May 1, 2023 — Clovis City Council
Documented by Rachel Youdelman
Here’s what you need to know
- The council approved the appointment of Joseph Hebert to the Planning Commission with a 4-1 vote, replacing Michael Cunningham. Council member Diane Pearce had concerns regarding differences in unspecified “philosophy.” He is the current parks and community services director for the city of Madera and ran for the Clovis City Council in 2022.
- Despite a plea from a member of the public that a ban on chickens would erode “the Clovis way of life,” the council voted 4-1 to deny residents the right to keep backyard chickens. Council member Vong Mouanoutoua was the dissenting vote.
- The council voted to renew its policy regarding the Police Department’s acquisition and use of military equipment. State law requires an annual submission of a detailed description of the equipment, and a police lieutenant said that military equipment was “important to maintain the Clovis way of life.”
- The council voted to “wipe the slate clean” regarding a previously denied proposal for a 12-unit market-rate apartment building. Though a new proposed building design was presented, plans for a specific building project remain undecided.
Council and Staff
Lynne Ashbeck, mayor
Vong Mouanoutoua, mayor pro tem
Drew Bessinger, council member
Matt Basgall, council member
Diane Pearce, council member
John Holt, city manager
Andy Haussler, assistant city manager
Scott Cross, city attorney
Karey Cha, city clerk
The Scene
The Clovis City Council met on May 1. Opening the meeting on time, Ashbeck welcomed everyone, and Mouanoutoua led the flag salute, during which there was no audio for those attending via Webex.
The meeting was well attended, and several members of the public were present to comment, mostly about a revived proposal to permit backyard chickens. Others were present to comment on a proposed multi-family construction project, also an issue brought back from an earlier meeting. There was much mention of preservation of “the Clovis way of life,” especially regarding the Clovis rodeo and the Police Department’s use of military equipment. The meeting lasted three hours and 45 minutes. The room was full of attendees, and there were about nine people attending remotely.
There are several ways to participate in the council meetings: in person, you may comment on specific agenda matters as they are discussed, or on those not on an agenda. Commenters are limited to 5 minutes each. Note that laws regarding public meetings preclude council members from making definitive responses about matters that are not on the agenda. You can also call in to a Webex when the meeting is in progress, or you can submit a written comment. Instructions can be found here.
All council members are elected at large; none represent specific districts in Clovis. To contact them, call 559-324-2060 (one phone for all) or email:
Lynne Ashbeck lynnea@cityofclovis.com
Vong Mouanoutoua vongm@ci.clovis.ca.us
Matt Basgall mbasgall@cityofclovis.com
Drew Bessinger drewb@cityofclovis.com
Diane Pearce dianep@cityofclovis.com
Members of the public may attend meetings at the Council Chamber, 1033 Fifth St., Clovis, CA 93612, or online via Webex. The next meeting is Monday, May 8 at 6 p.m. Videos of past meetings and agendas are available here.
Agenda Item 1 The council proclaimed May “Older Americans Month,” a proclamation also made recently by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. Ashbeck asked Pearce to read the proclamation. In the past, Pearce has objected to what she called “socialist” language in proclamations and complained that she didn’t get a chance to “sign off” before the proclamations were made. This time she made no objection but read the entire proclamation. Hillaree Bennett, program director of the Fresno Madera Area Agency on Aging (FMAAA) was present to describe services offered, among which was meal delivery, help with Medicare and access to other resources. Also present was Michelle DiBuduo, executive director at Valley Caregiver Resource Center, who talked about the “Aging Unbound” theme of this year’s programs. Amy Hance, Clovis general services manager, said “every month is ‘older Americans month’” at the Clovis Senior Center.
Bessinger talked about scams affecting older people and repeated a few related anecdotes, some of which he has mentioned in the past.
Everyone posed for a photo.
Agenda Item 2 Amy Hance returned to the lectern to announce that the Clovis Trail Fest will be held on May 6 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., with events at Dry Creek Park.
Public Comments for items not on agenda. No one appeared in person to comment, but per Ashbeck, one letter had been received about a “harmful” aspect of a particular neighborhood, but she offered no specifics. Written comments are included in meeting minutes, but meeting minutes are not published for several weeks after a meeting.
Consent Agenda, Items 3-12 These are items considered routine that are decided with a single vote. Mouanoutoua recused himself from item 11, which concerned approval of a Wilson Premier Homes tract map at Ashlan and Locan avenues. All other items were approved 5-0; item 11 was approved 4-0 with 1 recusal.
Agenda Item 13 The council approved the re-appointment of Jerry Brady to the Personnel Commission with a 5-0 vote and the new appointment of Joseph Hebert to the Planning Commission with a 4-1 vote. Pearce was the “no” vote for Hebert, about whom she said she had concerns. Pearce would not support Hebert because she said she felt there was “conflict” with his employment with the city of Madera, and that she did not share a “philosophy” with him, though she didn’t specify further.
Ashbeck explained that she recused herself from nominating someone to the commission (the mayor usually does so) because Hebert was a former candidate for City
Council when she also ran for reelection; hence, she asked Bessinger to suggest the candidate. Bessinger said that 11 “very good” applicants, some of whom were “highly qualified,” were interviewed and that it was “heartening” to see so many people come forward.
Mouanoutoua suggested that Bessinger should also have recused himself, but Ashbeck explained her recusal was because of an endorsement she made in the council election; she did not elaborate further.
Brady and Hebert were both present and briefly expressed their thanks. Brady said that he “fell in love with Clovis” after he moved from the Bay Area. Hebert remarked, referring to the “Older Americans Month” proclamation, that he was “old,” having just turned 65, and that he hoped to bring “good judgment, discernment and doing what’s best for the city” to the job.
Hebert will replace Michael Cunningham, whose term expires this month.
Agenda Item 14 The council voted 4-1 to allow a vote on an assessment increase to proceed among the residents of Blackhorse Estates’ “Area 1.” Mouanoutoua was the sole “no” vote. Blackhorse Estates is a residential area (a “gated community” divided into 2 separate assessment areas) organized as not a homeowners’ association (HOA) as are most such properties in California, but as a “benefit assessment district,” which is an unusual type of residents’ management group, entailing a tax used to fund the residents’ publicly shared spaces, such as streets and landscaping. The tax requires a vote by residents, per the terms of Proposition 218. The council’s task was to consider allowing the vote on the tax increase to take place, not the increase itself.
Sean Smith, a supervising engineer, made the presentation, with Mike Harrison, city engineer, commenting occasionally. Smith explained what would happen if the council agreed to allow the vote to proceed and what would happen if they denied it. Smith also explained what would happen to the neighborhood if voters then said “no” in their election, a vote which would consider an increase in Area 1’s annual assessment, which pays for road repairs, common landscaping, and the like.
A lengthy discussion among council members ensued. Bessinger asked why the neighborhood was divided into 2 areas, each with different budgets. The reply was that they were developed at different times. It was noted that public funds are not permitted for road repair, etc., because residents chose this type of property management system. The engineering report covered Areas 1 and 2, but only Area 1 is affected because the budget for Area 2 is secure, and Area 1 needs more funds to cover necessary repairs.
Mouanoutoua was concerned that the public perception was that the city was raising fees. He asked staff “how do we make it where” [sic] property owners initiate the process. Mike Harrison said that his department presents information regarding cost increases to residents and hopes for a consensus. Ashbeck remarked that the “tricky part” is that there is no mechanism for residents to organize. Smith pointed out that the voices of residents in a Beneficial Assessment District, in contrast to an HOA, are heard via the votes per the terms of Proposition 218.
When public comment was opened on the matter, Sam Reed, a resident of the affected area began by saying that “we love our neighborhood” and denied having “animosity” toward the council. He described the unilateral removal of shrubbery and trees by another resident. Though the city replaced the vegetation with “drought-tolerant” rocks, the cost of water has gone up dramatically. “What is being watered?” Reed asked. Then he pointed out that the square footage of landscape being maintained with their assessment funds increases “arbitrarily”—the first assessment was for 500 square feet, and now it was 3,700 square feet — why? These discrepancies were “why we’re upset,” he said, adding that they created “trust issues.”
Ashbeck assured Reed that “we don’t hear animosity” and that “we hear good questions.” She asked for a show of hands among members of the public who were present to indicate how many people from the neighborhood were there. For remote attendees, the livestream showed no view of the audience.
Mouanoutoua was still confused. He wanted to know who was managing the property. Smith said that a management company called Regency was engaged for most matters, but for larger projects, the city collaborates with them.
Harrison responded to Sam Reed and said that the discrepancy in square footage of landscape maintenance was because of corrections to the original plan and that changes were not arbitrary.
Another member of the public, Paul Hsiao, also a resident of the neighborhood in question, said that the Regency management company needed a “performance review,” and that not since the first meeting with them had they brought donuts to share.
Mouanoutoua made more comments: “When we assess fees, it has to be clear.” He said that trust had not been established, despite the staff’s careful presentation which described the process in detail. He felt there was a “divide” between residents of Blackhorse Estates and the city.
Ashbeck said that if the decision by the council was affirmative to permit the Area 1 vote, there would be 45 days in which to hold a neighborhood workshop, since on May 3, city staff was to mail ballots to all owners of the assessment district, and ballots will be counted on June 19. The current annual assessment for Area 1 is $647; the proposed increase is $219. Someone spoke from the audience, and Ashbeck replied, “I don’t think that’s right,” but the speaker’s words were unintelligible.
Mouanoutoua said that “even if we vote yes, they can still vote no” to the increase. Nevertheless, Mouanoutoua voted “no.”
Agenda Item 15 The council voted 4-1 to deny residents the right to keep backyard chickens. Mouanoutoua was the “no” vote.
The agenda item was phrased to encourage denial: “Consider denying a request to allow backyard chickens in the city of Clovis.” So the council had to vote “yes” to deny the proposal.
A presentation by George Rodriguez, manager of police services, and his colleague, Erin Ford-Horio, an animal services supervisor, gave a thorough presentation about the inadvisability of permitting chickens to be kept by city residents. They began with a timeline, and noted that the first proposal for allowing backyard chickens was made in May 2020, followed by two further presentations in June and July 2020. Then in April 2021 the subject was dismissed following concerns about problems in Bakersfield, including an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and litigation regarding a backyard chicken ordinance passed and then rescinded there. The current agenda item came from a citizen request.
Rodriguez pointed out that current municipal code allows for families of children enrolled in programs such as 4H or FFA to keep chickens. He also showed a slide detailing the numbers of service calls (close to 5,000 annually) to the animal response team, the types of animals involved and the limited staff to manage all these calls. The current number of calls about chickens is 37 annually. They pointed out that the current animal-receiving center is inadequate for handling chickens and that in general, resources are lacking to address issues that may develop if residents keep chickens — few staff members at care facilities, a small number of people to handle calls and a low capacity to house stray or abandoned animals. A new facility would be needed, risk of disease would increase, euthanasia would increase and police resources would be strained, he said.
Discussion followed among council members, and members of the public were present to comment. Mouanoutoua complained that the agenda packet contained only two pages about this item. He added that “we owe it to the public so they can go, ‘How about fees?’ ” What was his point? It was unclear. He asked Rodriguez about potential costs for upgrading facilities, but the reply was that no such research had been done.
Pearce wanted to know what had happened in Bakersfield. Cross, city attorney, said that in 2021 after the city approved the ordinance, some citizens threatened to sue over an EIR, so the ordinance was rescinded. Basgall asked Cross if an EIR was subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Cross said “maybe,” because there were considerations such as odor, disease and predators. He could “look into” it, he said. Mouanoutoua then asked, despite the subject just having been mentioned, if “health and disease” were concerns. He also asked if the costs of resources outweighed the benefits of keeping chickens, to which Rodriguez replied “not sure.” Ashbeck again asked for a “show of hands” after which she noted that opinions were “equal.”
Public comment was opened on the matter, and David Meyer was present to make the case for permitting residents to keep chickens. He shared copies of ordinances for other cities such as Antioch and Anaheim and noted that many additional cities in California allow chickens. “They make it work; why can’t we?” he asked. A total ban on chickens would further erode the “Clovis way of life,” he said, as more farms are paved over. He was willing to make compromises, such as require that people who want chickens get the permission of neighbors on adjoining properties. Ashbeck thanked him for his willingness to compromise.
Angela Bates of Clovis said that, regarding the 37 calls about chickens, Rodriguez and Ford-Horio had no documentation to provide details. She also called chickens a chance for the state to generate revenue; it could be “like marijuana,” once illegal but now money generating. Chickens are an “entry animal” for 4H, repeating that it was “just like marijuana,” and that theme became a running joke about “gateway chickens. “We are Clovis,” she said; “have some faith in us.” She concluded that “irresponsible dog and cat owners” have made it difficult for residents to keep chickens. Mouanoutou was observed to be absent from his chair after a coughing fit.
Julie Kutka of Clovis said that she agreed with city staff and that “dogs will kill chickens.” She didn’t want to “pull a chicken out of her dog’s mouth.”
An online commenter named Patrick Scherer said that he was in favor of chickens as pets.
Ashbeck noted that several written comments in support of permitting chickens had been received. She told Meyer she’d let him have the last word. He suggested letting neighbors vote and imposing restrictions on coop size, adding that keeping chickens could “get kids off phones.”
Bessinger remarked that when he moved to Clovis in 1984, there were sheep, horses and cows in the city limits but that “times have changed.” He would be voting against keeping chickens because of concern about the drain on animal services staff. Basgall said he was sympathetic but also concerned about staffing, health and the cost of an EIR. Pearce, enunciating slowly and with volume, said that she “commended” those in support of compromise but that public safety and the burden on police staff “at this time” inclined her to vote for the denial.
Mouanoutoua was back and said that “we don’t have enough information” and that he liked the idea of neighbor approval, so “I’m in support.” Ashbeck apologized for making flippant comments about the subject in the past and said that “at the end of the day” she was concerned that not everybody would take good care of their chickens; she pictured neighbors arguing over questions of keeping chicken coops. “Could we ever have a city farm?” she wondered, noting that in Clovis there was Miss Winkles Pet Adoption Center and the Fresno Wildlife Rehabilitation Service, but given the state of the police staffing, she would have to vote for the denial. The matter could be “revisited someday,” she added. She thanked Meyer for being “reasonable and calm.”
Agenda Item 16 The council voted 5-0 to renew its policy regarding the Police Department’s acquisition and use of military equipment, as required per the terms of AB481, which requires an annual submission of a detailed report on the equipment, made to the City Council. A presentation was made by police Chief Curt Fleming and Lt. Craig Aranas. The report “contains a comprehensive list of each type of equipment owned by the city and all required information in accordance with government code section 7072. Future acquisition of any equipment deemed to be ‘military equipment’ will comply with applicable funding and procurement requirements.”
Aranas remarked that “the mere possession of the equipment doesn’t warrant its use.” He talked about “threats to the Clovis way of life” and suggested that the military equipment would help preserve it, though he didn’t mention any specific situation that could require it. He added that “low use” of the equipment “doesn’t dismiss the need for it” and that its use was not a matter of “if, but when.”
The report submitted by the department details the military equipment now held by them; it includes a Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle, known as a “tank.” At the Citizens Advisory Committee regarding police staffing last year, it was noted that the vehicle had been donated to the department and that there was no one on staff who was qualified to operate it.
The police want to acquire the following in 2023, which would be paid for from the general fund:
- Ammunition
- Explosive breaching equipment
- Chemical agents
- Specialty munitions
- Diversionary devices
- Pepper ball munitions
- Specialty impact munitions
Council members complained about the law requiring the report, and Bessinger said that it made the job of the police “harder.” Another remark was that when the legislation passed, no one accounted for “all the time it took” to put the report together. Pearce chimed in and said that “they knew exactly what they were doing,” suggesting that the state Legislature had spiteful intent in requiring the report. Mouanoutoua said that “a lot of this is of no use.”
Aranas repeated that the military equipment was “important to maintain the Clovis way of life.” And in response to a question from Mouanoutoua, Aranas said that having the equipment is a recruitment “advantage.”
Ashbeck said that the report had an “insidious impact on public safety” because she “can’t find a reason why we tell you what we have to use against you.” Another remark was that “those opposed to law enforcement” will have what they need, presumably meaning the information in the report.
Bessinger talked about the “militarization of Mayberry,” referring to the 1960s sitcom about a rural police department. Then he said that sheep dogs scare sheep because they look like wolves. It’s “reality” that law enforcement personnel look “scary,” he said.
There was no public comment on the matter.
Agenda Item 17 The council voted unanimously to “wipe the slate clean” (per the words of Cross) regarding a previously denied proposal for a 12-unit market-rate apartment building, on land located on the north side of Alluvial Avenue, between Sunnyside and Fordham. Though a new proposed building design was presented (Ashbeck had criticized the original design as “not welcoming”), only the denial was vacated, the change to the general plan approved (from low- to medium-high density), and the re-zone (from single-family to multi-family) was approved — plans for a specific building project were not decided.
A long discussion took place after a presentation by planning department staff member Lily Cha, who was joined by city planner Dave Merchen. Cha presented some of the issues that had been raised at the March 6 meeting, such as traffic concerns, and presented possible solutions.
The issue of SB9 came up, a late 2021 law which streamlines the process for property owners to build a duplex or fourplex housing on formerly single-family lots. Could the property in question be divided into one of these configurations, instead of the proposed 12-unit apartment building?
Members of the public spoke: Linda Alvord, who lives in the neighborhood, was fearful that from the balconies of the proposed construction, people could see into her backyard where her grandchildren played. She was also fearful on behalf of a neighbor “of Asian descent” who was too shy to speak up herself. She referred to a “media circus” about the news report on the council’s denial to approve the construction of the originally proposed 12-unit apartment building. Ashbeck said that the developers were “not nefarious” and asked if they were present. Dan Zack, Stallion Development and Construction’s representative, was present to say a few words and speak briefly to concerns.
Another neighbor, Mark Deshayes, said that the proposed building “doesn’t fit, it’s impractical,” and he doubted the results of the traffic study. He preferred that two “fine houses” be built on the lot. He said that the project had “nothing to do with SB9” nor did it have anything to do with “diversity or affordable housing.”
Darin Alvord, husband of Linda, said that the planning was “bad” and that the project was like a “malignancy.”
More comments from council members followed. Pearce asked if the project is denied, does “lot splitting” apply (presumably she meant per terms of SB9). Cross replied that any parcel in California could be a lot split. Pearce asked how many units could the land owner legally build per SB9? Dave Merchen replied 12.
Discussion will continue about what will actually be built on the parcel.
City Manager Comments John Holt asked Clerk Karey Cha to describe the recent Founders’ Day event, which she had organized. Participating were 200 third graders who learned about Clovis history and city government, she said. The children participated in projects such as writing in response to prompts about various aspects of living in Clovis, and the hope is to compile their compositions into a children’s book, said Cha.
Council Comments
Basgall said he attended a water board meeting, and there were jokes about waterboarding, a form of torture. The same jokes have been made at previous meetings.
Pearce had a “fantastic time” at the Clovis rodeo, and she said she will “fight tooth and nail” to keep it, despite it being what she called a “throwback.”
Bessinger said that his granddaughter participated in a rodeo event in which sheep are involved, and he was “proud.”
Mouanoutoua attended COG meetings, Arbor Day events, Founders’ Day and a youth housing summit. Without elaborating, he said the rodeo should be kept because it’s a tradition. He then began talking about “signs on the freeway” and said that there were no signs on the freeway exits. He supported making freeway signs brown, to distinguish them from Fresno’s green street signs. Ashbeck said, “I’m not following you.” His meaning was unclear.
Ashbeck said that during the Fresno County Transportation Authority April meeting it was decided that about $21 million would be returned to the grade-separation fund from the high-speed rail project since the county was not selected for a maintenance facility. She also said that results from a poll about why the latest vote on Measure C failed were delayed.
The public portion of the meeting ended at 9:45 p.m. Cross said that after the closed session, there could be action to report, but for remote attendees, the Webex live stream was terminated. The one item on the closed-session agenda concerned the recent appeal that was lost by the city of Clovis regarding Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis, et al., Case No. F082914. The case was about the city’s failure to plan for adequate affordable housing.
If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at fresnodocs@fresnoland.org with “Correction Request” in the subject line.
