect on the economy.”

Motion carried on a four-to-one vote, with Supervisors Bear, Williams, Hambleton and Dorame voting yes and with Supervisor Arcularius voting no.

COA-Personnel/ Hard Hiring Freeze

The County Administrator provided additional information concerning the request to implement a hard hiring freeze.  Supervisor Hambleton clarified his position by saying that he would only be considering Public Health and Public Safety positions for the duration of the hard hiring freeze policy.  Mr. Mendez went on to provide examples of the types of positions, which would  and would not be considered while this hiring freeze is in place.  Mr. Mendez explained that unless he was directed otherwise he would not bring back recommendations for ending the hiring freeze until the Budget Hearings.    Moved by Supervisor Williams and seconded by Supervisor Bear to implement a hard hiring freeze except for health and public safety positions which could still be brought forward for consideration through the current process.  Motion carried unanimously.

H&H-Misc./ Position Request

Supervisor Hambleton acknowledged the Public Health Nurse and Progress House Care Giver positions fit the criteria for consideration under the new hard hiring freeze.  Dr. Gail Zwier, Behavioral Health Program Director, addressed the Board to provide additional information, and further clarification and justification to fill a Progress House Care Giver position and a Public Health Nurse position.  She corrected the official title of the position being requested from Progress House Residential Coordinator to Health & Human Services Specialist, explaining that the Care Giver positions are actually classified as HHS Specialists.  Dr. Zwier also explained that since Progress House was a 24 hour, 7 day a week operation, serving the needs of at risk individuals there was a real need to maintain the staffing levels at the facility.  Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Williams to authorize the filling of the following vacant budgeted positions in the Health and Human Services Department: one full-time Health and Human Services Specialist Position for Progress House and one full-time Public Health Nurse.  Motion carried unanimously.

H&H-Behavioral Hlth./Devereux Contract

Moved by Supervisor Bear and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to ratify the Contract between the County of Inyo and Devereux California for the provision of mental health services in an amount not to exceed $11,000 for the period of February 13, 2003, through June 30, 2003; and authorize the Chairperson to sign.  Motion carried unanimously.

Resol. #2003-21/ Floor Area Ratio Requirements

Ms. Andrea Clark, Planning Director, and Mr. Courtney Smith, Associate Planner, responded to questions from the Board regarding the proposed changes in floor area ratio requirements of the General Plan.  Ms. Clark confirmed that the change will provide flexibility for future projects and will enhance economic development viability.  On a motion by Supervisor Arcularius and a second by Supervisor Williams, Resolution No. 2003-21, entitled “A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo, State of California, Initiating an Amendment to the Floor Area Ratio Requirements of the Inyo County General Plan,” was adopted: motion unanimously passed and adopted.

Planning Dept./ USGS Joint Funding Agreement D.V. Water Project

Part I

Moved by Supervisor Williams and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to ratify the Joint Funding Agreement between the County of Inyo and the United States Geological Survey for hydrologic support services for the period of March 15, 2003, through September 30, 2003, in an amount not to exceed $50,291 for Part I of USGS Hydrogeologic Investigations of the Death Valley Region, contingent upon the Board’s adoption of a FY 2003/04 Budget and continued U.S. Department of Energy funding of the Death Valley Regional Ground Water Monitoring Program; and authorize the Chairperson to sign, contingent upon the appropriate signatures being obtained.  Motion carried unanimously.    

Planning Dept./ USGS Joint Funding Agreement D.V. Water Project

Part II

Moved by Supervisor Williams and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to ratify the Joint Funding Agreement between the County of Inyo and the United States Geological Survey for hydrologic support services for the period of March 15, 2003, through March 15, 2004, in an amount not to exceed $187,451 for Part II of USGS Hydrogeologic Investigations of the Death Valley Region, contingent upon the Board’s adoption of a FY 2003/04 Budget and continued U.S. Department of Energy funding of the Death Valley Regional Ground Water Monitoring Program; and authorize the Chairperson to sign, contingent upon the appropriate signatures being obtained.  Motion carried unanimously.

BofS/Minute Approval

Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Williams to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2003, Special Board of Supervisors Meeting.  Motion carried unanimously, on a three-to-zero vote, with Supervisors Arcularius, Williams and Hambleton voting yes, and with Supervisors Bear and Dorame abstaining.

Board Members and Staff Reports

Prior to the Chairperson suspending Board Reports due to time constraints on Closed Session discussion, the County Administrator reviewed the upcoming Board Calendar with the Board.  Mr. Mendez reminded the Board that as a result of April being a 5 Tuesday month there were no regular Board of Supervisors meetings scheduled for Tuesday the 22 or Tuesday the 29.  He did remind the Board that on April 28, 2003, an Assessment Appeal Hearing is scheduled regarding the Intermountain Slurry Appeal.    He informed the Board that he would schedule Third Quarter Budget Review for the May 13, 2003, meeting and that the meeting would begin at 8:00 a.m., in order to provide sufficient travel time for Supervisors attending the RCRC Conference.  Mr. Mendez went on to notify the Board of special meetings scheduled as follows:   

·                                 May 22, 2003, for prioritizing criteria; ·                                 June 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 23, 2003, for function workshops with departments; ·                                 June 2, 2003, as a special meeting to review the information on the candidates for Planning Director; and ·                                 June 6, 2003, as the tentative date for a Standing Committee Meeting to be held in Inyo County. 

  Mr. Mendez and the Board also discussed the Budget Hearing schedule with Mr. Mendez confirming August 4, 2003, as the date the Budget Hearing will begin, explaining that the hearing will continue until the budget is adopted and no longer than 10 days from the start.  Mr. Mendez explained that historically, the Inyo County Budget Hearing is concluded within 2-1/2 to 3 days.

Closed Session

The Chairperson recessed open session at 3:20 p.m., to convene in closed session, with all Board Members present, to discuss Agenda Items No. 23.  PERSONNEL (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) – Public Employee Appointment – Title:  Chief Probation Officer; No. 24. PERSONNEL (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) - Public Employee Performance Evaluation – Title:  County Counsel; and No. 25.   PERSONNEL (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6) - Instructions to Negotiators re: wages, salaries and benefits – Title: County Counsel – Negotiator – Member of Board of Supervisors as designated.

Report on Closed Session

The Chairperson recessed closed session at 5:15 p.m., to convene in open session to receive a report on closed session.  County Counsel reported there were no items discussed in closed session, which were required by law to be reported on in open session. 

Adjournment

The Chairperson adjourned the regular meeting at 5:16 p.m., to 9:00 a.m., May 6, 2003, in the Board of Supervisors Room, at the County Administrative Center, in Independence.