Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 2002-05-21 I I I 107 City Council, Regular Meeting Civic Center Council Chambers 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California May 21, 2002, 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by United States Army Captain John Pohlmeyer. The Invocation was offered by Chaplain Lupe Phillips, Risen King Community Church. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kight with the following Council Members present: Cibula, Pohlmeyer, and Stegall. Council Member McGeorge was absent. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, Deputy City Manager Starman, City Attorney Wingate, Development Services Director Hamilton, Electric Utility Director Feider, Administrative Services Director Bachman, Support Services Director Kersten, Community Services Director Niemer, Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinator Thompson, City Clerk Strohmayer, Assistant City Clerk Sherman, . and Executive Secretary Stribley. Approval of Minutes - Special and Regular Meetings of May 7, 2002. Approval of Payroll and Accounts Payable Registers . (A-050-100-500) It is recommended that Accounts Payable Register No. 21, check numbers 300223 through 300768 inclusive, in the amount of $5,165,216.06, for the period of May 2, 2002, through May 17,2002; Wire Transfers for the period of May 1,2002, through May 17,2002, in the amount of $2,396,849.71; and Payroll Register No. 23, electronic deposit transaction numbers 107710 through 108367 and check numbers 489082 through 489334 inclusive, in the amount of $1,839,968.60, for the period of April 28, 2002, through May 11, 2002, be approved. TOTAL: $9,402,034.37 Ordinance - Amending Redding Municipal Code Section 2.73.010, Economic Development Corporation, Term of Office (B-080-150) It is the recommendation of the City Clerk that Ordinance No. 2293 be adopted, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding, amending Redding Municipal Code Section 2.73.010 - Economic Development Corporation of Shasta County extending the appointed term of office from two years to four years. Reallocation of Funds - Civic Center Fountain (C-050-025) . It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager that the City Council approve the . reallocation offunds within the existing Civic Center Fountain budget due a shortfall in the amount of $2,438 as a result of the necessary redesign of the plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems. However, the shortfall will be offset by reimbursement from Caltrans for unanticipated costs to remove two gas tanks located during construction. Resolution - Approving Engineer Report, Annexing Territory, Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments, and Setting Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance District "A" (A-170-075-050) It is the recommendation of the Support Services Director that Resolution 2002-79 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving the report of the Engineer as filed, and declaring its intention to 1) annex Unit 1 of the La Rinconada Subdivision into Area 9 of the District; 2) annex Unit 2 of the La Rinconada Subdivision into Area 9 of the District; and 3) levy and collect assessments for fiscal year 2002-03 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code; and setting a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., June 4,2002. 5/21/2002 108 . . . . Resolution -Approving the Engineer Report, Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments and , ' . Setting P~blic He~ng for Landscape Maintenance District "B" (A-170~075-051) ; ^ , It is the reco~endatiop. of the Support Services Director that Resolution 2002-80 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving the report of the Engineer as filed, an<;l declaring its intention to levy and collect assessments for fiscal year 2002-03 pursu~t to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, commencing with Section 22500 of the S~reets and Highways Code; and setting a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., June 4, 2002. Resolution -Approving Engin~er Report, Annexing Territory, Intention to Levy and Collect _I Assessments, and Setting Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance District "C" , , (A-170-075-052) , It is t4e recommendatiop. of the Support Services Director that Resolution 2002-81 be adopted, a resolution of the CitY Council of the City of Redding approving the report of the Engineer ~ filed, and declaring its intention to: 1) annex Unit 3 of the Chum Creek Park Supdivision into Area 1 of the District; and 2) levy and collect assessments for fiscal year 2002-03 pur~uant to the Landscaping arid Lighting Act of 1972, commencing with Section 22500 of the Stree~~ and Highways Code; ~d setting a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., JU1!e 4, 2002. Notice of Completion - Bid Schedule No. 3454, Redding Power 115/13.8kV Switchyard Expansiqn for Generating Unit No.5 (B-050,020 & E-120-150-675) . - " I . It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Bid Schedule No. 3454 (Job No. 4589-15), Red,ding Power 115/13.~kV Switchyard Expansion for Generating Unit No.5, awarded to Cal Electro It:lc., be ~ccepted as s~tisfactorily cOmpleted alld the City Clerk be authorized to file a Notice of Completi<?n. The final contra~t amoullt is $978,310.27. Award of Bid - Bid Schedule No. 3559, Treated Wood Poles (B-050,100). " , . It i~ the re'commendation of the Electric Utility Director that B~d Schedule No. 3559, Treated Wood Poles; be awarded to J.H. Baxter Company, in. the amount of$110,719 for the period of JulyJ, 2002, to June 30, 2003; and authorizing the Purchasing Officer to extend the bid award one year at the same prices, terms, and conditions if deemed prudent and mutually agreeable. ' I : Resolution - Amending the Executive Management Pay-For-Performance Salary Plan (P-I00-320) It is the recommendation of the Administrative Services Oirector that Resolution No. 2002-82 be adopted, a resolution oftlIe City Council of the City of~edding amending the Executive Management Pay-For-Performance S~lary Plan for unrepresented employees, effective May 26, 2002, adjusting the salary range for the classification of Planning Manager, , . changing the cla~sifications of Associ~te Electrical Engineer to Electric Utility Engineer, Electric Engineer Associate to Electric Utility Engineering Associate, Assistant Electrical Engineer to Electric Utility Engineering Assistant II, Junior Electrical Engineer to Electric Utility Engineering Assistant I, and Convention and Visitor Bureau Manager to Tourism Officer. I Resolutidn ":' DeclfITipg the intention to report the, value of one-third of Employer Paid Member Cop.tribution for me~bers of the Peace Officers Association of Redding. (P-~00,230 (k P-100j050:-120), I . It, is the recommendation of the Administrative Services Director that Resolution No. 200,2-89 be adopted, ,a re~Qlutio~ of the City Council of the, City of Redding declaring its intention to comrn~nqe reporting one-t4ird tl1e va\ue of Employer Paid M~mber contributions (EPMC) as compens~tion for members of the Peace Officers Association of Redding to the Califorpia Public Employees' Retirement Syste~ (CaIPERS), effective April 14, 2002. I . I Acceptance afFinal Map - Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Unit 4 (S-5-01) (S-1 00~248) It is the recOlpmendation qf the Development Services Director that the City Council approve the Final Map f?r the Eagle Ridge Subdivis~on, Unit 4 (S-5-01) formerly Sunshine Ridge Estates, developed by Signature Northwest, located north of Buenaventura Boulevard and east of Summit Drive. It is further recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the 5/21/2002 109 subdivision agreement and the City Clerk be instructed to file the map with the Shasta County Recorder. MOTION: Made by Council Member Pohlmeyer, seconded by Council Member Stegall, that all the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved and adopted as recommended. The Vote: AYES: Council Members - Cibula, Pohlmeyer, Stegall, and Kight NOES: Council Members - None ABSTAIN: Council Members - None ABSENT: Council Members - McGeorge I Resolution Nos. 2002-79, 2002-80, 2002-81,2002-82, and 2002-83 are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDDING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY At the hour of 7:00 p.m., Council Member/Agency Chair Cibula convened the Special Meeting of the Redding Redevelopment Agency for a joint meeting with the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE -Amending the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Redevelopment Plan (R-030-050) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor/Agency Member Kight opened the public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Redevelopment Plan to extend the time limit for commencing eminent domain actions in the Project Area. The following documents are on file in the Office of the City Clerk: I Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing City Clerk Strohmayer advised that one written protest was received from Raymond O. Johnson. Deputy City Manager Starman recalled that the City Council at its regular meeting of February 19, 2002, authorized initiation of Redevelopment Plan amendments which would extend the timeline by an additional 12 years for eminent domain actions in the Canby- Hilltop-Cypress (CHC) and Market Street (Market) Redevelopment Project areas. The period for exercising eminent domain in the CHC Project Area will expire November 2002 and while there are no active eminent domain proceedings at this time, the 12-year extension will provide the Agency with the necessary power to redevelop project areas in the future should it be necessary. He pointed out that at the close of this evening's public hearings, it will not be necessary for the Agency to take action. The City Council, however, as the authority will be asked to adopt the amended plans. Mr. Starman introduced Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinator Thompson who made the following presentation for the CHC Redevelopment Project Area. I Ms. Thompson advised that in order to meet legal requirements surrounding the proposed amendment, it will be necessary to enter into the record the steps taken by the Agency relative to the amendment. She thanked outside legal counsel, Lynn Hutchins of Goldfarb & Lipman, and Redevelopment Office Services Supervisor Rudolph for their assistance during the process. Ms. Thompson explained that the purpose of the Plan amendment is to extend the Agency's existing authority to exercise eminent domain in the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress (CHC) Project Area an additional 12 years. Currently, the Redding Redevelopment Agency's (Agency) authority to exercise eminent domain in the project area expires in November 2002. If adopted, the amendment will extend the Agency's ability to use eminent domain as a last resort tool in those rare instances when acquisition of property is required and a negotiated settlement is not possible. 5/21/2002 110 As required by state, ~aw, a Public Meeting was held May 9, 2002, to discuss the proposed am~ndment.of ~oth the GHC apd the Market Street Redevelopment Plans. Notice of the p~bFc '.m'ee~ing iWlils ,mailed toev~ry project area property owner, o,?cupant, busi~ess, community org~ization and t~xing agency on April 17, ~002, and published in the Record Searchlight 9D. April 25, 2002., Proof of publication of the public meeting notice is included in Part VIII of the Report on the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (Report) for the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Project. A total of 19 persops attended the meeting. Minutes ofthe meeting as well as a list of the attendees are also included in the Report. . . In addit~on t9 th~ Public Meeting, City staff consulted individually either by telephone or in p~rson appr()ximately 150 pers()ns !egarding the amendments over the last several weeks. To <late, only one Written objection to the am~ndment of the CI-IC redevelopment plan has been received. I City staff also consulted with all Project Area taxing agencies during the plan amendment process. On April 17, 2002, a StateJ;llent of Preparation of Amendment, the draft California Environm~ntal Act (CEQA) Notic~ofExemption, anq the Draft Plan AmendJ;llent were sent by certified mail to each potentially affected taxing agency. Staff followed up by contacting e~ch taxing agency by telephone to discu,ss the proposed amendment and address issues or concerns, if any. A log qftelep~one contacts is incluqed in Part XII ofthe Report. To date, none of the taxing agencies have indica~ed <?pposition to the amendment. On May 14, 2002, the Planning Conimission found thatthe Plan Amendment and the public activities whi~h lImy b~ un~ertaken pursuant to the Amendment conform to th~ General Plan and recommended approval and adoption of the Amendment. As part of the amendment process, a Report on the Plan Amendment was prepared in . . '. . \ accordance with the requ\rements ofSecti()ns 33457.1 and 33352 of the California Health and Safety Code. Be~ause of the narrow scope of the Amendment, only a few of the reports and analyses pqrsuant to Section 33352 were required to bediscussed in the Report. The Report is the bl:l$ic supporting documentation for the Am~ndment and the Ordinance which will adopt the amendment. Ms. Thompson sumrp.arize~ the Report on the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (J.{eport) for the Canby-Hmtop-Cypress Project, stating that Part I of the Report provides a description and the reasons for the amenqment. As previously stated, the purpose of the amendment is to extend the time limits for use of eminent domain an additional 12 years. The aI"-rien~ent will not change the other provisions of the current redevelopment plan. It will not change the boundaries of the project area; change any of the activities or other time limits currently contained in the plan; change the land uses which conform with the Redding '. . . .'. .' '. General PIal).; or change any of the financilll provisions of the plan. The Agency must still comply wit~ all ~ppiica~le property acq~isition ~d relocation regulations. Finally, no specific properties are target~d for acquisition as a result of this amendment. I . \' I Altl1o\lgh amendment of a plan ~o ~xtend eminent domain time limits, does not require a fqrmal blight analysis, and the Council will not be considering formal blight findings for the purpose of this amendment, blighting c()nditi,ons do remain in the project area as ~escribed in. Part II of the Report. The primary blighting conditions in the project area are parcels of i~egu'lar shape or inadequate size to accoJ;llm09ate development under contemporary standards, apd inadequate public infrastructure. While th,e Agency has developed and implemente~ succes~ful programs to pro~ote redevelopment of blighted properties and all~viate blighting condit~ons, the use ofemjnent domain remains necessary as a last resort to deal with those blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area. , . Every five y~ars the Agency is required to adopt ~n implementation plan to set forth the goals aild ol?je~tiyes for the '~proj~ct ar~,a for the next five-year period. The Agency's Imple~entati()n Plan adopted in Nove.mber; 1999 for the period 2000-2004 is included in the Report .by referen<;e ~n Part III. 13ec~use the proposed ~endment does not add any new redevelopm~nt activities,. no further analysis of the economic feasibility of the Project Area is requir~d. However Part IV of the Report anticipates that the extension of the Agency's emil1ent dom~in P9wer is ~xpected to have ~ neutral or positive impact on the financial feasibility ofth~ Project. rart V ofth~ Report incorporates the Agency's Relocation Report prep~ed as part of the Plan adoption proces~ by reference which serves as a general plan for relocation services and housing stock availability and assures that the Agency has a plan for . . I 5/21/2002 I I I 111 persons displaced from the project area, if any; that decent, safe, and sanitary housing within the financial means will be provided to displacees; and permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from displacement. Part VI establishes that preparation of a Preliminary Plan is not required for Plan amendments and thus no preliminary Plan was prepared. Parts VII and XI consist of the Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission previously discussed. Parts VIII and XII contain summaries of the community and taxing agency consultations previously discussed. The City as "Lead Agency" conducted an environmental review of the proposed Amendment and determined that the Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act since it is a general policy making activity not applicable to any specific property or project at this time and thus is not an activity which has the potential for causing a significant impact on the environment at this time. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared. Part XIII, the Neighborhood Impact Report, establishes that the Agency does not expect or intend that the implementation of the Amendment will destroy or remove housing for low and moderate income persons or families and that the Agency does not currently anticipate either the displacement of any residents nor the need to meet any replacement housing obligations. However, the Agency is actively involved in assisting affordable housing developments and would be able to meet any unanticipated replacement housing obligations it may incur in implementing the Amendment. Ms. Thompson summarized the Notice of Exemption prepared by City staff(as lead agency) for the Plan Amendment to extend the Agency's authorization to use eminent domain an additional 12 years. The Notice of Exemption identifies the actions to be categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)3 as the amendments are an extension of an existing policy. Individual future actions by the Agency will require environmental review to assess impacts of the specific activity. On May 14,2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the Notice of Exemption prepared for the Amendment. Following its review, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002-02 recommending that the City Council approve and adopt the Amendment. A copy of the proposed Notice of Exemption was made available . for public inspection prior to this public hearing. Pursuant to conditions in existing Agency bond documents, prior to amending the Redevelopment Plan, a review of the financial impact of the amendment relative to the Agency's bonded indebtedness was undertaken. Staff reviewed the potential financial impact of the amendment and concluded that the tax increment from the Project Area will not be materially reduced by the proposed plan amendment. The act of amending the plan will not have a direct bearing on the Agency's ability to meet its debt service obligation on existing bonded indebtedness, nor will the act of amending the plan have an adverse impact on property values or tax increment revenues within the Project Area. Hathaway & Ksenzulak, LLP Certified Public Accountants, examined the conclusion reached by staff in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and is of the opinion that the staffs conclusion is fairly stated. Ms. Thompson entered the Independent Accountants' Report On Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Redevelopment Project Plan prepared by Hathaway & Ksenzulak, LLP into the record as well as the list of 5,528 Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Project Area Noticees to whom the Notice ofthe Joint Public Hearing was mailed, identified as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Mailing to the Property Owners and Occupants in Part VIII of the Report on the Plan. Because ofthe length of the list, it was not included in the Report. Ms. Thompson provided an explanation ofthe notice procedures for the Joint Public Hearing and actions to be considered by the City Council and Agency at the close of the public hearing. Pursuant to Section 33452 of the Health and Safety Code, on April 17, 2002, notices of this Joint Public Hearing were sent by first class mail to every property owner, resident, business, and community organization within the project area and by certified mail to each potentially affected taxing agency. In addition, the notice of the public hearing was published in the Record Searchlight on April 29, 2002, May 6,2002, and May 13,2002. Proof of publication of the Notice of the joint public hearing and the Declaration of Mailing to Property Owners and Occupants are included Part VIII of the Report. 5/21/2002 112 Ms. Thompson r~sta~ed that no action is required of the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) at, the close. of ~h~ public hearing and tp~t Lynn Hutchins of Goldfarb & Lipman, the Agency's outside legal counsel, was avaihible to answer questions. , ' , She r~l~t~~ that one letter in s~pport of the CHC Plan Amendment was received from Mr. Eldon W. Bosch, .910 Canby Road~ Apt. 323, R,edding, California, and one letter in , . "'.', . opposition w~s rec~iyed from Mr. RaYII?o,nd O)oOOson, 495 S. Taaffe Street, Sunnyvale, C,A 94086. ,She, st(;lted that Mr. Johnson is philosophically opposed to the use of eminent dpma!~ by rede~el()Prnel1t agen.cies, fll1d that due to ~is written objection and pursuant to California H,ealth aJ:?~ Safety Code Section,3 3 3 63, the City Council is preempted from taking action t:egarding the ordinance this evening until such time as the Re<Jding Redevelopment A&ency has had ~ opportu~ity to respond to the objection and ~I).ter it into the public record. Ms. Thomp~on, t~~r~fore, recommended tl1(;lt ~c,t~on regardil1gthis matter be deferred to the regular City Council meeting of June 4, 2002. I Fran Je~i~s, ~edding re~ident, stated tpat it is generally understood that eminent domain is utilizeq for publ~c 'projects such as roa.ds, bridges, schools or hospit~ls. She noted that Californ,ia !aw also~llowsJthe use. of emimil1t domain for non-public projects, (;llld questioned City Coun~iJ lllerpbers 'predisposi~ion ~nd opinions regarding the use of eminent domain for ,non-public projects. , , \ .' ' In respqn~'e"Citx Attofl1ey Wing~te ~xplai~ed, th~t t,he City C~uncil sits and votes as a body, not as individuals. Therefore, individual opinions on nebulous events are inappropriate. 1 1 Mayor/Ageqcy Member Kight determined that no <?ther individual wished to address this matter and closed the public h~aring. }, i PUrsuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33363, action on this matter was , ' . . ' ~ ~ . " , deferred to the regular meeting of June 4, 2002. . . )' PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE - Amending the Market Street Redevelopment Plan (R-030,.145), :' . The ho~r o~ 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor/Agency Membe~ Kight opened the public hearing regarding a proposed a.m~ndrnent tq th,e Market~treet R~development Plan to extend the time limit for commelJ.cing emin~nt domain actions in the Project Area. I l { I The following documents ,are on fi~e in the Office of the City Clerk: "I :: . Affidavit ofPublicatipn - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing ~ ' :' City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were receiv~d. '. . ': '1 "" . : I ~ Deputy; City Manage.r St.arman recalled that the Gity Council at its regular meeting of Februflry 19, 209~, a~thorized initiation of Redevelopment Plan amendments which would extend the time line by an ,additional 12 years for e.minent domain actions in the Canby- ." , . , . f Hilltop,.Cypress; (CHC)a.nd Market Street (Market) Redevelopment Project areas. The pyriod for e'fercising ,eminent domaill in the MarketProject Area will expire July 2002 and while there are no active eJllinent domain proceedings at this time, the 12-year extension will , ,'. \ . pro}'i9~ the 4\ge~cy with the necessary power to redevelop project areas ,in the future should it bec9111e. necessary., Mr: Starman introduced Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinator T~lOmpson ~ho made the following presentation for the Market Street Redevelopment I Project Aie.a. 0;;- I Ms; Thomp~on ~dyised t~at in ord~r to meet legal requiremen~s surrounding the proposed amendment it will be necessary to enter into the recor~ the steps taken by the Agency relative .. f. .', t, .'" .' ~ . to the amendment. 1 t ~ t I .! The. pUrPose ()f ,th~ wop\?sed PI~ ~mendment is to extend the Redding Redevelopment Ag~ncy's (AgeI).cy) exist,ing allthority to. ex~rcise emin~nt domain in the Market Street ProJectArea, an !ldsIitional12 years. Curre'J).tly, the Agency's authority to exercise eminent domain in the project area expires in July2002. If adopted, the amendment will extend the ,Agency'sapility to use eminent domain (;lS illast resort tool ip. those rare instances when the 5/21/2002 113 acquisition of property is required and a negotiated settlement is not possible. As required by State law, City staff consulted with the community and all potentially affected taxing agencies during the plan amendment process. A Public Meeting was held May 9, 2002, to discuss the proposed amendment to the Market Street Redevelopment Plan. Notice ofthe public meeting was mailed to all project area property owners, occupants, businesses and community organizations on April 17, 2002, and published in the Record Searchlight on April 25, 2002. Proof of publication of the public meeting notice is included in Part VIII of the Report on the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Market Street Project. A total of 19 persons attended the public meeting. . Minutes of the meeting as well as a list of the attendees are also included in the Report. I In addition to the a Public Meeting, City staff consulted individually either by telephone or in person approximately 150 persons regarding the amendments over the last several weeks. To date, no written objections to the amendment of the Market Street Redevelopment Plan have been received from the community. City staff also consulted with all Project Area taxing agencies during the plan amendment process. On April 17, 2002 a Statement of Preparation of Amendment, the draft California Environmental Act (CEQA) Notice of Exemption and the Draft Plan Amendment were sent by certified mail to each potentially affected taxing agency. Staff followed up by contacting each taxing agency by telephone to discuss the proposed amendment and address issues or concerns, if any. A log of telephone contacts is included in Part XII of the Report. To date, none of the taxing agencies have indicated opposition to the amendment. On May 14, 2002, the Planning Commission found that the Plan Amendment and the public activities which may be undertaken pursuant to the Amendment conform to the General Plan and recommended approval and adoption of the Amendment. I As part of the amendment process, a Report on the Plan Amendment was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Sections 33457.1 and 33352 of the California Health and Safety Code. Because of the narrow scope of the Amendment, only a few of the reports and analyses pursuant to Section 33352 were required to be discussed in the Report. The Report is the basic supporting documentation for the Amendment and the Ordinance which will adopt the amendment. Ms. Thompson summarized the Report on the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (Report) for the Market Street Project. The Report has been submitted to the Agency and the City Council and has been available for public inspection. Part I of the Report provides a description and reasons for the amendment. As previously stated, the purpose of the amendment is to extend the time limits for the use of eminent domain an additional 12 years. The amendment will not change the other provisions of the current redevelopment plan. It will not change the boundaries of the project area; change any of the activities or other time limits currently contained in the plan; change the land uses which conform with the Redding General Plan; or change any of the financial provisions of the plan. The Agency must still comply with all applicable property acquisition and relocation regulations. Finally, no specific properties are targeted for acquisition as a result of this amendment. I Although amendment of a plan to extend eminent domain time limits does not require a formal blight analysis, and the Council will not be considering formal blight findings for the purpose of this amendment, blighting conditions do remain in the project area as described in Part II of the Report. The primary blighting conditions in the project area are stagnant or decreasing property values; high business vacancies; parcels of irregular shape or inadequate size to accommodate development under contemporary standards; inadequate public infrastructure; and dilapidated or deteriorating structures. While the Agency has developed and implemented successful programs to promote redevelopment of blighted properties and alleviate blighting conditions, the use of eminent domain remains necessary as a last resort to deal with those blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area. Every five years the Agency is required to adopt an implementation plan to set forth the goals and objectives for the project area for the next five-year period. The Agency's Implementation Plan adopted in November 1999 for the period 2000-2004, is included in the Report by reference in Part III. Because the proposed amendment does not add any new redevelopment activities, no further analysis ofthe economic feasibility ofthe Project Area is required, however Part IV of the Report anticipates that the extension of the Agency's 5/21/2002 114 eminent dp~a~n P9wer is expeCted to have a neutral or positive impact on the financial fyasibility of the Pr<?ject. Part V 9ftpe J{eport)ncoI]orat~s t4e Agency's Relocation Report pr~pared as part of the PI~ initi~l adpption p~oyessby reference whi~h serves as a general plan for relocation servicfs and housing stock a,vailability and assures that the Agency has a,plan, f<?r persons pi,spla~ed from the project area, if any; that decent, safe, '!1ld sanitary housing within financial, means wUl be provided to displacees; and permanent housil1g facjlities 'l"ill be a~ail~bly withiJ? three years ,frgin displacement. Part VI es~abiishes that preparation ,of a Preliminary PI,an is not required for Plan amendments and thus no prelimip.ary Plap was prepared. Parts VII and )(l consist qf the Report arid Recommendat.ions of the Plapning Commission previously discussed. Parts VIII and XII cOlitain summaries oftp,e comm~ity a~d tax:ing agency cOQ,sultations previqusly discussed. The City as "Lefld Agency:' conducted an enviro~eQ,tal review of the proposed Amendment and 4etermined tbat the Amendm~nt is not subject to the California Enviro~ental Quality Act si~ce it is a general policy making activity not applicagle to any specific property or project at this time and th~s is not an activity which has the poten.tial for causing a significant impact on the environplent at this time. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared. . . ~ I The Neigl:lborhood Impact Report covered in Part XIII concludes that while the neighborhood revitalization efforts undertaken by the Agency in the project area could lead to remov~l of units hou,sing low and modenlte individ,uals and the displacement of resident~, , "1 '.' '.' . .'. '. ' the Parleview R~l<?catioI?- r~an and the Par~view Replacement Housing Plan adopted by the Agency and,inc9rp~rated: in the Report by reference assure that the Agency will meet its relocatiQn and replacement housing obligations. Ms. Thomp~on &~l11arized the Notice of Exemption prepared by City staff(8;s l~ad agency) fqr the PI~ ~mendin~nt which covers the propo~ed ~mendment of both the CHC and Market Street Redevelopment Plans to extt:nq the Agency's authorization to use eminent domain an additional 12 years. The NotiGe of Exemption identifies the actions to be categorically , . -." ) * .' "," . e4empt und<rr Cf:QA Gui~elines Section 15061 (b)3 as the amendments are an extension of an existing polky., Individu~l future aqtions by the Agel1cy will require environmental review to assess impact~ of the specific activity. I . Op May 14,2002, the PlaI)lling Commh:;sion revi.ewed the Notice of Exemption prepared fQr the, A~endment. FollowiI1g itsryview, the Planning Com~ission ~animously adopted Planniri,g CO)llrnission Resolution No. 2002-03 recommending that the City Council approve al)d ad,<?Pt'th~ Amendment. A copy ofthe proposed Notice of Exemption was made available for public inspection. I ~ i Pursuant to conditions jn e~isting Agency bonq documents, prior to amending tl}e Redevelopment :PI~? a r~view of the financial impact of the amendment relative to the Agency' s bo,nd,e~ iJ;ldebtepness was undertaken. City staff reviewed the potential financial il11pact pfthe amend,ment and concluded tp,at t~e tax increment from the Project Area will not be, ipater,ially reduced by th~ proposed plan amendment. The act of amending th,e plan will not l1~ve, a direct bearing on the Agency's ability to meet its debt service obligation on ,. '"' . t . . ....' . e~isting bonded ;indebtedJ?ess, nor will the, ~ct of amending the plan have an adverse impact on property values Qr t(lX increment revenues withill the Project Area. Hathaway & Ksenz~.lak, ~LPfC~rtified Public Accountants, ,exaIl1ined the conclusion reached by staff in accordance wit!i attestation stan.darqs esta],lished by the Americ~p Institute of Certified Public AccountfUlts, and i~ of the opinion that the staffs conclusion is fairly stated. , ' . .; \ i.: Ms. Tho~pson; ent~red, th~ Independent AC90\J:ntants' Report qn the Market ,Street Redevelopment Project Pla~ pr~p(,\red by Hathaway & Ksenzulak, LLP into the record. I > ,j ,; I Ms. Th,ornpson ~lsp entered into the record ,the list of 4,912 Market Street Project Area Noticees to w40}ll the N~tice 9ftheJpint Puplic Hearing wa,s mailed, identifiyd as Exhibit , B;of the Declaratiol) of Mailing to Property Owners and Occupants in Part VIII of the Report on the Plan. Be~ause of the length of the list, it was not included in the Report. , r. I ' : ,; t ' ~s. T~9l1}pson proviged an explana,ion of the notice procedures for the Joint Public Hearing and actions ,to ~e considered by ~he City Co~ncil 3;nd Agency at the close of the public hearing. Pu,rSUl}11t to Section)3452 of the Health an,d Safety Code, on April 17, 2002, notices of t~is ~pint P~bl~c H~ar~ng were sent by first class ,mail to every property owner, r~sident, busine~s, ~nd community organiz.ation within the project area and by certified mail to each potentially affected taxing agency. In addition, the notice of the public hearing was 5/21/2002 115 published in the Record Searchlight on April 29, 2002, May 6,2002, and May 13,2002. Proof of publication of the Notice of the joint public hearing and the Declaration of Mailing to Property Owners and Occupants are included Part VIII of the Report. Ms. Thompson noted that no written protests or statements in support of the Market Street Plan Amendment have been received. I Ms. Thompson stated that no action is required of the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) at the close of the public hearing, however, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance approving and the Plan amendment. She advised that Lynn Hutchins of Goldfarb & Lipman, the Agency's outside legal counsel, was available to answer questions. Mr. Starman disclosed that on two occasions eminent domain was used in the Market Street Redevelopment Project Area: One involving the extension of Court Street in conjunction with the Lake Redding Bridge, and the other concerned the realignment of Railroad Avenue and Buenaventura Boulevard. Helen Coykendall, representing. Shasta County Workers Benefit Council, James Gray, and Viola Mills expressed opposition to eminent domain citing the hardship on low-income families being displaced from hotel/motel living situations into a high rent market. Mr. Gray also did not see the need for the proposed Redevelopment Project amendment relative to eminent domain as there are no specific projects contemplated at this time. Earl Huyck and Laurrie Shaw expressed opposition to eminent domain citing the loss of private property and asked what projects are planned for the area. Mayor/Agency Member Kight determined that no other individual wished to address this matter and closed the public hearing. I Mr. Starman explained that the Project Area encompasses thousands of acres and the possibility of eminent domain affecting private property owners is statistically less than 1%. He continued that while there are projects under consideration, none are contemplated at this time where use of eminent domain will be necessary. He listed previous and ongoing Redevelopment projects in the area such as the renovation of the Redding Hotel, Cascade Theater, improvement to the Yuba Street and South Market Street corridors. He added that the Agency is required by law to make public all projects it intends to undertake and the list is always available for review. In response to the displacement of low-income families, Mr. Starman pointed out that the substandard motels are primarily a code enforcement issue involving the City and not the Agency. Many motels/hotels identified for demolition or rehabilitation have serious health and safety issues which pose an imminent threat to human life and safety. The Agency's only involvement was a $1 million contribution to create additional transitional housing to assist those displaced by motel issues. He clarified that the Agency is required by State law to spend 20t of every dollar it generates in tax increments to create and rehabilitate affordable housing, and the Agency is very active in that regard. In response to Council Member Stegall regarding the difference in eminent domain powers for the City and the Agency, Mr. Starman explained that the Agency's eminent domain powers are broader than the City's and deal with blight issues. While both have public policy and public benefit at the core, the City's eminent domain powers are slightly more constrained. I Council Member/Agency Chair Cibula invited public comment for the Redevelopment Agency. Beau Ogie, Redding resident, expressed concern regarding the cost of projects and their effect on taxes. . Mr. Starman responded that the Redevelopment Agency receives its funding through tax increments and there is no impact to taxpayers. The impact is to taxing entities which divide property differently when it is part of a redevelopment project area, but a property owner would pay no more or no less taxes. 5/21/2002 116 City Manager Warren clarified that the City receives approximately 10% of every property tax d<?ll~. If a property owner PilYS $10,000 in property taxes, $1,000 of that amount is allocat~d to tp.e City, of which $570 provides public safety services and tp.e remaining $430 provides city government services su~h as planning, rec.reation, streets, library, administratipn, public works, and ~ore. He p<;>inted out that Redding property taxes are some of the lowest in the State and have not been increased in many years. 6 1 ( J<;>e Schmi~tz, Redding resident, expressed disappointment that the Laurel Glen project assisted by the Redevelopment Agency did not complete improvements as agreed. He also express,ed concern that improvements to his property are useless if eminent domain takes it for completion of a project. I Mr. ~tarmari explain~d that the Agency provided a note in the amount of $1.2 million to facilitilte construction of Laurel qlen including som~ of the infrastructure. He recalled that Northern Valley Catholic Soci~l Services expended its committed $400,000 for infrastructure improveIllents. He reassured Mr. Schmidtz that there are no plans to acquire property in his \. ~ .. neighborhood. Ivy Williams, Redding resident, questioned the definition pf blight for the purpose of emin~nt domain. Mr~ Starman responded that the specific definition of "blight" when used for redevelopment purpos~'s is set forth in California Redevelopment Act and in the California Health ~d Safety Code Sec.tio~ 33000, adding that, by law, the Agency may not deviate from that definition. \ ' Reverend James Washington expressed concern that improvements underway at his church might prove, futile if eminent qomain is invoked and property is lost. He questioned why a , , 12-year extension is necessary ifthere are no projects planned and requested definitive plans " ' of what the Agency envisions in the Project Area. ! ; Mr. Starman emphasized that the project area includes many acres within the community and , 'j' most pt:ivate property owners will not be affected by eminent domain, and there are no plans for acquisition in the project area ~t this time. Mr. Starman recommended introduction of the ordinance to amend the Market Street , .' '. "t' . '. ..... . . Redev~lopment Plan ,extending the time limit for commencing eminent domain actions for the Market Street Redevelopment Project Area for 12 years. I Council MefIlber Stegall st;1ted that the issue of eminent domain is a very serious one and emphasized'that it is a tool to be utilized only in very specific circumstances. MOTION:, Madeby Council Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Pohlmeyer, approving amendments to the Market Street Re~ev~lopment Plan exten~ing the time limit by 12 years for co~mencing eminent domain actions for the Market Street Redevelopment Project Area; making certain fin~ings.pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California; and approving the environmental documentation prepared for the amendment. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Council Member Stegall offered Ordinance No. 2294 for first reading, an ordinance of the City CQuncil of the, Gity of Redding approving and adopting the amendment to the Market Street Redevelopment Plan for the Market S~reet Redevelopment Project Area. MOTION: Made by Co~ncil Member Stegall, seconded by Council Member Pohlmeyer, tha~ t4e full reading of OrdinCl!1c~ No. 2294 be waived (;lnd the City Attorney be instructed to read the full title. The Vote: Unilnimous Ayes. I , , At the hour of 8:12 p.m., Council Member/Agency Chair Cibula adjourned the Special Meeting of the Redding Redevelopment Agency. UPDATE ON CAPITAL PROJECTS Aquatic Center (Redding Plunge Renovation) (A-050-080 & P-O~O,. 700-600) , Corn.rnunity,Service Director Niemer reported that concrete has been poured for the pools, UJ;ldergroun<;l utiliti~s are underway, and construction will begin this week on the mechanical , building with project completion anticipated in September 2002. She also related that local 5/21/2002 117 retailer T.J. Max has committed to sponsor Friday Family Nights at Enterprise Pool this summer. No action was taken on this informational item. I Redding Power Unit No.5 (A-050-080 & E-120-150-675) Electric Utility Director Feider gave a Powerpoint presentation of various phases of construction for Redding Power Plant Generating Unit No.5. He stated that the project was completed within the authorized budget. He pointed out that Generating Unit No.5 will have the capability to supply 30-40% of the City's energy needs on an ongoing basis. Mr. Feider invited all to attend the dedication of Generating Unit No.5 which will take place at the Redding Power Plant on June 1,2002, at 9:00 a.m. In response to Mayor Kight's inquiry regarding air quality, Mr. Feider stated that the net effect of air quality with Generating Unit No.5 is far cleaner than prior to its installation. No action was taken on this informational item. I FEASIBILITY STUDY - Downtown Mall Circulation and Railroad/Grade Separation Projects; and APPOINTMENTS - Downtown Transportation Improvement Ad Hoc Committee (T-I00-300 & B-080-600) Deputy City Manager Starman highlighted the Report to Council dated May 10, 2002, recalling that the City Council at its regular meeting of December 4,2001, directed staff to work with the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (R TP A) to reallocate approximately $12.2 million in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ~ds from the proposed Parkview Bridge project to the Downtown Mall Circulation Improvement and/or the Railroad/Grade Separation Projects. At that time, the City Council authorized $250,000 in STIP funds to retain consultants to provide feasibility studies for the projects. At that time, the City Council also agreed to establish a committee (Downtown Transportation Improvement Ad Hoc Committee) to assist the City Council in determining the best project for allocation of the anticipated $12.2 million STIP funds. . (jD Mr. Starman recalled that the projects and the committee process were deferred, however, when it was discovered that the State received more program proposals than could be financially accommodated, and it was anticipated that funding would not occur for another two years. On April 4, 2002, the California Transportation Commission (CrC) approved the five-year STIP program providing $1 million to the City in fiscal year 2003-04 to allow design and environmental studies for the Downtown projects. R TP A notified the City that at its meeting of April 23, 2002, the Board approved an alternative that will allow the City to pursue feasibility studies by providing $250,000 in STIP Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds in July 2002 rather July of2003. In response to Council Member Cibula, Mr. Starman clarified that projects are constructed in phases and funding will be provided in phases with actual construction funding available in fiscal year 2004-05. I Deputy City Manager Starman recommended that the City Council authorize submittal of a request to the RTPA to utilize STIP PPM funds in the amount of $250,000 to prepare feasibility studies for the Downtown Mall. Circulation Improvement and Railroad/Grade Separation Projects in July 2002. He also recommended that the City Council appoint individuals to the Downtown Transportation Improvement Ad Hoc Committee. Council Member Stegall expressed concern that projects not exceed estimated costs once Council has approved them. Mr. Starman explained that the newly implemented policy on capital project estimating will be utilized in these projects, which will provide solid cost and scope estimates. Marie Carr-Fitzgerald urged City Council support for the Railroad/Grade Separation Project citing benefits to the community that would be sure and immediate. 5/21/2002 118 John Dunlap, Redding resident, said he could not support the Downtown Mall Circulation II1)prov~ment Project unless Downtown property owners provided equivalent financial support and he favored a railroad crossing as the more urgently needed improvement. MOTION: ,Made by Council Member Cibula, seconded by Council Member Stegall, authorizing submission of a request to the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (R TP A) to . utilize . $~50,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds to complete feasibility studies for the Downtown Mall Circulation Improvement and Railroad/Grade Separation Projects; authorizing selection of a consultant; and appointing Jason Waybright, Steve Baker, Ken Murray, Leroy Smick, Charlie Menoher, Mark Lascelles, and John Reit to serve on the Downtown Transportation ImprovementAd Hoc Committee to study the Downtown Mall Circulation Improvement and Railroad/G!ade Separation Projects and make recommendations to the City Council. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes I PUBLIC COMMENT Eminent Domain - William T. Cox Property C-070-010 & S-070-100 Dirk Tr~chy, Zack Cox, Mark Miller, Celeste Droisner, Darrin Aronofsky, Kevin Brackett, and Jessica Spain expressed opposition to the proposed eminent domain proceedings on ,property owned by William T. Cox for the extension of Canyon Creek Road to be considered by the City Council ,at the meeting of June 4, 2002, citing abuse of eminent domain power to provide access to a private development, destruction of wildlife species, indiscriminate grading of land and trees, and gen~ral over development. Water Fluoridation W -030 Donna Williamson, Carrie Nieman, and Michael Czehatowski expressed opposition to fluoridation of the City's water system, citing safety hazards, increased costs to fluoridate water, and urged that this issue be voted on by Redding residents. . City Hall Signature Fountain (C-050-025) Assistant City Manager Perry invited those present to attend the dedication of the Signature Fountain at the close of the meeting. I ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of9:20 p.m., Mayor Kight declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED Q/ftL Mayor ATTEST: ~~1 City Clerk ' . .' I 5/21/2002