Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1986-05-08 City Council, Adjourned Regular Meeting Joint Meeting of the Redding and Anderson City Councils Police Dept. & Council Chambers May 8, l986 7:00 P.M. Mayor Smolinski of the City of Anderson called his Council to order with the following Council Members present: Clarke, Stevens, Walsh, and Smolinski. Council Members absent: Bingham Mayor Fulton of the City of Redding called his Council to order with the following Council Members present: Carter, Dahl, Johannessen, and Fulton. Council Members absent: Gard Mayor Fulton advised that this meeting will be co-chaired by Mayor Smolinski and himself. Planning Director Tom Hart of the City of Anderson made a presentation to the Councils regarding the City of Anderson Annexation No. 85-2 (Dersch Road). He described the boundaries of the proposed annexation and advised that the City of Anderson was petitioned in November to submit an annexation request to LAFCO to annex these 8l7 acres to the City of Anderson. Mr. Hart explained that the matter is now before LAFCO to be considered on May l5. He said petitions were signed by approximately 60% of the property owners in the area, and a plan of services has been prepared by the City of Anderson. Mr. Hart stated that the suit filed by the City of Redding states that the densities in this area are inconsistent with the Airport Specific Plan. He advised that a small minority of the property owners in the area are opposed to the annexation and noted that approximately 50% of the land area is in favor, and 50% is opposed or did not take a position. Planning Director Phil Perry of the City of Redding made a presenta- tion to the Councils regarding the City of Anderson Annexation No. 85-2 (Dersch Road). Mr. Perry referred to the posted maps and advised that the annexation area contains two of the sites that Redding is considering for a regional sewage treatment plant (Site E and Site C-l, C-2). He said one of the concerns of the annexation is the relationship of the annexation to the Municipal Airport and the proposal to increase densities within the noise contour of the Air- port. Mr. Perry pointed out that the General Plan Amendment would increase the potential for nuisance lawsuits against the City of Redding, as operator of the Airport. He commented that Anderson adopted the specific plan by minute order rather than by resolution, and further felt that there was an inadequate level of environmental review for the annexation. Planning Director Hart addressed the matter of the site selection for the Stillwater Regional Treatment Plant. He outlined the EIR process and the responses made by the City of Anderson to the EIR and supple- ment. He said Anderson still does not feel that its objections have been responded to adequately. Mr. Hart said the Anderson Council was approached by citizens to join in a law suit to compel amplification of the EIR and he indicated that the matter is presently in litiga- tion. Mr. Hart emphasized that the City of Anderson is not objecting to a regional sewer treatment plant, but felt there are two sites that are almost equally rated in terms of costs, environmental issues, and engineering. He said the site selected by the City of Redding is the site which is the most controversial and appears to have the greatest environmental impact. Mr. Hart pointed out that the City of Redding says there are significant advantages to the site (C-l, C-2), however, Anderson doesn't see those significant advantages. They feel Site 4 is equally acceptable. Anderson City Council Member Bingham arrived at this time. Mr. Perry advised that the City of Redding began seeking a site for a regional sewage treatment plant in l980. He said Redding, Shasta County, and Shasta Dam Area Public Utility District joined together to form a Regional Sewer Committee. Mr. Perry emphasized that numerous meetings were held by the Committee, which were attended by the City of Anderson. He said it was determined that Redding should be the lead agency to look at the entire service area. Mr. Perry explained that Sharrah-Nolte was hired to prepare an alternative site study and it was this study that concluded that Site C-l, C-2 was the preferred site. He pointed out that the Regional Water Quality Control Board preferred a location near the Sacramento River and stressed that they determine the discharge requirements. Mr. Perry said it is the City's opinion that costs are less at the preferred site. He pointed out that Site 4 has problems with the soil, reclamation of the land, the requirement for a longer north/- south access road, an outfall line would have to be built along Stillwater Creek to discharge into the Sacramento River, and other unknown factors. Mr. Perry stressed that Site C-l, C-2 has ease of access, the plant was designed with site-plan-review criteria so it would not be visible from the street, and has the lowest visibility from existing homes. He stated that the overall goal is to keep utility rates and con- nection charges to a minimum. He emphasized that the preferred site has room for expansion in the future, has no risk of flooding as it is approximately nine feet higher in elevation than is the Anderson treatment plant. Redding's Public Works Director Arness, said when this project was initiated, Redding did its best to be sure that everyone, including Anderson, was informed about the Committee meetings and added that the target was to develop the best unit cost for whomever uses it. He emphasized that it is a regional facility. Mr. Arness stressed that he believes the site that was picked by Sharrah-Nolte is a good site and could serve both Redding and Anderson very well. He pointed out that Site C-l, C-2 would use a gravity flow system, which has less risk of failure than a pump system. Council Member Dahl asked for clarification as to why the City of Redding opposes the proposed annexation. Mr. Perry advised that the densities are inconsistent with the Airport Plan. Mr. Hart pointed out that according to the staff report to the Airport Land Use Commis- sion, Anderson's General Plan will not be inconsistent. He said they will implement their General Plan with more specific zoning so that it will be entirely consistent with the Airport Speci-fic Plan. Mayor Fulton asked for Anderson's specific objections to Site C-l, C-2. Mr. Hart advised that they believe there is a more suitable site than Site C-l, C-2. He said the EIR points out that there are a number of concerns such as riparian habitat of endangered species, and potential odors. He felt Site 4 will accomplish all objectives of the plant with the exception of the gravity flow, and from an environmental perspective, Site 4 seems to be much better. Mr. Hart said Site 4 can serve as great an area as Site C and the City of Anderson has adopted a sewer master plan which can be implemented from Fig Tree Lane to the River. He felt Site 4 can gravity flow to just below Fig Tree Lane and asked why that area couldn't be deleted from the plant to lower the cost. Mr. Hart remarked that Anderson does not believe there are significant other advantages of Site C-l, C-2 to offset the disadvantages. Council Member Johannessen asked Mr. Hart to explained the environ- mental advantages of Site 4 over Site C-l, C-2. Mr. Hart advised that there are rare and endangered species on Site C-l, C-2, and riparian vegitation. He said there is also concern about outfall in the River and its affect on salmon spawning. He said Anderson believes the outfall line from Site 4 would not have as sig- nificant an impact on the River, as Site C-l, C-2. Council Member Walsh asked if Anderson drops its General Plan or re-writes it to meet all criteria of the Airport Specific Plan, will that satisfy the City of Redding. Mr. Perry said such a change would go a long way to address those concerns; however, it would not address the question of the preferable site. Mayor Smolinski said Anderson has adopted the Airport Specific Plan as the overriding plan for the area. Mr. Perry noted that Anderson adopted the Specific Plan by minute order rather than by resolution, then adopted its General Plan and amended the General Plan by resolution. He said Anderson did not go through the proper procedure for adoption of the Specific Plan. In response to an inquiry from Council Member Stevens, Mr. Hart advised that, when the petition was received for annexation, there was no mention of the sewage treatment plant in the petition. He added that these people have been interested in annexation for over eight years. Council Member Johannessen noted that if Site C-l, C-2 is used, the plant is not visible from the River, but Anderson's existing site is visible. He emphasized that Site C-l, C-2 preserves 5,000 feet of River front-age in its natural state. He asked if this area were developed into homes, would that be better than the plant? Mr. Johannessen asked what difference Site 4 would make on salmon spawn- ing. Hank Hodge, 2963 Clear View Drive, pointed out the prime spawning area on a map, and emphasized that if the outfall were placed in the mouth of Stillwater Creek (Site 4), more water would be mixed with the effluent to dilute it. Mayor Smolinski contended that the plants expanded design capacity of l6 to 20 million gallons per day, must be able to handle a peak flow of three times the design capacity, or 60 million gallons per day of treated effluent into the River. He said one of his major concerns is the poten-tial size of the plant. Council Member Johannessen felt that the plant would not be utilized to its maximum capacity in his lifetime, and added that Site 4 could not be used for that size plant. He also noted that the Department of Fish and Game would be the agency to determine where the outfall would be. Mr. Arness said, in his opinion, Site 4 would have a much greater effect on riparian habitat than the preferred site. He further stated that Site 4 would require putting the outfall line across the Sacra- mento River and across an island at the juncture of Stillwater Creek and the Sacramento River, which would make him very nervous. Mr. Arness emphasized that the best part about a gravity plant is that the waste material can be treated through the plant without the need for booster pumps. Discussion ensued regarding the size of Site 4 compared to Site C-l, C-2. Staff advised that Site C-l consists of 3l3 acres and the plant will take up about 25 acres; whereas, Site 4 has about 25 acres totally and the plant will just fit on the property. Anderson Council Member Clarke noted that building the plant on Site C-l, C-2 cuts Anderson off at the River for industrial growth. She asked if the area surrounding Site 4 could be obtained for expansion. Senior Planner Keaney from the City of Redding advised that Site 4 cannot be expanded beyond about 25 acres due to the constraints of Stillwater Creek on the east and south, the Airport bluff on the west and the need to maintain gravity flow to the plant which dictates how far north the headworks can be placed. Anderson City Manager Bill Murphy commented that they are using the material compiled by the City of Redding to determine whether or not the two sites are equal; and, according to these reports, they are practically equal. He said the report seems not to represent all of the facts and possibly staff should take another look at the criteria used on the site comparison. Mr. Murphy emphasized that if you have two sites that are equal, the least controversial site should be used. Planning Director Perry advised that staff has continued to study the sites since the initial comparison was prepared and Site 4 has more problems than the preferred site. He said staff feels the sites are not equal. Mr. Arness commented that further engineering studies showed that Site 4 would require a pumping system and stressed that gravity flow is much preferred. Mayor Smolinski pointed out that if the area between the River and Fig Tree Lane were deleted from Site 4, that would lower the costs. Council Member Dahl asked Mr. Diaz, a planner from Sharrah-Nolte, about the site comparison between Site 4 and Site C-l, C-2. Mr. Diaz advised that the sites are basically equal. He advised that they had a meeting with City of Anderson residents to present to them the supplement to the EIR. Mr. Diaz advised that John Sharrah, addressing the engineering aspects, said Site C-l, C-2 was the best. Mr. Diaz said his firm did not look at the area in terms of whose sphere of influence it was in. He emphasized that a gravity flow system is best. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Smolinski, Mr. Diaz advised that if Site 4 were designed to serve all the area north of Meadow View Drive, it would be a gravity system. Mayor Fulton asked about the effluent from Site 4. Mr. Diaz replied that constructing an outfall line along Stillwater Creek may present some problems that no one is aware of at this time. Mayor Smolinski commented that one reason they wanted to annex the area is because it is lower density and won't have much of an impact on the sewer system for at least 25 years. Mr. Keaney stated that several facts have been brought out that need to be clarified. He said the EIR prepared by Sharrah-Nolte is over a year old. Concerning spawning habitat, Mr. Keaney said less than a third of the River frontage of Site C-l, C-2 has been identified as salmon spawning habitat. He pointed out that the Department of Fish and Game will establish the outfall line locations for both sites. Council Member Stevens referred to the EIR which states that the two sites are almost equal. Mr. Keaney stated that the expansion area for the sites has been finalized since the preparation of the EIR, and stressed that the EIR is not a final engineering document. He said the City of Redding looked at many more issues than required in the EIR. Mayor Smolinski pointed out that the supplemental report states that Site 4 is excellent for gravity flow, and the site evaluation report is a more technical report. Anderson Council Member Bingham voiced concern about the bad feelings that will result between Anderson and Redding if Site C-l, C-2 is used. He pointed out that none of the studies or reports had anything to do with human feelings. Council Member Johannessen asked how many homes would be impacted by Site C-l, C-2. Mayor Smolinski advised that the area is relatively undeveloped, but much of it is potentially developable, and the plant may attract more development. Ed Howland, 4l20 Story Lane, said everyone has a moral obligation to handle their sewage; however, what the City of Redding is proposing is to take everyone's sewage and put it in Anderson. He said one reason why he prefers Site 4 is because the outfall will be treated. Mr. Howland said his fear is that if the plant is located on the River, the effluent gets into the River and the park. He felt that if the plant is at the Airport, proper engineering should be able to keep the effluent there before it gets to the River. Another fear expressed by Mr. Howland is odors. He explained that there is an inversion on the bridge and it is unknown what kind of effect that will have. Mr. Howland suggested that the area south of Fig Tree Lane be deleted from the statistics so that Site 4 would be more feasible. He asked for Mr. Sandrock's opinion of selling his land to the City of Redding. Mr. Sandrock did not wish to speak at this time. Lloyd List, 5297 Dersch, said no one has talked about the impact on kids. He pointed out that just to the east of Site C-l, C-2 there are two schools and added that the ponds will attract animals and bugs. He asked why Redding keeps trying to jam it down their throats. Earl Boese, an Anderson resident, said he lives across the River from the proposed plant and he will have to move. When asked why he would have to move, Mr. Boese replied that he would have to move for the same reasons that the Clear Creek people had to move, i.e., flies and gnats. Mr. Boese suggested that the proposal be put to a vote of the people. David Williams, Oro Street, said he appreciates the comments concerning people. He said what he has seen before was that there was an impasse between the two Councils and it sounds like the same impasse is developing again. Mr. Williams said he doesn't feel any headway will be made until Anderson has a part in deciding where the plant will be located. He said there seems to be a misnomer that it is Redding's sewer plant, and maybe everything should be thrown out and started over. Mr. Williams said maybe we should look at the real need for the sewer plant, or possibly move it south below Anderson. He said because of the problems that have come up between the two Councils, maybe that decision needs to be made by a regional body. His opinion is that the County Board of Supervisors should be the lead agency, and they should have taken an active roll in the beginning. Eugene Crippa, 9033 Clear View, said his property abuts the east boundary of the proposed sewer plant. He said he appeared before the previous City Council and raised his strong objections because it directly affects the value of his property, which he intends to develop. Mr. Crippa added that if the plant is located on Site C-l, C-2, he intends to file a law suit to compensate for the devaluation of his property. He emphasized that Site 4 has been proven to be an acceptable site. Mr. Crippa felt that the City would have no trouble acquiring property surrounding Site 4 from the FAA. He emphasized that he believes the outfall line will come right next to his property line. In response to an inquiry from Council Member Johannessen regarding the number of homes in the vicinity of Site 4, Mr. Perry advised that there are some homes on the north end of Loftus. Leonard Wingate, attorney for Dr. Sandrock, asked if some work could be done to develop a positive viewpoint about Site 4. He said Site 4 could pick up a substantial amount of property on the east side of Stillwater Creek which would in turn give Shasta County a very large body of land that would be capable of providing industrial type use as an enticement to relocate here. He encouraged the Councils to move forward if at all possible and asked the City of Redding to take another look at the so-called drainage basins that are appropriate to the area. Mr. Wingate added that Dr. Sandrock will reserve his comments to a future date. At the hour of 9:l5 P.M., a l5 minute recess was called. Hank Hodge, 2963 Clear View Drive, emphasized that a lot of facts have been brought out and a decision will not be easy. He said, at pre- sent, both Cities are faced with law suits which benefit no one except the attorneys. He encouraged the Councils to come to a decision tonight. In response to an inquiry from Council Member Dahl, Mr. Diaz of Sharrah-Nolte replied that if he had to choose between the two sites, he would choose Site C-l, C-2, from a planner's point of view. He said Site 4 has unknowns. Anderson Council Member Clarke commented that, over the last 25 years, a lot of new technology has been learned about wastewater treatment plants. She said there is every probability that 25 years from now, with increases in population and other factors, our sewer plants as we now know them might be unsuitable to take care of the problem. She asked how anyone can plan something for 50 years if the technology is changing so fast. Council Member Stevens stated that if this plant is truly going to be a regional facility, it should be moved to the south and take in a much larger area. Mayor Fulton asked for further discussion regarding the proposed annexation. Mr. Hodges stated that the citizens of the area have been trying to be annexed for the past eight years, and finally got enough signatures together to go to LAFCO. He outlined some of the reasons they wish to be annexed, including fire protection and identification with the City of Anderson. Mr. Hodges said they view the City of Redding's lawsuit as a form of harassment and if they are voted down at the annexation hearing, there will be yet another lawsuit. Ed Howland commented that when the annexation was first announced, the City of Redding said they would build the plant whether or not the annexation succeeded. Mayor Smolinski commented that LAFCO determined that the annexation area should be in Anderson's sphere of influence and the residents were in accord. Mr. Perry noted that Redding and Anderson's spheres of influence overlapped when the Stillwater site was being studied. He added that these spheres were not adopted by LAFCO at that time. Kathy Eatman, Oak Park Lane, said she has lived there for 22 years. She said her neighbors and herself did not want to be annexed to Redding. She emphasized that they are happy with Anderson since they can give them the rural life style they desire. Ms. Eatman said they have been notified that the fire truck at the Airport will no longer serve them and added that the fire department from Bonnyview will take 20 minutes to get to them. They wish to be on first call with the Anderson Fire Department which is three to five minutes away from them. She said they also wish to have the Anderson Police Department to take care of them. Ms. Eatman emphasized that they have worked for a year and a half to become a part of the City of Anderson. She said this is what the people want and they do not want to be a part of the City of Redding. Eugene Crippa agreed that Anderson can serve the residents within the annexation area better than Redding. He advised that new technology for wastewater treatment is here and he supplied the Council Members with some information on the matter. Lloyd List, Dersch Road, said most people within this area acquaint with Anderson and didn't know they were in the Redding sphere of influence when this plant came about. He emphasized that the feelings of the people count and they are here because they want a different life style than Redding can offer. Council Member Johannessen pointed out that a tremendous amount of work went into this meeting tonight, including the staff's of both cities. He felt that no matter what the outcome is, both cities are taking a step in the right direction. Mayor Fulton concluded that the respective Councils will bring the information obtained at this meeting to their next City Council meetings and decide if further meetings are needed. He stressed that the public input is very important. Mayor Smolinski said he would like to see more information on Site 4 to see if it will work and what problems are associated with it. He also asked that more consideration be given to a larger regional plant. Mayor Fulton replied that if Redding can answer some of the concerns about Site 4, it will do so; however, in regard to a larger regional facility, the majority of the property to be included in this regional plant is in the County. He noted that the County has declined to get involved with the project. He also pointed out that such a facility would cost millions of dollars that are not available and it is important that the plant proceed as studied. Anderson Council Member Bingham suggested that in order to make some progress at future meetings, all law suits be dropped at this time. Anderson Council Member Clarke disagreed and felt that is not their decision to make since the suit was filed by the people of Anderson. Mayor Fulton stressed that this is not a decision-making meeting, but an informational meeting. He said Redding's staff will provide the answers requested on Site 4. Mayor Smolinski asked if the engineering firm could be asked to do further studies on Site 4. Mr. Perry advised that if Redding Council Members want further studies on Site 4, they should direct staff to do so. Mayor Smolinski stated that much of the information reacted to this evening has been information prepared by the consulting firm. Council Member Walsh concurred that some input should be received from the engineering firm. Council Member Clarke asked for a time limit on obtaining this infor- mation. Council Member Walsh noted that the annexation hearing will be coming up soon and staff should move rapidly on this matter. He asked if the City of Redding would be satisfied if the annexation met the goals of the Airport Specific Plan. He said they are meeting with LAFCO on May l5, l986. Mayor Fulton stated that staff will be as prompt as possible. Mayor Smolinski asked if it is the feeling of Redding that annexation is part and parcel of the suggested plan for the Stillwater Treatment Plant. Mayor Fulton felt the annexation can proceed. Council Member Clarke emphasized that if Anderson does not go through with the annexation request, it will be dropped from the LAFCO agenda. Council Member Stevens felt LAFCO will probably not table the matter again. Council Member Clark thanked the Redding City Council for meeting with them and said it is a step in the right direction. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of l0:00 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Clerk