Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 2001-01-16 18 City Council, Regular Meeting Civic Center Council Chambers 777 Cypress Avenue Redding, California January 16,2001 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Tyler Leasing of Cub Scout Pack 113. The Invocation was offered by Pastor Jim Jarret, Calvary Chapel. I The meeting was called to order by Mayor McGeorge with the following Council Members present: Cibula, Kight, Pohlmeyer, and Stegall. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, Deputy City Manager Starman, Administrative Services Director Bachman, City Attorney Wingate, Development Services Director Hamilton, Assistant City Attorney Tranberg, Support Services Director Kersten, Community Services Director Niemer, Electric Utility Director Feider, Electric Program Supervisor Keener, Chief of Police Blankenship, City Engineer Goodwin, Finance Officer Strong, City Treasurer Clark, Senior Planner Manuel, Senior Planner Keaney, Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinator Morgon, Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinator Thompson, Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinator Haddox, Associate Redevelopment Project Coordinator Dent, City Clerk Strohmayer, Assistant City Clerk Sherman, and Office Services Supervisor Rudolph. CONSENT CALENDAR The following matters were considered inclusively under the Consent Calendar: Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of December 12, 2000, and Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 4,2001. Approval of Payroll and Accounts Payable Register (A-050-100-500) It is recommended that Accounts Payable Register No. 13, check numbers 285239 through 285543 inclusive, in the amount of$2,808,921.32, for the period of January 2, 2001, through January 11,2001, be approved and paid, and Payroll Register No. 14, check numbers 477600 through 477914 and electronic deposit transaction numbers 85708 through 86298 inclusive, in the amount of$l ,622,241.80, both for the period of December 24, 2000, through January 6,2001, be approved. TOTAL: $4,431,163.12. I Modification of Down payment Assistance Program - Increase Maximum Purchase Price (R-030-100-040) It is recommended that the maximum purchase price for the HOME-funded Down payment Assistance Program and Home ownership Assistance Program be increased from $95,000 to $123,000. Resolution - Approving Lease Extension for the Stairs and Walkway Bridge to the Second Floor of the Parlay Building in the Downtown Mall (C-070-100, R-030-060, & M-010-200) It is recommended that Resolution No. 2001-9 be adopted, a resolution ofthe City Council of the City of Redding approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign a Lease Extension Agreement for the lease of the stairs and walkway bridge to the second floor of the Downtown Mall entered into between the City of Redding and the Redding Redevelopment Agency as Lessor and Parlay Investments, Inc. as Lessee, thereby extending said term to May 31,2005. I Surrender of Leasehold for Earlv Termination of Lease Agreement with Jack Stringer for Portion of Evergreen Building at Redding Municipal Airport (C-070-100 & A-090-100) It is recommended that the Surrender of Leasehold with Jack Stringer for the Evergreen Building be approved. 01/1612001 19 Authorization for Services Contract and First Amendment with Shutt Moen Associates - Airport Engineering and Consulting Services at Redding Municipal Airport (A-090-100) It is recommended that the Authorization for Services Contract with Shutt Moen Associates in the estimated amount of $600,100 for engineering services at the Redding Municipal Airport be approved. It is further recommended that the First Amendment to the Engineering and Consulting Services Agreement with Shutt Moen Associates be approved, thereby requiring Professional Liability Insurance. I Resolution - Filing of Grant Application with the Federal Aviation Administration for Capital Improvements at Redding Municipal Airport (G-100-070-095 & A-090-100) It is recommended that Resolution No. 2001-10 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding authorizing the filing of a Federal Grant Application, in the amount of$4,515,902, for Entitlement and Discretionary Airport Improvement Program (AlP) Grant monies to accomplish capital projects at the Redding Municipal Airport and authorizing the City. Manager to execute the Application and all subsequent document to obtain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant monies and matching funds. Resolution - Application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for State Park and Playground Accessibility and Recycling Grant Program Proposition 12 Funds to Replace Playground Equipment at Cascade Park (G-1QO-170 & P-050-128) It is recommended that Resolution No. 2001-11 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding authorizing appllcation to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for funds totaling $12,89.0 under the Park Playground Accessibility and Recycling Grant Program to replace playground equipment at Cascade Park. I Contract - Planergy International for Energy Efficiency Upgrades to the Redding Police Department and Fire Stations 1 through 7 (E-090-100) It is recommended that the City Council approve the contract with Planergy International to conduct energy-efficiency improvements at the Redding Police Department and Fire Stations 1 through 7 in an amount not-to-exceed $163,068, utilizing funds available under the existing low-interest loan from the California Energy Commission. Resolution - Grant Application under the Shasta County Health Improvement Partnership Program to Continue the Martin Luther King, Jr. Healthier Neighborhood Program; and Agreement - County of Shasta for CommunitylNeighborhood Development Activities (G-I00 & C-050-400) It is recommended that Resolution No. 2001-12 be adopted, a resolution ofthe City Council of the City of Redding requesting funds from the Community Grants Program in the amount of $50,000 to implement programs aimed at the prevention of substance abuse and family violence in the Martin Luther King Neighborhood. It is further recommended that the Agreement between the County of Shasta and the City of Redding acting as fiscal agent for the Martin Luther King Jr. Board of Directors for community/neighborhood development activities be approved. I Grant Application - Office of Traffic Safety for Public Safety Education Materials (G-1 00-170-700 & P-150-070) It is recommended that the.City Council approve a Grant Application to the Office of Traffic Safety in the amount of $5,000 for public safety education materials. Lease Extension - Parlay Investments, Inc. for the Redding Police Investigation Division in the Downtown Mall (A-070-075 & A-050-270) It is recommended that the Lease Extension between the City of Redding and Parlay Investments, Inc. be approved, thereby extending the term of said lease to May 31, 2005 at the rates set forth. 01/16/2001 20 Grant Application - Office of Traffic Safety for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Enforcement Program (G-l 00-170-700 & P-150-150) It is recommended that the City Council approve the submission of a Grant Application to the Office of Traffic Safety in the amount of $190,000 for the Driving Under the Influence Enforcement Program. Contract - Managed Benefit Administrators for Group Health Insurance (P-I00-150) It is recommended that the contract with Managed Benefit Administrators be extended an additional year at a service fee of$14.50 per employee per month effective February 1,2001. I Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2000 (F-205-150-075) It is recommended that the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 2000. Resolution Accepting Streets and Acceptance of Final Map and Improvements - Mary Lake Subdivision, Unit 13, Phase 2 (S-100-454 & S-070-230) It is recommended that Resolution No. 2001-13 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding accepting for maintenance and operation Brinn Drive and Quinton Drive in Unit 13, Phase 2 of the Mary Lake Subdivision. It is also recommended that the improvements in Mary Lake Subdivision, Unit 13, Phase 2, developed by Mary Lake Development Company, be accepted as satisfactorily completed and the City Clerk be instructed to file the Map with the Shasta County Recorder. Acceptance of Traffic Signal and Resolution Appropriating Funds (L-OI0-390, T-080-700, & B-130-070) It is recommended that the traffic signal on Chum Creek Road at College View Drive be accepted as satisfactorily completed in accordance with Use Permit Application UP-37-98 and accepted for maintenance, and the City Clerk be instructed to file aN otice of Completion I It is further recommended that Resolution No. 2001-14 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 68th amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 99-93 appropriating $403,400 for reimbursement of costs of a traffic signal and street improvement's for fiscal year 2000-01 and authorize final payment to Catholic Healthcare West North State in accordance with the Owners Participation Agreement. MOTION: Made by Council Member Pohlmeyer, seconded by Council Member Stegall, that all the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar are approved and adopted, as recommended. V oting was as follows: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Cibula, Kight, Pohlmeyer, Stegall, and McGeorge Council Members - None Council Members - None Council Members - None Resolution Nos. 2001-9, 2001-10, 2001-11,2001-12, 2001-13, and 2001-14 are on file in the office of the City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING - Extension of the Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance (L-O 1 0-500) The hour of7 :00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor McGeorge opened the public hearing regarding the extension of the urgency interim zoning ordinance. I The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: 1. Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests had been received. 01/16/2001 21 Development Services Director Hamilton recalled that the City Council, at its regular meeting on December 5,2000, adopted, on an urgency basis, an interim zoning ordinance. The ordinance was adopted to bridge the gap between the new General Plan and the City's Zoning Code to ensure that they were consistent as required by State law. He noted that the interim ordinance was effective for an initial period of 45 days as stipulated by the Government Code. Prior to the end of the 45-day period, the ordinance would need to be extended if it were to remain in effect. I Mr. Hamilton related that the purpose of the public hearing was to extend the ordinance. as provided for in Government Code Section 65858 which permitted an initial extension of the ordinance until December 1, 2001. Following the public hearing, it was recommended that the City Council extend the interim ordinance until December 1, 2001. Mayor McGeorge determined that there was no one present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kight, seconded by Council Member Stegall, that Urgency Ordinance No. 2281 be adopted, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding, extending interim zoning provisions to ensure that physical development in the City occurs in conformity with the General Plan. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Cibula, Kight, Pohlmeyer, Stegall, and McGeorge Council Members - None Council Members - None Council Members - None Ordinance No. 2281 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. I PUBLIC HEARING - Adoption of the proposed Downtown Redding Specific Plan and Negative Declaration (R-030-145 & G-030) Council Member Cibula abstained from discussion and voting on this matter. The hour of7 :00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor McGeorge opened the public hearing regarding the adoption of the proposed Downtown Redding Specific Plan and Negative Declaration. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: 1. Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing 2. Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing It was noted that public comm"ents were received and discussed in the Report to City Council dated January 9, 2001. I City Manager Warren recalled that the City and the Redding Redevelopment Agency had been working on the preparation of the Downtown Redding Specific Plan for the last two years. He viewed this Plan as an important part of the community, as the Downtown was often viewed as the window into a community. He noted that the Plan met all of the State's planning requirements, and had a number of policies geared toward enhancing the Downtown through improved pedestrian orientation, physical appearance, and stimulated investment by the private sector. He stated that some people might wonder why the City was proceeding with a Plan which had a total cost of$35 million. He indicated, however, that there were a number of projects which could be completed fairly quickly, i.e., relocating the Greyhound bus station to the intermodal facility. In addition, the City had been working with the various Downtown organizations to create one Main Street Organization. He cited the following projects which were forthcoming in the upcoming months, i.e., the Yuba Street Streetscape Project, lighting improvements to the Mall parking structure, and traffic circulation improvements being completed in conjunction with Caltrans. 01/16/2001 22 Mr. Warren explained the importance of having a Plan in place which provided a vision and blueprint for Downtown. He noted that was necessary to have a Plan in place when applying for grant funding. He recommended that the City Council adopt the Plan as presented, thereby allowing staff to move forward with the improvements and seek additional funding for the upcoming years to implement the Plan. . Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinator Morgon thanked the following organizations for the~r involvement in the development of the Plan: Mark Brodeur, Urban Design Studios; DC?wntown Review Committee Members; the Downtown Redding Business Association; Renaissance Redding; Viva Downtown; and the Midtown Mall Benefit Corporation. Mr. Morgon pointed out the following key differences between the Draft Plan and the Final Plan as presented in the Report to City Council dated January 9,2001, incorporated herein by reference: (1) cost to implement the Plan; (2) funding sources; (3) development standards; (4) building design guidelines; (5) market analysis; (6) housing strategy; and (7) circulation and parking. I Mr. Morgon related that public comments were received on the Plan and Negative Declaration and were addressed in the Report to City Council. He explained that staff was in agreement with the written comments received to permit medical office in the central core of Downtown. He stated that the errata page contained technical corrections to the Plan which, if adopted, would be incorporated into the document for final printing. Mr. Morgon pointed out that when adopting the Plan, the City Council would also be creating three new zoning districts in Downtown. . It was the recommendation of staff following the conclusion of the public hearing that the necessary ordinance be offered for first reading adopting the Downtown Specific Plan and Negative Declaration, the first reading be waived, and the City Attorney instructeci to read the full title. It was further recommended that the City Council approve the text vhanges outlined in Attachment C and be staff authorized to proceed with the work tasks idmtified in Attachment D. Mark Brodeur, Urban Design Studios, congratulated the community on its foresight and vision in helping to develop the Plan. He explained that the Plan was based on the Main Street Organization's approach, the only proven revitalization approach in the United States. The Plan represented a vision for the future of Downtown and established the basis for private and public investment. I Mr. Brodeur thanked the residents of the community who contributed to the Plan, as well as the members of his consulting team, particularly Les Melburg, Nichols, Melburg & Rossetto; Tom Feaney, Pacific Group; Loren Associates, and Larry Morgon. Mr. Brodeur made a PowerPoint Presentation, incorporated herein by reference, which discussed the following: 1) The Components of the Specific Plan 2) Companion Documents; 3) Vision 4) Introduction to the Specific Plan; 5) Purpose ofthe Specific Plan; 6) Specific Plan Area 7) Public Input; 8) Redding Mall Disposition; 9) Mall Revitalization Concepts - Three Alternatives, Preferred Alternative, Square Footage Breakdown, Beginning Considerations, Mid-term Considerations, End-term Considerations, Probable Opinion of Costs for Redding Mall; 10) Development Standards; 11) Special Use Regulations; 12) Incentive Bonuses; 13) Design Guidelines; 14) Wayfinding System; 15) Primary Funding Sources; and 16) 20 Secondary Sources I Tony King, 1509 California Street, stated that he represented the 78 senior citizens residing in the Lorenz Hotel. He indicated that out of the 78 residents, 20 owned vehicles and 12 were disabled. He pointed out that the Plan did not provide for parking in front of the Lorenz Hotel. He noted that many of these residents were on fixed income, and he questioned where the residents were supposed to park, especially during such events as MarketFest. He stated that parking at the Downtown parking structure was difficult for many as they were unable to walk the distance. 01/16/2001 23 Mari Carr Fitzgerald complimented the City Council and staff for providing the community with such new features as the Diestelhorst Bridge, the Market Street demonstration block, and the new Civic Center. She was pleased that the Plan discussed the issue of the railroad tracks in Downtown. She urged the City Council that if it was trying to improve the area, an overpass or underpass needed to be constructed to relieve traffic congestion and unsafe conditions which currently existed in the Downtown area. Mayor McGeorge related that an overpass had been on the City's "wish list" for a considerable time, and staff was currently looking at it. I Kathy Jenkins, 2377 Walton A venue, Shasta Lake City, representing Reriaissance Redding, recalled that one of the primary reasons for the formation of Renaissance Redding in 1995 was the revitalization of Downtown. She conveyed that Renaissance Redding strongly supported the adoption of the Plan. She related that Renaissance Redding had raised in excess of $88,000 for the Downtown, which assisted with such projects as Library Park, Carnegie Stage, street banners, Cascade Theater renovation project, and lights in the trees on the Market Street Demonstration Block. She indicated that Renaissance Redding also supported the library remaining in the Downtown, as it provided an anchor and assured other activities in the Downtown besides 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. retail hours. She urged the City Council to adopt the Plan and continue its support through investment in the Downtown. Kathleen Gasman, 31 0 Weldon Street, stressed that a second way in and out of the Downtown area needed to be addressed, either with a railroad undercrossingO or overcrossing. She requested that the City Council give careful consideration to the safety of the citizens. Richard Rojo, 565 Shoemaker Court, representing Viva Downtown, noted that Viva Downtown was very involved in Downtown through MarketFest and the Art-Around- Town Program. He expressed appreciation to the City Council and staff for their hard work on the Plan. He recognized the investment the Plan required and the need for private investment. On behalf of Viva Downtown, he voiced support for the Plan. I Mayor McGeorge thanked the various organizations for their work Downtown. Les Melburg, Nichols, Melburg & Rossetto, pointed out that one of the Plan's main focuses was to encourage revitalization in Downtown. He stated that he had been retained to design a project in Downtown and unveiled a rendering for "The City Center Plaza." He stressed that one of the critical components for the project proceeding was the City following through on its commitment to Downtown. Don Meaney, 4082 Cheryl Drive, pointed out that one of the problems associated with the Downtown mall was the number of smaller lots. He suggested offering developers an incentive for buying several smaller lots and combining them, thereby providing more substantial buildings. He too did not understand why a limitation should be placed on medical facilities in Downtown. He beli~ved that when a general improvement was seen in o Downtown, activity would increase. He related that one possible central user for the Downtown Mall would be for a college learning center. He favored leaving the roof on M~ll and establishing a minimum lot size for the Downtown, while encouraging larger multi -story buildings. Cathy Murray, 8820 Simmons Road, opined that diversity in small numbers would bring traffic and revenue back into the Downtown area. I Janice Powell, 368 Hamilton Street, expressed concern relative to the public participation process used in the development of the Plan. She did not envision businesses relocating to Downtown with the current traffic situation unless something was done relative to the railroad crossing. She pointed out that the parking was poor in Downtown and that there was only one traffic person who patrolled the Downtown during the week. She pointed out that many events, such as MarketFest, encourage the consumption of alcohol and questioned the merits of this activity. She encouraged the City Council to address such issues as a new library and an overpass in Downtown before proceeding with the removal of the Mall roof. 01/16/2001 24 Dave Johnson, 1639 Derby Lane, recalled his excitement when Enterprise was annexed into the City. He pointed out, however, that the area still did not have such things as curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. He indicated that for the last ten years, he did not consider the Downtown Mall as the heart of Redding, but from a business and purchasing standpoint, it was across the Sacramento River. He favored leaving the Mall the way it currently existed and utilizing the space for governmental offices. He suggested that the City Council develop a plan for the entire City and prioritize projects accordingly before proceeding with such things as the removal of the Mall roof. Mayor McGeorge determined that there was no one else present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. I Mr. Warren explained that funding sources would be derived from tax increment and housing set-aside funds from the Market Street Redevelopment Project and could only be spent in this project area. Relative to an overpass, he stated that staff was attempting to obtain funding for such a project and suggested that interested parties contact the City Manager's office, as well as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, to voice their support for the project. Mr. Morgon explained the extensive public participation process that went into the Plan's development. He pointed out that one of the complaints from the community and Downtown business owners was indeed the fact that the Downtown was not viewed as the heart of the community, and. the Plan was the first step in making that a reality. Council Member Stegall related that the Downtown used to be considered the heart of Redding and that concept needed resuscitation. With regard to the Mall, she viewed the only way to change the Mall was to take the roof off. She voiced support for the Plan and was anxious to see the Downtown become what she envisioned. In response to Council Member Pohlmeyer, Mr. Morgon explained that the involvement of the property owners and tenants in the Mall had been through Michele Goedert, Midtown Mall Benefit Corporation. In addition, some property owners have approached the City, as well as through information obtained from the Downtown Redding Business Association. He believed that the majority ofthe large property owners supported a change in the Mall. Many of the smaller property owners viewed this as a time for transition and may ultimately sell their land and relocate. He indicated that the next step in the process would be to begin the design process for the Mall's renovation, and staff would ensure that the Mall business and property owners were involved in the process. I Council Member Kight complimented staff on the comprehensive plan. He believed the Plan's development was very open and received considerable input from the community. He stressed that the community needed to recognize that the Plan's implementation would be a lengthy process and would require considerable private investment. He viewed the Plan as a planning tool which would be utilized by parties looking to invest in Downtown and provided a direction for how the Downtown was ultimately envisioned for development. Mayor McGeorge concurred with Council Member Kight's comments. Council Member Stegall offered Ordinance No. 2282 for first reading, an ordinance ofthe City Council of the City of Redding adopting the Downtown Redding Specific Plan and Negative Declaration. MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Kight, that the first reading of Ordinance No. 2282 be waived and the City Attorney instructed to read it by title only. Voting was as follows: I Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Kight, Pohlmeyer, Stegall, and McGeorge Council Members - None Council Members - None Council Members - Cibula 01/16/2001 25 MOTION: Made by Council Member Kight, seconded by Council Member Pohlmeyer, to approve the text changes outlined in Attachment "C" of the Report to City Council, and authorize staff to proceed with the work tasks identified in Attachment "D" of the Report to City Council. V oting was as follows: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Kight, Pohlmeyer, Stegall, and McGeorge Council Members - None Council Members - None Council Members - Cibula I At the hour of8:37 p.m., Mayor McGeorge recessed the meeting. At the hour of 8:43 p.m., Mayor McGeorge reconvened the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal of Turtle Bay Use Permit Up-20-94 Amendment, by Duncan Cunningham, Timothy Morrow, And Redding Citizens to Preserve The Sacramento River (L-OI0-390 & C-070-250-250) The hour of7 :00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor McGeorge opened the public hearing regarding the appeal of Turtle Bay Use Permit UP-20-94 Amendment, by Duncan Cunningham, Timothy Morrow, and Redding Citizens to Preserve the Sacramento River. The following documents"are on file in the office of the City Clerk: 1. Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing 2. Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing 3. Report to City Council dated January 5, 2001 4. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment for Turtle Bay Park & Museum dated February 1995 5. Traffic Impact Analysis dated September 28, 1994, and Addendum of the Traffic Impact Analysis dated February 29,2000 I Development Services Director Hamilton explained that Associate Planner Terri Thesken would be making staffs presentation regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision relative to the Amendment to Use Permit UP-20-94. Associate Planner Thesken stated that this was a public hearing to hear the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of December 12, 2000, approving an Amendment to Use Permit UP-20-94 by the Alliance of Redding Museums. The Use Permit Amendment was to construct Phase 2 of the Turtle Bay Park and Museum complex, located at 800 Auditorium" Drive. The appeal was filed by Duncan Cunningham, Timothy Morrow, and Redding Citizens to Preserve the Sacramento River. Ms. Thesken explained that Phase 1 of Turtle Bay was originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1995, and included what exists today as the Paul Bunyan Museum; a 162- space parking lot; partial grading for the future main museum hall; utility extensions; and an entry plaza. Also in March 1995, the Planning Commission held a separate public hearing in which they confirmed the conformance ofthe Turtle Bay Master Plan (including the main museum hall and grading) with the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan. I Ms. Thesken related that Phase 2, which is the subject of the Use Permit Amendment request, would include: a 35,000-square-foot, two-story main museum hall, for which partial grading of a construction pad was already approved by the Planning Commission in 1995; the 7, 700-square- foot South Gateway Visitors Center; and other amenities such as landscape, trails, a boardwalk, improvements to the monolith, access roads, and water features. She stated that the Amendment to the Use Permit was also for encroachment of the main museum hall building into the 100-year floodplain of the Sacramento River. Ms. Thesken noted that the environmental document approved by the Planning Commission in 1995 for the original Use Permit considered the entire Master Plan for Turtle Bay and was a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Since 1995, the Alliance of Redding Museums has significantly revised the scope of its Master Plan, reducing its attendance projections by 56 percent, and reducing the entire square footage of its total number of buildings by half. In doing so, the environmental impacts evaluated under the 1995 document have been reduced, and there are no new significant impacts that have not already been addressed with the 1995 01116/2001 26 environmental documents. As a result, staff has prepared an Addendum to the 1995 Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is in the Planning Commission packet attached to the City Council report. The Addendum discusses the revised impact analysis to the 1995 document and the findings required by the City to prepare an Addendum. Ms. Thesken indicated that the Addendum contains mitigation measures approved for the entire Master Plan, with minor modifications required to address the Amendment to Use Permit UP-20-94. Ms. Thesken pointed out that these revisions included provisions for compliance with the City's floodplain ordinance, in which documentation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the encroachment into the 100-year floodplain of the Sacramento River was required prior to issuance of a building permit for the main museum hall. Attached to the City Council report was the applicant's consultant hydrologist's letter report and the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) which was recently approved by FEMA. The Conditional Letter of Map Revision indicated that the construction of a portion of main museum hall in the 100-year floodplain (backwater area off the main channel) of the Sacramento River would not raise the flood levels of the River either upstream or downstream. I Ms. Thesken stated that another issue with the Use Permit and environmental documents was related to the traffic generation and the establishment of a pro-rata share of the Museum's contribution to traffic impact improvements at the Highway 299 off ramps to Auditorium Drive. Ms. Thesken related that on page 5 of the Planning Commission's report attached to the City Council packet are the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings for the environmental documents which were an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a revised Mitigation Monitoring Program. Also on page 5 are the Use Permit Amendment findings that the Planning Commission had to make in order to approve the project. On December 12,2000, Planning staff recommended that the Planning Commission determine that the findings were in evidence and adopt the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the revised Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff also recommended that the Amendment to Use Permit UP-20-94, subject to the conditions of approval in the Planning Commission packet, and with the resolution attached to the report, be approved. The Planning Commission adopted the environmental documents and approved the amendment to the use permit on December 12,2000. I Ms. Thesken explained that Planning Commission approval items which were appealed and addressed individually in the City Council staff report pertained to: (1) approval of a Use Permit while the project was involved in a lawsuit; (2) conformance of the Use Permit with the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan; (3) environmental documentation which was prepared for the project; (4) conformance with the City's floodplain ordinance; (5) traffic data; and (6) miscellaneous project items including water features, stormdrain treatment, and various exhibits associated with the museum. Each one of the appeal items was addressed in the City Council report, and staff is prepared to respond to questions about them. It is staffs recommendation that the City Council find that there is no basis for the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and that the City Council deny the appeal of Use Permit UP-20-94 Amendment and uphold the Planning Commission's decision of December 12, 2000. This action would leave in place the Use Permit Amendment approval and adoption ofthe Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the revised Mitigation Monitoring Program. Ms. Thesken pointed out for the record that attached to the City Council packet and thus a part of the record are the following: the Planning Commission report and minutes from the March 28, 1995, Planning Commission meeting dealing with conformance of the project with the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan, environmental review, and land use issues; and the Conditional Letter of Map Revision, which has recently been approved by FEMA, and supporting hydraulic data prepared by Norman Braithwaite, a hydrologist/consultant to Turtle Bay. I Ms. Thesken indicated that also part of the record and available to the City Council and the public at the hearing are the 1995 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment originally 01/16/2001 27 prepared for Turtle Bay's master plan, and the 1994 Traffic Analysis with the Year 2000 Addendum or update of that Traffic Analysis. I Ms. Thesken stated that in the audience to answer specific questions for Turtle Bay are their attorney, hydrologist, traffic consultant, environmental and engineering consultants, and Turtle Bay staff. She also related that iri the last week the appellant's attorney submitted a letter to Planning staff addressing the appropriateness of the environmental Addendum prepared for the 1995 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The letter was submitted too late to be considered under the appeal period. However, staff had already addressed the appropriateness of the environmental Addendum on page 4 of the Planning Commission report and in the specific findings on page 11, SectIon 4, of the Addendum itself, attached to the Planning Commission staff report. In addition, staff also received an additional appeal letter by facsimile this afternoon, which was submitted by the same attorney, but representing one additional person and a slightly differently-named group. Commen~s from that letter were noted, however, the appeal letter was submitted after the ten-day appeal period of the Use Permit Amendment approval. Many of the items in the letter were already addressed in the City Council staff report. In conclusion, Ms. Thesken said that if the City Council had additional questions concerning the latest letter, Turtle Bay's attorney and hydrologist are present. She noted that if Turtle Bay would like to submit any additional information for the record, they may do so during the public hearing. Mayor McGeorge asked that speakers complete a speaker request form and that comments be kept as brief as possible. I William D. Kopper, 417 E Street, Davis, representing the appellant, stated that he assumed he would be provided more than the customary three minutes to make his comments. He related that he had submitted a letter dated January 16, 2001 (today), and provided the original to staff and the City Clerk for inclusion into the record and also for consideration by the City Council Members. He indicated that he represented Duncan Cunningham, Timothy Morrow, Dwight Evans, and Redding Friends of the Sacramento River and requested that the City Council consider the written comments he had provided. Mr. Kopper explained that the appeal was concerning the Amendment to Use Permit UP- 20- 94, as well as the Addendum to the Negative Declaration and environmental review which was addressed by staff in the staff report. He stated that it was highly unusual for a project to go forward where there was a lawsuit and the courts had not issued a judgment. He noted that this particular case was still in court and that no final judgment had been issued by the court. He opined that the City Council should withhold its approval of this project until the court case was final. He related that the project was going forward on an Addendum to a Negative Declaration which precluded any opportunity for public input into the environmental process. Mr. Kopper asserted that there were significant environmental concerns associated with the project which had never been addressed. He maintained that the move of the project closer to the riverfront from where it had been located in the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan by the Monolith posed a threat to threatened and endangered species of salmon and steelhead. He anticipated that there would be much more human contact with the breeding environment and these issues had never been addressed in any environmental document, therefore, there was no opportunity to consider mitigation. . I In addition, Mr. Kopper stated that the project's traffic impact had not been adequately . addressed in any environmental document. -The move ofthe building into the floodplain was a significant departure from the Redding Riverfront Plan and the City's policy which precluded building in the floodplain under most circumstances. He indicated that an environmental review was necessary before there was a change to move a project from outside the floodplain into the floodplain. 01/16/2001 28 Mr. Kopper related that they had a number of specific concerns: (1) A Mitigated Negative Declaration was not prepared for the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be amended if it was never prepared. There was a notice of Negative Declaration, but never a Negative Declaration itself. He indicated that it was a manner of speculation as to what mitigation measures were included in the project. He noted that the court had been struggling with this and still had not rendered a decision. (2) The Application Permit for thi,s particular amended project had never been found consistent with the Redding General Plan. Nevertheless, the zoning ordinance states that such a finding of consistency must be made. I (3) The application to FEMA appeared to be based on false information. The application stated thaHhere was not fill placed in the location of the museum building, however, on January 4, 1999, Ms. Thesken wrote a letter to the architect for the museum complaining about the fact that the Alliance had already placed fill in the floodplain. He opined that it seemed to be common knowledge that the fill had already been placed there, even though the application to FEMA, which essentially carries criminal penalties for falsification, stated that no fill had been placed there. In addition, the proposed placement of fill was vague and uncertain from the plan. (4) A letter from Dr. Grismer, professor of hydrology at the University of California Davis, who stated that the hydrological work-up completed on the project did not comply with the City's Zoning Code, Chapter 18.47. He indicated that a letter from the Alliance's hydrologist, which was approximately six pages, who admitted that, in fact, the project did not comply with the City's ordinance, but that it was not required to because it was on the River. Mr. Kopper questioned that if this was truly the case, why was compliance with the City's ordinance made a condition of the project and also a condition of the 1995 environmental study and environmental assessment and mitigation measures. (5) The City did not make the hydrological documents available for the public's review. According to the City's ordinance, these documents were supposed to be made available to the Planning Commission, but they were not there and not in the file. Mr. Kopper stated that he obtained the hydrological information after the Planning Commission meeting by making a Public Records Act request. He opined that this violated the public's right to participate when they could not obtain the information necessary to make informed comments. I (6) No environmental review of the floodplain encroachment use permit was required. The City's zoning ordinance requires an environmental assessment of any action under the Zoning Code, Section 18.47. Instead of an environmental assessment, there was an Addendum to a Negative Declaration. (7) Inconsistencies were found in the mitigation measures in the environmental documents. Some of the mitigation measures still indicated that the project should be built near the monolith. (8) 01/16/2001 There was one additional issue that could not be addressed before the Planning Commission. According to the state of the law today, the Agency could not use the $7 million in Redevelopment monies for this project. The laws have changed and the case law has changed on the use of Redevelopment monies. The project is not even within the Redevelopment district where the monies are to be taken. The significant' change is the way that the project was justified for the use of the Redevelopment monies in that it was going to fill up hotel rooms and add business to the redevelopment area. As indicated this evening, the project has significantly changed and would result in 56 percent less people in attendance. He opined that the Agency was obligated to reconsider whether the use of that money could still be justified. I 29 Council Member Pohlmeyer recalled that Mr. Kopper made reference to the fact that action should be delayed until the court case was finalized and questioned the timing and whether Mr. Kopper anticipated that the decision would be appealed. Mr. Kopper did not know when the court case would be finalized or whether the decision might be appealed. Council Member Pohlmeyer inquired whether Mr. Evans was a member ofIBEW Local 340. Mr. Kopper responded that he believed he was a member ofIBEW Local 340. Council Member Pohlmeyer questioned who the other parties of interest were. Mr. Kopper indicated that the parties of interest were listed in his letter. I Council Member Pohlmeyer asked whether the Redding Citizens to Preserve the Sacramento River was the same as the Redding Friends ofthe Sacramento River. Mr. Kopper stated that they were two separate groups. Council Member Pohlmeyer asked whether both groups were a party to this action. Mr. Kopper responded that both groups have appeared on this appeal. Council Member Pohlmeyer inquired whether Mr. Kopper believed this would be a good project or ifhe would still have problems with it if all of the procedural inconsistencies and other matters mentioned in his argument had been cured. Mr. Kopper indicated that if the City had properly followed procedures, if there was a true environmental assessment, and if some effort had been made to really address what might be some potential environmental impact with this project, they might feel differently about the project. However, that was not the case. He contended that the last time through, the City did not prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration and practically every CEQA procedure had been violated. I When Council Member Pohlmeyer asked how many'members comprised the membership of these two groups, Mr. Kopper replied that ~e did not know the exact number of members but he believed it was less than 100. Council Member Pohlmeyer inquired whether the membership was less than ten and Mr. Kopper again responded that he did not know the exact number. Council Member Stegall stated that she too was interested in knowing the composition of the Friends of the Sacramento River. She pointed out that there are individuals living in this community who care about environmental issues and are very vocal. She was curious why she did not see them this evening because if this was an issue for them, they would surely be in attendance. Council Member Kight questioned whether the. issue of redevelopment funds was a part of the appeal. Mr. Kopper stated that the issue of redevelopment funds was not part of the appeal, but was alerting the City Council that it was an issue, as this was a significantly different project. Council Member Cibula wanted to know if there was a legal basis or case law relative to Mr. Kopper's statement relative to not being able to amend a Mitigated Negative Declaration. I Mr. Kopper did not know of a case where an agency had tried to amend a Mitigated Negative Declaration that did not exist. In this particular case, the Planning Commission voted for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, but no such document was prepared before or after their vote. It was his position that a non-existent document could not be legally amended. James P. Wiezel, 400 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, stated that he was the counsel of record for the Alliance of Redding Museums, a party of interest in the lawsuit to which Mr. Kopper referenced as Cunningham versus the City of Redding, Shasta County Superior Court. He requested the opportunity to respond on behalf of the original applicant to a number of points raised by Mr. Kopper: 01/16/2001 30 (9) The tendency of the lawsuit did not prevent the City from proceeding with the project. He stated that there is no order injunction or tentative order which prevented the City from proceeding with the Use Permit Amendment and the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He explained that the court entered a proposed decision over six months ago, setting aside a 1999 Use Permit Amendment application and requiring that it be reprocessed. He opined that the applicant was proceeding consistent with the court's proposed decision and the opinion of the court case. (10) The Amendment to the Use Permit was inappropriate because the main museum was larger than the original structure described in Phase 1 A. Mr. Wiezel stated that this was not correct. Mr. Wiezel explained that the original 1995 Use Permit contemplated a phased permitting process, whereby the City, by Use Permit Amendments, would allow phased development, including the main museum, and the Alliance is proceeding consistent with that. He pointed out that the Superior Court was directing the reprocessing of the 1999 Use Permit Amendment application, but did not state that aU se Permit Amendment was inappropriate or that separate Use Permits for the main museum were required. He opined that if the court felt differently, it certainly would not have directed the City to reprocess a Use Permit Amendment. I (11) No amendment to the Riverfront Specific Plan or any consequential environmental review was prepared at the time. Mr. Wiezel stated that on March 28, 1995, the Planning Commission determined that the Turtle Bay Museum project, including the main museum as originally sized, was consistent with the General Plan and the Riverfront Specific Plan. With regard to the pending court case, he noted that Mr. Kopper made the exact same arguments that they could not proceed with the Use Permit Amendment without amending the Riverfront Specific Plan. He stressed that the court specifically declined to require the City to redetermine compliance with the Specific Plan or the General Plan. (12) Steelhead and salmon issues. Mr. Wiezel stated that these issues were addressed in 1995. I (13) Hydrological assessment. Mr. Wiezel stated that their position was that the hydrological assessment was consistent in substance with the Redding floodplain ordinance. He indicated that a January 5, 2001, memorandum from their hydrologist, which was part of the record, did not, as Mr. Kopper characterized it, admit noncompliance. He added that Mr. Kopper was incorrect when he stated that the former application was not available for public review. He pointed out that Ms. Thesken told the Planning Commission that it was available for their review and the public's review as a public document. In addition, the January 5, 2001, memorandum from the Alliance's hydrologist outlines what was done and why. (14) Mr. Kopper raised the issue that a particular provision of the flbodplain ordinance, Section 18.47.130, required an environmental impact report. Mr. Wiezel clarified that the ordinance required an environmental impact report only when the project significantly raised project flood levels or had a potential to increase erosion or divert the natural flow of water or fell within two other sections, 18.64.130 or 18.64.150, of the Redding Municipal Code. He explained that Alliance's hydrologist had concluded, and staff agreed, that the project did not have the potential to affect the flood levels, erosion, or natural flow of water; therefore, Sections 18.64.130 and 18.64.150 were inapplicable and a new environmental impact report was not required. I (15) An amended project could not be processed with an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration which did not exist. Mr. Wiezel indicated that the conditions of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration were established by a court-directed list which was prepared by the City Attorney, agreed to by Mr. Kopper on behalf of his clients, and submitted to the court by letter dated September 22,2000. He noted that the court's proposed decision did not state that an Addendum could not be used, for the project due to the fact that no prior Mitigated Negative Declaration had been prepared. Accordingly, the Alliance believes it is proceeding consistent with the court's proposed decision. 01/16/2001 31 (16) Traffic data. Mr. Kopper questioned the issue of traffic data used in the February 2000 Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis. Mr. Wiezel stated that Caltrans had agreed in writing, as stated by letter dated August 21, 2000, with the conclusions stated in the Addendum to the Traffic Study. (17) Storm drainage, proposed water features, etc. Mr. Wiezel stated that the additional comments raised by Mr. Kopper regarding storm drainage, proposed water features, etc., were adequately responded to in the staff report. I (18) Falsification of Application. Mr. Kopper raised a recent issue, whereby he accuses the Alliance's hydrologist, Mr. Braithwaite of falsifying an application for a Permit. Mr. Wiezel related that Mr. Braithwaite took these allegations very seriously and that the allegations were not supported by a hydrologist, but merely were allegations of the lawyer. He pointed out that the UC Davis hydrologist referred to by Mr. Kopper was not a civil engineer or competent to process a FEMA application and his declaration statement did not show any familiarity with the described computer program. He stated that Mr. Braithwaite was present and had prepared a written response to the matter. (19) Use of Redevelopment monies. Mr. Wiezel reiterated that it was not the proper forum for Mr. Kopper to raise the issue regarding the use of Redevelopment monies. He'indicated that the applicant, Turtle Bay, had, in fact, provided the Agency with downsized attendance estimates before the $7 million was approved. Council Member Cibula asked for clarification regarding the statement as to a Mitigated Negative Declaration not being prepared. I Mr. Wiezel explained that it had always been their position that a Mitigated Negative Declaration had been properly prepared and incorporated the Mitigated Negative Declaration by reference the mitigation measures which were in the original Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. He added that the court found that it was too late for Mr. Kopper to challenge , the sufficiency of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration. Nonetheless, the court directed for the benefit of the record, that the City prepare and counsel agree to a court- directed list to put in one place all of the mitigation measures. He did not believe the court would have taken this position if it did not believe that the City had substantially complied with CEQA. Therefore, the Alliance was proceeding on the assumption that the law did not require idle acts. Council Member Cibula pointed out that there had been statements with regard to admission of noncompliance by one of the Alliance's experts (the hydrologist). He questioned what was causing this disagreement. Mr. Wiezel referred to the January 5, 2001, memorandum prepared by the consultant hydrologist and indicated that it addressed from a technical standpoint the issue of compliance with certain provisions of the floodplain ordinance. Based on the technical opinion of the hydrologist, it was impossible to strictly comply with the floodplain ordinance in the context of the Sacramento River. He indicated that the requirements were for specific computer programs for streams, which were inappropriate for this purpose and impossible to use as such, because they did not take into account the River being controlled by releases from Shasta Dam. I Council Member Cibula asked whether it was a requirement to comply with the stated floodplain ordinance. City Attorney Wingate explained that the floodplain ordinance states that a HEC-1 study must be prepared and that was not done. He added that the ordinance failed to take into consideration the fact that the Sacramento River was dammed and releases were controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation. Therefore, it was impossible to prepare a meaningful HEC-1 of the basin of the upper Sacramento River for the project. He noted that there is a specific section in the California Government Code which states that an "idle act" is not required to be performed. Although the City's zoning ordinance required a HEC-1, it was totally improper and impossible to perform with respect to the location of this project on the Sacramento River, and he had advised Planning staff it was not required. 01/16/2001 32 In response to Council Member Cibula, Mr. Wingate confirmed that the floodplain ordinance was still on the books. Norman Braithwaite, 1050 West Street, read his letter dated January 16,2001, incorporated herein by reference, into the record. Frances Jenkins, 2652 Sharon Avenue, recalled that Mr. Kopper referred several times to information that the public had a right to know. As a member of the public, she indicated that Mr. Kopper should have been more forthcoming when answering Council Member_ Pohlmeyer's questions about the individuals involved in the lawsuit. As a member of the public who supports the project, she requested that the questions be answered. I Mayor McGeorge determined that there was no one else present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. Council Member Cibula asked Mr. Wingate or Ms. Thesken to address the availability of information prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing. Ms. Thesken explained that the FEMA application for the Letter of Map Revision was in the Planning Division's file and available for public review. She related that Mr. Kopper called on Monday before the meeting and asked to see the file. Staff indicated that the files would be.available from Monday morning through 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday. Mr. Kopper appeared at the Planning Division at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday requesting to see the files, however, staff needed them to prepare for the meeting, so he did not have time to look at them before the meeting or to read the Letter of Map Revision Application which was in the file and available for reVIew. Council Member Cibula questioned how long the document had been available. Ms. Thesken replied that the Letter of Map Revision Application had been in the file since September 2000 and the day he requested to look at it, December 12,2000. In response to Council Member Cibula, Mr. Wingate viewed Mr. Kopper's letter as a written record of his presentation this evening. He believed that staff was correct in representing to the City Council that the issues raised in the appeal had been adequately covered and Mr. Kopper's information did not add anything that required further response. He opined that the City had adequately responded to Mr. Kopper's and his clients' concerns. I Council Member Cibula stated that there might be deeper issues involved, and he was voting only on what was directly before him with regard to the issues presented in the staff report and the other documents. . MOTION: Made by Council Member Kight, seconded by Council Member Pohlmeyer, to deny the appeal of Turtle Bay Use Permit UP-20-94 Amendment, by Duncan Dunningham, Timothy Morrow, and Redding Citizens to Preserve the Sacramento River, and uphold the Planning Commission's decision of December 12,2000. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Auditor's Communication And Report (F-205-159-075) Administrative Services Director Starman provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated January 8, 2001, incorporated herein by reference. He stated that the Audit Committee met and reviewed and accepted the Independent Auditor's Communication to the Audit Committee and Single Audit Reports for the year ended June 30, 2000. It was the recommendation of the Audit Committee that the City Council accept the aforementioned reports as presented. I City Manager Warren congratulated staff for an excellent job. Council Member Cibula concurred and expressed his pleasure of being able to serve on the Audit Committee. 01/16/2001 33 MOTION: Made by Council Member Kight, seconded by Council Member Stegall, that the Independent Auditor's Communication to the Audit Committee and Single Audit Reports for the year ended June 30, 2000, be accepted as presented. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes I Consulting And Professional Services Agreement For Audit Services, Proposal No. 3434 (B-050-100 & F-205-150) . Administrative Services Director Bachman highlighted the Report to City Council dated January 9,2001, incorporated herein by reference, regarding Request for Proposals No. 3434 for audit services. He related that three proposals were received and evaluated based on the technical criteria provided in the proposal. While all three firms are technically qualified to perform the audit, the Audit Committee has recommended that the contract for auditing services be awarded to Hathaway and Ksenzulak for a three-year period. Council Member Cibula pointed out that the members of the Audit Committee did not participate in the interview process. MOTION: Made by Council Member Pohlmeyer, seconded by Council Member Stegall, to award Request for Proposal No. 3434, Audit Services, to Hathaway & Ksenzulak for a three- year period, with the City reserving the right to extend the term for two additional one-year periods. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes I Citizen Input (A-050-060) City Manager Warren provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated January 4, 2001, incorporated herein by reference, regarding the implementation of quarterly meetings where citizens are invited to ask questions of their elected officials. As proposed, Council Members would attend on a voluntary basis; all meeting would be advertised in accordance with the Brown Act; the City Manager and key staff would attend, but staff would not be the focus of the meetings; the meetings would be held in the Community Room at noon, with the community invited to have a "brown bag lunch" with Council Members; and there would be no agenda other than public comment - no action could be taken. Council Member Cibula supported the concept and suggested that it be implemented on a trial basis to determine the public's interest. Council Member Stegall believed that the Record Searchlight's quarterly meetings achieved effective results and supported the concept. Mayor McGeorge supported the implementation of the concept.ifthe community showed an interest in participation. MOTION: Made by Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Cibula, directing staff implement quarterly citizens meetings as outlined in the Report to City Council. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes I Agreement - Economic Development Corporation of Shasta County For The Bay Area Target Program (B-130-030-045 & E-050) The Report to City Council dated January 5, 2001, incorporated herein by reference, addresses the Economic Development Corporation's request for the City of participate in funding the Bay Area Targeted Program. As proposed, the City's share would be $20,000, which could be funded through Electric revenues, with the balance of$15,000 shared by the Cities of Shasta Lake and Anderson and Shasta County. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council approve the Consulting and Professional Services Agreement with the Economic Development Corporation to fund a portion of the Bay Area Target Program. Council Member Cibula questioned the basis for determining the City's participation and also the appropriateness of the funding source. 01/16/2001 34 Economic Development Manager Mitchell explained that the City currently provides $126,000 in funding annually to the Economic Development Corporation, or 58 percent of its funding. The formula presented this evening represented that same cost -sharing structure. He noted that across the United States, the largest source of funding for economic development was the electrical fund. Currently the City's electrical load factor is 39 percent and it would be very advantageous to find consumers which would raise that City-wide load factor. Council Member Cibula asked why the City was attempting to increase its electrical usage when we are currently hearing the need to conserve power. Mr. Mitchell pointed out that any recruitment from this program would not come on line for 18 months to two years. Staff anticipates that in two years rates would have stabilized in California. He stressed that it was in the City's best interest to increase its customer base by finding higher-use businesses. He indicated that this funding would not affect the Electric Utility's ability to pay off the surcharge. I MOTION: Made by Council Member Cibula, seconded by Council Member Stegall, to approve the Consulting and Professional Services Agreement with the Economic Development Corporation in the amount of$20,000 to fund a portion of the Bay Area Target Program. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Resolution - Grant Application for Economic Development (G-100-170 & E-050) The Report to City Council dated January 5, 2001, incorporated herein by reference, announced that the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) was currently providing up to $100,000 in grant funds to establish economic development teams to assist in bringing jobs to areas like Redding. Total program funding available for the State is $4.8 million. In order to qualify, the community must be considered "Housing Rich," which equates to fewer than 1.5 jobs per housing unit. The City of Redding averages 1.2 jobs per housing unit. If received, the City would apply $10,000 toward the Bay Area Program. If the full $10,000 were received, staff would return to the City Council with ideas regarding the expenditure of the balance of funds. I Staff recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution approving an Application for Funding and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments thereto from the Jobs/Housing Balance Improvements Program, Economic Development Planning Allocation. MOTION: Made by Council Member Cibula, seconded by Council Member Stegall, that Resolution No. 2001-015 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Red ding approving an Application for Funding and the execution of a Grant Agreement and any amendments thereto from the Jobs/Housing Balance Improvements Program, Economic Development Planning Allocation. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Cibula, Kight, Pohlmeyer, Stegall, and McGeorge Council Members - None . Council Members - None Council Members - None Resolution No. 2001-015 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. CLOSED SESSION (L-100 & P-1 00-050) Mayor McGeorge stated that the City Council would be adjourning to closed session to discuss the following: I 1. Closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a): CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGA nON Janice Carrico vs. City of Redding, Shasta County Superior Court Case No. 139120 01/16/2001 35 2. Closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Designated Agency Representative: Randy Bachman Employee Organization: All Represented and Unrepresented Employees At the hour of 9:47p.m., Mayor McGeorge recessed the meeting to closed session. At the hour of 10:30 p.m., Mayor McGeorge reconvened the meeting to regular session. I No reportable action was taken. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 10:30 p.m., Mayor McGeorge declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED ~~~ David eorg, ayo ATTEST: I I 01/16/2001