Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1994-06-07 - Special City Council, Special Meeting City Council Chambers 1313 California Street Redding, California June 7, 1994 6:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Anderson with the following Council Members present: P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson. Also present were City Manager Christofferson, Assistant City Manager McMurry, City Attorney Hays, and Personnel Director Bristow. CLOSED SESSION (P-100-050-120) Mayor Anderson stated that pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6(a), the City Council would adjourn to closed session to discuss labor negotiations regarding the Peace Officers Association of Redding. At the hour of 6:30 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson declared the meeting adjourned to closed session. At the hour of 7:08 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson reconvened the meeting to regular session. No action was taken by the City Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 7:10 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: Mayor R. Anderson ATTEST: City Clerk City Council, Regular Meeting City Council Chambers Redding, California June 7, 1994 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by City Attorney Hays. The Invocation was offered by Sister Margaret Walsh, Mercy Medical Center. The meeting was called to order by Mayor R. Anderson with the following Council Members present: P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson. Also present were City Manager Christofferson, Assistant City Manager McMurry, City Attorney Hays, Director of Public Works Galusha, Director of Electric Utility Lindley, Electric Utility Engineering Manager Russell, Fire Chief Bailey, Police Captain Byard, Director of Finance Downing, Principal Planner Keaney, Assistant City Engineer Curtis, Public Works Operational Manager Russell, Director of Recreation and Parks Riley, Police Lieutenant Davidson, Director of Information Systems Kelley, Director of Personnel Bristow, Senior Planner King, Director of Utilities/Customer Service Vokal, Associate Planner Manuel, Associate Planner Hanson, Associate Planner Morgon, Transportation Coordinator Duryee, Budget Services Officer Starman, Management Analyst Bachman, Assistant Planner Thesken, City Treasurer Linville, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary to City Council Rudolph. CONSENT CALENDAR The following matters were considered inclusively under the Consent Calendar: Approval of Payroll and Accounts Payable Register (A-050-100-500) It is recommended that Accounts Payable Register No. 22, check numbers 206576 through 207293 inclusive, in the amount of $10,142,173.45, be approved and paid, Payroll Register No. 23, check numbers 377630 through 378371 inclusive, in the amount of $876,843.27, and Automatic Payroll Deposits, check numbers 19516 through 19705, in the amount of $281,235.37, for a total of $1,158,078.64, for the period April 24, 1994 through May 7, 1994, be approved, and Payroll Register No. 24, check numbers 378372 through 379131 inclusive, in the amount of $890,719.03, and Automatic Payroll Deposits, check numbers 19706 through 19895, in the amount of $281,994.59, for a total of $1,172,713.62, for the period of May 8, 1994, through May 21, 1994. TOTAL: $12,472,965.71 Treasurer's Report - April 1994 (A-050-100-600) Total Treasurer's Accountability - $ 60,334,380.57 Total City of Redding Funds, Funds Held in Trust, and Funds of Related Entities - $244,755,354.09 Cash Reconciliation Report - April 1994 (F-205-095-650) It is the recommendation of the Finance Director that the Cash Reconciliation Report for April 1994 be accepted. Legislative Matters (L-040-300) It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send letters to the appropriate officials expressing support of SB1783, SB1789, AB2897 and AB2778 and opposition to SB1601. Set Public Hearing - re General Plan Amendment GPA-14-92, Upper Stillwater Area Plan (G-030-010) It is the recommendation of the Planning and Community Development Director that a public hearing be set for 7:00 p.m., June 21, 1994, to consider the Upper Stillwater Area Plan, General Plan Amendment GPA-14-92. Set Public Hearing - re Appeal of Approval of Use Permit UP-17-94 and Denial of Variance Application V-4-94 (7051 Riverside Drive) (L-010-390 & L-010-410) It is the recommendation of the Planning and Community Development Director that a public hearing be set for 7:00 p.m., July 5, 1994, to consider the appeal of approval of Use Permit UP-17-94 and denial of Variance Application V-4-94. Resolution Setting Public Hearing - Abandonment Application A-5-93, by Donald Nelson (7051 Riverside Drive) (A-010-040) It is the recommendation of the Planning and Community Development Director that Resolution No. 94-144 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding declaring its intention to vacate and abandon surplus street right-of-way, namely that portion of Riverside Drive located at its southern terminus as described in Exhibit A (A-5-93) and setting a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., July 5, 1994. Award of Bid - Bid Schedule No. 2858, Oil Sampling Overhead and Padmount Transformers (B-050-100) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Bid Schedule No. 2858, oil sampling overhead and padmount transformers, be awarded to Jaco Construction, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $76,000. Funds for this work are included in the 1993-94 budget. Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance (R-100-375-325) It is the recommendation of the Risk Manager that the City Council authorize the City to obtain excess Workers' Compensation Insurance from Employers' Reinsurance Corporation at the rate of $0.1405, per $100.00 of payroll. Resolution - Appropriating Funds for Fire Prevention Public Education Materials and Authorize Receipt of Grant * (B-130-070 & G-100 & P-150-150) It is the recommendation of the Police Chief that Resolution No. 94-145 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 72nd amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 93-239 (1) appropriating $1,350 for fire prevention-related uses and (2) authorizing the receipt of a $1,350 grant from the McConnell Foundation. Aviation Day - at Benton Airpark (A-090-020) It is the recommendation of the Airports Director that the City Council authorize the Benton Experimental Aircraft Association to conduct Aviation Day 1994 at Benton Airport on June 19, 1994, from 7:00 a.m. until mid-afternoon, contingent upon proof of adequate insurance. Resolution - Lease of Property for FAA Air Traffic Control Tower and Installation of Emergency Generator (C-070-100 & A-090-100) It is the recommendation of the Airports Director that Resolution No. 94-146 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving Lease No. DTFA08-93-L-14128 between the City of Redding and the United States of America, for the period of July 1, 1992 through September 30, 1992, and authorizing annual renewals for a period not to exceed September 30, 2012, for certain property upon which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control tower facilities are situated and a parcel for installation of an emergency generator, and authorizing the Mayor to sign same. Award of Bid - Bid Schedule No. 2859, Bulk Fuel Delivery (B-050-100 & A-050-150-150) It is the recommendation of the General Services Director that Bid Schedule No. 2859, bulk fuel delivery, be awarded to the following for cost per gallon above OPIS: Cross Petroleum West Central Landfill (diesel) $.0625 Benton Transfer Station (diesel) $.0625 Mock Resources Police Department (plus unleaded) $.0222 Fire Hall No. 7 (diesel) $.0355 S.S.T. Oil Clear Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (diesel) $.0623 Glen T. Robinson Electric Utility Yard (diesel) $.0250 Electric Utility Yard (unleaded) $.0250 Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant $.0250 The 1994-95 Fleet Management budget includes sufficient funds for annual bulk fuel delivery. Award of Bid - Bid Schedule No. 2860, Card-Lock Fuel Agreement (B-050-100 & A-050-150-150) It is the recommendation of the General Services Director that Bid Schedule No. 2860, card-lock fuel agreement, be awarded to S.S.T. Oil for $.0788 above rack price for diesel and $.0748 above rack price for unleaded plus and supreme and Redding Oil for $.0883 per gallon above rack price. Resolution - Funding Agreement with Redding Colts Youth Football (B-130-030-625) It is the recommendation of the Recreation and Parks Director that Resolution No. 94-147 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving a $900 Funding Agreement between the City of Redding and the Redding Colts Youth Football, for the period of July 1, 1994, through November 30, 1994, to provide referees for all of its youth home-football games within the City during the 1994 season. Resolution - Funding Agreement with Enterprise Eagles Youth Football (B-130-030-050) It is the recommendation of the Recreation and Parks Director that Resolution No. 94-148 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving a $900 Funding Agreement between the City of Redding and the Enterprise Eagles Youth Football, for the period of July 1, 1994, through November 30, 1994, to provide referees for all of its youth home-football games within the City during the 1994 season. Resolution - Agreement with Shasta County for Repair of County Roads in Connection with Buckeye Water Treatment Plant Project Pipeline (A-070-045 & W-030-600) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that Resolution No. 94- 149 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving entering into an agreement between the City of Redding and the County of Shasta for repair of County Roads in connection with installation of City waterlines, and authorizing the Mayor to sign same on behalf of the City. Resolution - Accepting Streets and Acceptance of Improvements, Potter Manor Subdivision * (S-070-230 & S-100-601-800) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that Resolution No. 94- 150 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding accepting for maintenance and operation Capricorn Way and Corona Street in the Potter Manor Subdivision. It is further recommended that the improvements in the Potter Manor Subdivision be accepted as satisfactorily completed, and the City Clerk instructed to retain the securities until the fencing is completed. Award of Contract - re Right-of-Way Work for Eastside/Westside Parallel Sewer Interceptor Authorization of Purchase Order - re Title Reports It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council approve the selection of Astro Surveying to perform the right-of-way work for the Eastside/Westside Parallel Sewer Interceptor and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $37,235 and to approve a $3,724 contingency. It is further recommended that the City Council authorize the issuance of a purchase order for the necessary title reports to Redding Title Company in an amount not to exceed $16,000. The necessary funding for the right-of-way acquisition process is provided for in the 1993-94 Wastewater capital budget. Notice of Completion - Bid Schedule No. 2783, Construction of Redding Power Natural Gas Line (B-050-020 & E-120-150) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that Bid Schedule No. 2783 (Job. No. 9708-16), construction of the Redding Power natural gas line, awarded to Valley Engineers, Inc., be accepted as satisfactorily completed, and the City Clerk be authorized to file a Notice of Completion. The final contract price is $792,220.49. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that all the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved and adopted as recommended. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution Nos. 94-144, 94-145, 94-146, 94-147, 94-148, 94-149, and 94-150 are on file in the office of the City Clerk. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE SULPHUR CREEK COMMITTEE FROM SEQUOIA MIDDLE SCHOOL (P-050) Members of the Sulphur Creek Committee from Sequoia Middle School made the following presentation to the City Council: Sara Walden, 659 Teakwood Drive, related that the Sulphur Creek Committee meets once a week to discuss issues relating to Sulphur Creek, its adopted stream. Throughout the year, the committee has met with the California Department of Fish and Game and City officials, including the Recreation and Parks Commission. For the past 8 years, 200 students annually have been working on Sulphur Creek and the committee would like to see the tradition continued. Nicole Schuler, 6629 Waterford, stated that the committee would like the City to retain the 31 acres of useful parkland along Sulphur Creek for the following reasons: 1) The cost to the City is only $3,000; 2) Labor can be donated to improve the land. The California Conservation Corp has promised to donate time for this purpose; 3) It is an excellent wildlife habitat; and 4) Sulphur Creek is a tributary to the Sacramento River. Jennifer Briggs, 6563 Mullen Parkway, expanded on the reasons for the City retaining the Sulphur Creek area: 5) Whatever occurs on the upper portion of the stream will affect the lower portion of the stream; 6) For the past eight years, Sequoia Middle School has been doing many projects on the lower portion of Sulphur Creek; and 7) Preserving the park land will allow future students to gain greater knowledge of the ecological system. She presented petitions containing 745 signatures urging the City Council to save the park land near Sulphur Creek. It was the consensus of the City Council to refer the petitions regarding the Sulphur Creek area to the Recreation and Parks Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. RELOCATION OF WATERLINE ON LAKESIDE DRIVE (W-030-725) Public Works Director Galusha provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated June 2, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, regarding a letter received from Don Papin requesting the relocation of a 12-inch waterline along Lakeside Drive. In July 1993, Mr. Papin contacted the City regarding his concerns that the depth of the existing 12-inch cast iron waterline on Lakeside Drive was blocking the development of his property. Mr. Papin has requested that the City take appropriate action to correct the situation. In 1993, staff determined that it was the property owners' responsibility to relocate or lower the waterline, if required to develop the property. Mr. Galusha stated that the waterline was constructed in 1957, prior to the development of the lots in question. The waterline was constructed in the right-of-way of a future street without knowledge of future street grades. The development of property on the east side of Lakeside Drive was required to make all improvements necessary to develop. Current City policy requires that the property owners on the west side of Lakeside Drive make the public improvements necessary, including lowering or relocating the waterline to develop their property. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that the City Council follow current City policy and require the property owners on the west side of Lakeside Drive to make all the necessary improvements required to develop the property at their expense. Don Papin, 15690 Cloverdale Road, entered his letter dated June 6, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, into the record. He emphasized that the lot was purchased by Roy and Lovina Scheske, as a separate lot, in the early 50s, prior to the installation of the water main. He requested that the City Council consider his request to have the City pay for expenses associated with lowering the 12-inch waterline. Mr. Galusha provided pictures depicting the location of the waterline, which is not located beneath the street. He noted that the pipe is in good condition and is not viewed as needing to be replaced. The 12-inch waterline is necessary for fire flow to the area. City Attorney Hays viewed this as a situation where the City utilized the right-of-ways which were in existence when the waterline was installed. The lots were then split and created a frontage circumstance that did not exist at the time the waterline was constructed and he was not concerned about the City's liability. The recommendation of the Public Works Department is consistent with past City practices concerning the movement of utilities in order to accommodate development activities. Council Member Murray posed the following questions: 1) What is the difference in elevation between the center line of Lakeside Drive and the waterline; 2) Was the street constructed or reconstructed at the time the original Westgate Village was built; and 3) How much was the street allowed to be lowered at the time of construction. He viewed this as a situation where the Public Works Department approved the grading for a street within a subdivision that in essence dropped half the street below the level of the pipe on the east side, thereby stranding the pipe. Mr. Galusha stated that normal procedure would be for the developer on the other side of the street to take care of that improvement when development occurred. Council Member Murray questioned if the City routinely strands pipes higher than the level of the street without notifying the property owner on whose property the pipe is stranded. Mr. Galusha stated that the development on the east side did not have an impact on the waterline, so it was not necessary to provide any notification. Staff believed that the improvements required for that particular development were completed at that time. Council Member Murray asked whether the division that occurred in 1991 was a redivision of an earlier parcel or was it an original subdivision. Mr. Papin contended that they were designed as separate lots and purchased as separate lots in the 1950s. Mayor R. Anderson noted that additional information regarding the status of the lots would be required before the City Council could make a decision. Council Member Murray requested the following information: 1) When were the lots created; 2) What was the situation regarding the lots when the water line was developed; 3) What was the situation with the grade when the subdivision was developed; 4) Does the pipe have to be lowered just to meet the City's sidewalk standards; and 5) Can some type of modification or variance of City standards accommodate this unique situation. Council Member P. Anderson asked if there were other waterlines in the City which were not buried deep enough to meet current City standards once curb, gutter and sidewalks are needed. Mr. Galusha replied that waterlines are normally built in street right-of-ways with at least three feet of cover unless rock or other underground conduits are encountered. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, to continue the matter regarding the relocation of the waterline on Lakeside Drive to June 21, 1994, to allow staff time to answer questions posed by the City Council. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes PRESENTATION BY SHASTA COUNTY COMMUNITY VIOLENCE PREVENTION COUNCIL (P-150-150) Frank Sauer stated that the Shasta County Community Violence Prevention Council (formerly the Shasta County Youth Gang Task Force), has been providing education and training on the problem of violence and gangs in Shasta County for several years. A community violence prevention program was developed through a joint partnership between the California Department of Education, the Attorney General's Office, and the San Diego County Office of Education. This community action plan is flexible and will fit any geographic area and population. The program is comprised of five components: 1) Zero tolerance; 2) Training and education; 3) Prevention; 4) Intervention; and 5) Responding in crisis. He asked each City Council Member to sign a personal pledge to assist in stopping the cycles of violence and drug abuse. In response to Mayor R. Anderson, Police Captain Byard related that the City of Redding Police Department has been an active participant in the formation of the task force. The Community Violence Prevention Program will be an integral part of the Community Oriented Policing Program. This was an informational item and no action was required. REQUEST TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL - re Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project (E-090-160-500) Randall French, 11886 Hardpan Lane, expressed the following concerns regarding the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project: 1) Residents in the area were not properly notified at the initial time the project was started. Residents received letters approximately three to four years ago, however, it was assumed that this electrical project would provide the necessary electrical services needed after annexation was completed; 2) The line is scheduled to go down Pine Oaks Drive, down a fire exit road, and then down Hardpan Lane on which the City assumes it has the necessary right-of-way. The land was given to the Quartz Hill Road Assessment District and according to the paperwork, the residents do not believe the Electric Department has a legal right-of-way to utilize the land; 3) Mr. French noted that the high voltage line will run within 100 feet of his residence. There is concern regarding the new electro-magnetic field (EMF) findings; 4) The City would save money by taking the line directly down Keswick Dam Road; and 5) The power line will decrease property values. Mr. French noted that the other individuals requesting to speak were unable to attend and he spoke on their behalf as well. Electric Utility Engineering Manager Russell stated that public hearings were conducted in July 1992 regarding the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the project. Property owners within 300 feet of the preferred and alternate routes of the project were notified of the hearings. There was not adequate clearance for the line to cross underneath the Western Area Power Administration 230kV line, so it was not possible to take the line directly down Keswick Dam Road. Because staff was attempting to strategically locate the line to provide service to existing and anticipated future residents for the next 20 years, it was desirable to locate a substation in the northern area of the Quartz Hill area. No action was taken by the City Council. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - re Amendment to Chapter 16.28 of the Redding Municipal Code, Swimming Pools (L-010-500-050) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the continued public hearing regarding the amendment to Chapter 16.28 of the Redding Municipal Code concerning swimming pools. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Posting - Continued Public Hearing Planning Commission recommendation dated June 2, 1994 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Principal Planner Keaney recalled that the City Council, at its meeting of May 17, 1994, continued the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to Chapter 16.28 of the Redding Municipal Code regarding swimming pools. This continuation was in response to information received from the local pool- building industry that amendments to the State regulations in regard to fencing might be imminent. Since that time, the State has established a study commission and deferred any decision until September 1994. This action does not affect staff's proposal because the draft code simply references the State requirements as contained in the Uniform Building Code as opposed to a verbatim reiteration, thus future changes in State requirements would still be reflected in the City Code. One deviation from the State Code is the City's requirement that barriers have a minimum height of five feet as opposed to the State standard of four feet. The City has had a five-foot barrier requirement since 1961. The proposal also includes a clarification of requirements for pedestrian gates and non-pedestrian gates. Mr. Keaney related that the main issue being discussed by the State and the pool industry is a clarification of the State regulation pertaining to the use of a residence as part of the pool barrier, requirements for alarming doors exiting toward a pool, and requirements for fencing spas. The Department of Housing and Community Development has been directed by the State to send local Building Officials guidelines on this issue until the legislation is reviewed again in September. Mr. Keaney stated that the emphasis of staff's proposal to amend the code is to address setbacks for "in-ground" pools from rear and side property lines and from other structures. The current code does not allow encroachments into side and rear yards and is silent on setbacks from other structures. Prohibiting pools in rear- and side-yard setback areas has proven to be impractical, particularly on minimum size "R-1" lots which have a rear-yard setback of 15 feet. The amendment proposed by staff would establish five-foot setbacks from rear and side property lines as long as rear-yard access is maintained where required by the Zoning Ordinance. A minimum five-foot setback, or greater setback where undermining of a foundation could occur, is recommended from structures. It should be noted that these revisions are proposed for "in-ground" pools only. The ten-foot setback requirements from side and rear property lines for an "above-ground" pool are not affected. It is the recommendation of both the Planning Commission and staff that the City Council ratify the Negative Declaration and offer the ordinance for first reading. Mayor R. Anderson determined that there was no one present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that the City Council make the following findings regarding amendments to Chapter 16.28 of the Redding Municipal Code pertaining to swimming pools: 1. Project is compatible with the Redding General Plan; 2. Project will not significantly alter existing land form; 3. Project is compatible with surrounding land use; 4. Project is compatible with the Code of the City of Redding, California; and ratify the Negative Declaration authorized by the Planning Commission on April 12, 1994. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Council Member Kehoe offered Ordinance No. 2087 for first reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending portions of Chapter 16.28 of the Redding Municipal Code pertaining to swimming pools. PUBLIC MEETINGS - re Landscape Maintenance Districts A, B, and C Assessment for 1994-95 (A-170-075-050 & A-170-075-051 & A-170-075-052) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the public meetings regarding the 1994-95 assessments for Landscape Maintenance Districts A, B, and C. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavits of Mailing - Notice of Public Meeting Affidavits of Publication - Notice of Public Meeting Planning Department recommendations dated May 31, 1994 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Senior Planner King stated that the purpose of the public meeting involves the acceptance of testimony regarding the proposed consolidation, annexation and levying of annual assessments for fiscal year 1994-95. Following this meeting, a public hearing, as required by State law, will be held by the City Council on July 5, 1994, to hear concluding testimony regarding the following actions: 1. Consolidate existing Landscape Maintenance Districts 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, and 25 into one district to be known as Landscape Maintenance District "A;" 2. Annex additional territory, namely Unit 2 of the Lancer Hills Subdivision (Area 16), into Landscape Maintenance District "A;" 3. Levy and collect assessments in Landscape Maintenance District "A" for fiscal year 1994-95; 4. Consolidate existing Landscape Maintenance Districts 2, 4, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 23 into one district to be known as Landscape Maintenance District "B;" 5. Annex additional territory: Unit 4 and R1 of the Highland Oaks Subdivision (Area 7), into Landscape Maintenance District "B" and Units 11-16 of the Ravenwood Estates Subdivision (Area 10); 6. Levy and collect assessments in Landscape Maintenance District "B" for fiscal year 1994-95; 7. Consolidate existing Landscape Maintenance Districts 16, 17, and 22 into one district to be known as Landscape Maintenance District "C;" 8. Annex additional territory: Gold Hills Subdivision, Unit 3a, R1, and R2 (Area 4); Monterey Springs Subdivision, Unit 2 (Area 5); and Potter Manor Subdivision (Area 6) into Landscape Maintenance District "C;" 9. Levy and collect assessments in Landscape Maintenance District "C" for fiscal year 1994-95. The proposed assessments for fiscal year 1994-95 are as follows: 1) District "A" - $0.00, which includes the cash balance of last year. Without the cash balance, the assessment would be $23.20 per lot; 2) District "B" - $26.67 per lot, which includes the cash balance of last year. Without the cash balance, the assessment would be $61.28 per lot; and 3) District "C" - $7.72 per lot, which includes the cash balance of last year. Without the cash balance, the assessment would be $12.90 per lot. In staff's opinion, the district consolidations will benefit lot owners and the City in terms of lower assessments and less staff time for administration. It is suggested that at the conclusion of the hearing, that the City Council direct staff to respond to any additional issues in the report to be presented at the July 5, 1994, public hearing. Mayor R. Anderson determined that there was no one present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public meetings. In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. King related that there is no one registered with the Volunteer Services Coordinator with the necessary experience to perform landscape maintenance inspections. He also clarified that the City's current policy is to retain a 50 percent reserve, based on the actual maintenance contract, to cover any unusual expenses. No action was required by the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING - re Amendments to Title 17 of the Redding Municipal Code, Subdivision Ordinance (L-010-500-050 & S-100) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the public hearing regarding amendments to Title 17 of the Redding Municipal Code, subdivision ordinance. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Planning Commission recommendation dated May 20, 1994 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Associate Planner Manuel related that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 8, 1994, recommended approval of various amendments to Title 17, the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The last comprehensive review of the Subdivision Ordinance occurred in 1976. Since that time, piecemeal amendments have taken place, and several new chapters have been added. During this period, numerous amendments to the State's Subdivision Map Act (SMA) have been adopted, and numerous procedural changes have occurred at the local level. The revised ordinance attempts to bring the ordinance in full compliance with the SMA and to reorganize the document in a more readable format. Mr. Manuel provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 20, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, which discussed some of the issues brought to the attention of the Planning Commission by the development community during the public hearing process. He noted that the draft ordinance was sent to local engineers in September 1993 prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Manuel stated that while the document is large, it is an everyday document when dealing with subdivisions, lot splits, lot-line adjustments, administrative parcel maps, and lot mergers. It is the recommendation of both the Planning Commission and staff that the City Council ratify the Negative Declaration and offer the ordinance for first reading. Council Member Murray stated that he personally contacted approximately six developers within the community who were not aware of the proposed ordinance. He, therefore, suggested deferring action on the ordinance for four to six weeks to allow staff time to meet and review the ordinance with the development community. Council Member Kehoe supported deferring action on the ordinance to allow the development community time to review the proposed ordinance. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, to continue the public hearing regarding amendments to Title 17 of the Redding Municipal Code, Subdivision Ordinance, to July 19, 1994. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes PUBLIC HEARING - re Amendments to Chapter 18.55 of the Redding Municipal Code, Trash Container Enclosure Ordinance (L-010-500-050) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the public hearing regarding amendments to Chapter 18.55 of the Redding Municipal Code, trash container enclosure ordinance. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Planning Commission recommendation dated May 31, 1994 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Associate Planner Manuel related that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 26, 1994, recommended approval of amendments to the City's trash container enclosure ordinance. The amendments reflect the minimum requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. Mr. Manuel summarized that the City is required by State law to either adopt the State's model ordinance or adopt its own version by September 1, 1994. If the City does neither, the State's ordinance becomes effective until the City's own ordinance is adopted. The purpose of the law is to require that adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials be set aside in development projects. Mr. Manuel explained that a committee of two architects and three builders, as well as Planning and Solid Waste staff, was established to review the law and the model ordinance. The committee determined that it would be in the City's best interest to incorporate the basic provisions of the law into the City's existing Trash Container Enclosure Ordinance. It is the recommendation of both the Planning Commission and staff that the City Council ratify the Negative Declaration and offer the ordinance for first reading. Mayor R. Anderson determined that there was no one present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Made by Council Member McGeorge, seconded by Council Member Murray, that the City Council make the following findings regarding the amendment to Chapter 18.55 of the Redding Municipal Code regarding trash container enclosures: 1. Project is compatible with the Redding General Plan; 2. Project will not significantly alter existing land form; 3. Project is compatible with surrounding land use; 4. Project is compatible with the Code of the City of Redding, California; and ratify the Negative Declaration authorized by the Planning Commission on April 26, 1994. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Council Member McGeorge offered Ordinance No. 2088 for first reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Redding Municipal Code Title 18, Zoning, by repealing Chapter 18.55 and adding a new Chapter 18.55 entitled Trash Container Enclosures. PUBLIC HEARING - re General Plan Amendment Application GPA-2-94, by Hilltop Bluffs (southwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Palisades Avenue) (G-030-010) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived Mayor R. Anderson opened the public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment GPA-2-94. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Planning Commission recommendation dated May 31, 1994 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Principal Planner Keaney related that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 26, 1994, recommended denial of a request by Hilltop Bluffs to amend the General Plan on property located at the southwest quadrant of Hilltop Drive and Palisades Avenue from "Residential, 3.5 and 9.0 units per acre" and "Greenway" to "Residential, 9.0 units per acre" and "Office." Mr. Keaney indicated that the Hilltop Bluffs property consists of 19.8 acres characterized by sloping land with Hilltop Drive as a high point and the remaining land sloping southward toward the Sacramento River. At present, the "Residential, 3.5 units-per-acre" General Plan designation comprises only .87 acre at the southern boundary of the site. "Residential, 9.0 units per acre" comprises 11.3 acres of the site, and "Greenway" comprises 7.6 acres. Essentially, the General Plan amendment would eliminate the "Greenway" and "Residential, 3.5 units-per-acre" designations and provide for 6.5 acres of "Office" development along Hilltop Drive and realigned Palisades Avenue and "Residential, 9.0 units per acre" on the remaining southern portion of the property. Mr. Keaney stated that the proposed General Plan amendment request was before the Planning Commission for an environmental impact determination on April 26, 1994. Based on environmental issues and land-use conflicts, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. He provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 31, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, which discussed the potential land-use conflicts resulting from the introduction of office and retail uses in a predominantly residential area, traffic circulation, and landform alteration. Mr. Keaney explained that the General Plan was adopted for this area in 1973 when the Planning Commission adopted a master plan for this area to reclassify it from single family to multiple family. In doing so, the Planning Commission and the City Council adopted a specific number of units for each parcel. For this parcel, that number was 93 units; and that is what is mapped on the General Plan. By policy, the Planning Commission may reconcile densities to topography, which would allow 158 units on the property. To date, all properties along Hilltop Drive, with one exception, have developed in accordance with that plan. If the City Council wants to further consider this General Plan amendment as proposed, an environmental impact report should be prepared. With respect to this property, the City Council could reconcile the General Plan to slope, although that did not occur for others in the area based on projected utility and street usage; and the City Council could eliminate the single-family density in the southeast corner, which would add another five units. In consideration of the potential impacts identified in the environmental initial study and in consideration of the problems associated with commercial issues encroaching westward on Hilltop Drive, it is the recommendation of both the Planning Commission and staff that the General Plan amendment, as proposed, be denied. Council Member McGeorge asked how the number of trips per day is calculated for restaurant and office uses. Mr. Keaney indicated that trip generation figures are taken from a traffic manual produced by the International Traffic Engineers Association which is based on square footage and the number of employees. In this particular situation, staff assumed that the east side of the realigned Palisades Avenue would be developed in either a restaurant or bank type use. A 25 percent building coverage and slow turnover, high-value restaurant were also assumed. In addition, a 35 percent building coverage for general office was assumed on the west side of Palisades Avenue. He noted, that because of the large acreage, more than one restaurant could conceivably be developed on the property. Eihnard Diaz, representing the applicant, Mike and Judi Smaldino, noted the three major issues which resulted in the denial of the project: 1) Land use compatibility - It was expressed to staff that the types of uses being proposed would consist of approximately 70,000 square feet of professional office space and 6,000 square feet for a quality, sit-down restaurant. The applicant would not oppose limitations being placed on the amount of square footage designated for office space or to the number and/or size of restaurants to be developed. He provided a map depicting vacant land remaining in the general vicinity which are served by Hilltop Drive between Interstate 5 and Lake Boulevard. He noted that the Air Quality Element of the General Plan encourages office/commercial uses in high density residential. In addition, the Air Quality Element also has a goal of reducing the number of motor vehicle trips and the number of vehicle miles traveled. He indicated that there are examples throughout the country where view and design have overcome land use compatibility issues; 2) Traffic and Circulation - He noted that the Report to City Council contains internal conflicts. Conversations with Traffic Engineer-Planner Will indicated that this particular segment of Hilltop Drive currently carries approximately 12,000 trips per day and operates at a Service Level "C." As projects are developed along Hilltop Drive, improvements will be required to widen it to four lanes, thereby accommodating 24,000 trips per day. He believed a more realistic trip generation figure for office and restaurant use would be 1,600 versus staff's projection of 6,000. He also related that the City is not consistent regarding standards and their particular application. He stated that the City has historically and consistently determined developeable areas based on slopes over 20 percent regardless if it was designated "Greenway." The 1.26 acres which have slope over 20 percent can be avoided through design, however, he did not believe it made sense. He proposed that the City Council accept Alternative No. 6 as outlined in the Report to City Council with the following addition: "The City Council finds merit with the proposed General Plan Amendment request and that the issues of a) land use compatibility is evidenced in the location of the site, the Air Quality Element, and through the requirement of a Use Permit prior to development; b) Hilltop Drive upon its eventual development to four lanes has the capacity to accommodate existing traffic and that generated by existing vacant land including the project site; and c) Implementation of the Use Permit procedures will allow the discretionary design review over future land form alterations to minimize impacts on the open space system and potential erosion hazards evident. Staff is hereby directed to work with the applicant's representative to support a Negative Declaration." Should the City Council concur, the matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission. In response to Council Member Kehoe, Mr. Keaney related that there was considerable discussion at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the fact that the mixed uses would be implementing the Air Quality Element. The other issue which involved considerable discussion was the configuration of the steep slope. Mayor R. Anderson did not object to limiting the amount of professional office space. Council Member P. Anderson stated that in the spirit of economic development and the creation of employment, she would like to see the applicant's representative work with staff to develop alternatives acceptable to both parties. Mayor R. Anderson determined that there were no additional individuals present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, requesting staff to work with the applicant's representative to develop alternatives which are acceptable to both the City and the applicant. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes At the hour of 9:17 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson declared the meeting recessed. At the hour of 9:28 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson reconvened the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - re Appeal of Tentative Subdivision Map S-3-90, Forest Homes Subdivision, Phase III, Appeal by Kenneth Harrison, et al (Shasta View Drive) (S-100-208) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the public hearing regarding the appeal of Tentative Subdivision Map S-3-90, Forest Homes Subdivision, Phase III, appeal by Kenneth Harrison, et al. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing Planning Commission recommendation dated May 31, 1994 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Principal Planner Keaney related that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 26, 1994, approved the Tentative Map for Forest Homes III Subdivision, granting Don Lynn permission to create 58 single-family residential lots on 17 acres located east of Shasta View Drive, west of Clover Creek, and south of Hartnell Avenue. Subsequently, a letter of appeal of the conditions of approval pertaining to improvements to Leonard Street was received. He noted that the subdivision was originally approved in 1985, and the initial phases of the project on the west side of Shasta View Drive were constructed. The portion of the subdivision east of Shasta View Drive expired. This subdivision represents a reapplication. Mr. Keaney explained that the appeal of the approval of the subdivision reflects concerns of property owners on Leonard Street north of the subdivision regarding increased traffic on that road. The conditions of approval limit improvements to that street to providing four-foot gravel shoulders adjacent to undeveloped parcels. This portion of Leonard Street, in the opinion of the City Attorney, is not a public street; however, it has been maintained by the City since annexation in 1976. It was also maintained by the County of Shasta prior to that time. The street has a paved width of 24 feet, although brush has narrowed the effective width to 20 feet adjacent to undeveloped parcels. Curb, gutter, sidewalks and streetlights are nonexistent. Mr. Keaney stated that the design of the Forest Homes Subdivision, as far back as 1985, recognized the desirability of linking Leonard Street with Shasta View Drive, providing a southern outlet for that dead-end street. This was primarily for access to Alta Mesa School, for emergency needs, and to allow service vehicles to be more efficient. The provisions of the development agreement do not require Mr. Lynn to obtain public dedications for Leonard Street or to provide additional improvements. Mr. Keaney related that the appellants, representing 4 of the 15 properties that abut the street, have requested the following: 1. Assurances that there will not be an assessment district formed to maintain and improve Leonard Street; 2. That the City establish and purchase a 40-foot right-of-way for the street. The minimum right-of-way width is generally 60 feet; 3. That streetlights be provided; 4. That sewer and gas lines be installed in Leonard Street, presumably at Mr. Lynn's or the City's expense. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the conditions applied by the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines that Leonard Street should not be connected, it is suggested that it would be prudent to cease further maintenance of that street by the City and to not require completion of the road shoulder work. Council Member McGeorge noted that trees in the area are very close to the street, which is dark and narrow. He also indicated that there are children in the area and did not believe that the current plans were adequate if Leonard Street is to become a natural arterial for the subdivision. Mr. Keaney related that the proposed plans represented a judgement call on staff's part as to how much can be required of a particular developer for off- site improvements. He noted that with direct access to Shasta View Drive, not all 580 daily trips generated by these 58 lots would be utilizing Leonard Street. George Kucera, 15669 Ranchland Drive, an attorney representing 13 of the 15 property owners on Leonard Street, stated that Leonard Street is a private street. He presented petitions signed by 13 of the 15 property owners objecting to the City taking their property without just compensation. He related that the property of one of the two remaining property owners only fronts Leonard Street for one and one-half feet. Staff is requesting a developer to put four feet of gravel on Leonard Street without the property owners' permission, without adequate compensation and allowing 58 additional homes to utilize their property. He indicated that it his clients' desire to retain the private dead-end street. He urged the City Council to construct a barricade at the end of Leonard Street and that the property cannot be taken without adequate compensation. He also requested that Condition No. 13 be eliminated from the Conditions of Approval. In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Mr. Kucera indicated that the City has performed sporadic and irregular maintenance on the property. He was not certain if the annexation agreement required the City to maintain Leonard Street. Public Works Director Galusha stated that when the area was annexed, the City basically took over the maintenance of roads that were on the County road log. Since that time, it has been learned that Leonard Street was a private street. To date, however, there has been very little maintenance on the street. Richard Collins, 9340 Pond View Drive, stated that he purchased property on Leonard Street approximately two years ago as an investment. He opined that if the street became a thoroughfare it would be difficult to rent the properties on a breakeven basis. The dead-end-street is desirable for families with children. Ed Fowler, 19178 Gravel Plant Road, indicated that the condition of Leonard Street will not withstand the additional traffic being proposed. Gail Billings, 3252 Leonard Street, related that if Leonard Street is barricaded, she would have no way of exiting her property except through a ditch which floods. She concurred that Leonard Street will not withstand the additional traffic unless it is improved. Mr. Keaney related that the approved tentative subdivision map depicts a new public street which would front Ms. Billings' property and allow her to exit via Shasta View Drive. Mayor R. Anderson determined that there were no additional individuals present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. Council Member Murray asked the length of Leonard Street from Hartnell Avenue to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Keaney replied that it was approximately 1,300 feet. Council Member Murray related that Leonard Street is considered to be dangerous by the City's own fire standards. Mayor R. Anderson indicated that the only logical decision appears to be the placement of a barricade at the end of Leonard Street. Mr. Kucera concurred with the placement of the barricade and indicated that his clients would be willing to discuss the possibility of selling the street to the City. Mayor R. Anderson did not believe the City would be interested in purchasing the street. Council Member Murray did not favor extending any services to residents on Leonard Street until the street was upgraded and connected. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that the City Council deny the appeal regarding Tentative Subdivision Map S-3- 90, Forest Homes Subdivision, Phase III, by Kenneth Harrison, et al, require a barricade to be placed on Leonard Street at the north boundary of the subdivision, and direct that Condition No. 13 be removed from said Conditions of Approval. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes REAPPOINTMENTS - Senior Citizens Facility Advisory Commission (B-080-450) MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member Murray, to reappoint Ken Seamans and Linda Davis to the Senior Citizens Facility Advisory Commission to serve two-year terms expiring May 1, 1996, and appoint Al Ortel to said commission for a two-year term expiring May 1, 1996. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes APPOINTMENT - City Council Liaison to the Northern California Municipal Electric Association, American Public Power Association, and California Municipal Utilities Association (B-080-650) MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, to appoint Council Member Murray as the City Council Liaison to the Northern California Municipal Electric Association, American Public Power Association and the California Municipal Utilities Association. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes ORDINANCE NO. 2085 - Rezoning Application RZ-2-94 by Russell McConnell and the City of Redding (Hidden Hills and Brookside Subdivisions) (L-010-230) Council Member Murray abstained from voting and discussion on this matter. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that the full reading of Ordinance No. 2085 be waived and the City Attorney be instructed to read the full title. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that Ordinance No. 2085 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Section 18.06.020 of the Redding Municipal Code relating to the rezoning of certain real property in the City of Redding to "R-1" Single-Family Residential District, and "U-F" Unclassified District with Site Plan Review Combining District (RZ-2-94). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Abstain: Council Members - Murray Ordinance No. 2085 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ORDINANCE NO. 2086 - Rezoning Application RZ-3-94 by Jaxon Enterprises (River Park Subdivision, Units 4 and 5) (L-010-230) MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that the full reading of Ordinance No. 2086 be waived and the City Attorney be instructed to read the full title. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that Ordinance No. 2086 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Section 18.06.020 of the Redding Municipal Code relating to the rezoning of certain real property in the City of Redding to "R-1" Single-Family Residential District, and "U-F" Unclassified District with Site Plan Review Combining District (RZ-3-94). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray, and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Abstain: Council Members - None Ordinance No. 2086 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ANNUAL AUDIT (F-205-150-075) Council Member Murray explained that currently two members of the City Council serve on the City's Audit Committee and are involved with the City's auditor in the development of the management letter and the audit report. The management letter is structured so that it appears to be coming from staff and not the City Council. He asked if the rest of the City Council was comfortable with this procedure. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member Murray, to direct staff to submit a tentative response to the management letter for the City Council's review and approval. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes RESOLUTION - Annual Adjustment of Pay-for-Performance Salary Ranges for Unrepresented Employees (P-100-320) City Manager Christofferson related that Pay-for-Performance salary ranges for unrepresented employees have been adjusted each year, except during the period of the hiring freeze and Pay-for-Performance freeze. This adjustment is necessary in order to ensure that the compensation ranges stay abreast of changes in the economy, and does not necessarily mean that employees who are subject to the Pay-for-Performance Plan will automatically receive a commensurate increase. Mr. Christofferson explained that failure to make range adjustments would result in a degree of compaction in very short order that would aggravate the situation that already exists in which some supervisors are compensated at a rate either very close to or actually lower than the rates of those they supervise. Mr. Christofferson continued that the pay rates for the City Clerk and City Treasurer have historically been separated into two rates: one for elective duties and the other for administrative duties. The elective rate has essentially been maintained at a constant level, and the adjustment has taken place in the administrative range. This means that if the ranges for Pay-for- Performance classes is adjusted by two percent, the effect of the total compensation rate for the City Clerk and the City Treasurer amounts to about half that of other employees. In order to avoid this aberration, it would be necessary to adjust both rates for the City Clerk and the City Treasurer, which is a departure from previous practice. It is the recommendation of staff, that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution providing for a two percent adjustment of the Pay-for-Performance salary ranges for unrepresented employees, including the elective duties salary for both the City Clerk and City Treasurer. In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Mr. Christofferson clarified that Pay-for-Performance employees are not eligible for a salary adjustment until their anniversary date with the City. Council Member Kehoe suggested that the matter be continued until after budget deliberations. Mayor R. Anderson concurred with Council Member Kehoe and added that it might be appropriate to defer action until the new City Manager reports. Mr. Christofferson indicated that the 1994-95 budget has adequate provision for this salary range increase. If the City Council defers action on this matter until after budget deliberations and the new City Manager reports, salary inequities will be created for those individuals with anniversaries during this period. Council Member McGeorge concurred with staff's recommendation and noted that when salary inequities were previously created, those individuals organized and are now represented. Council Member Murray did not concur with individuals making more than their supervisor. MOTION: Made by Council Member McGeorge, seconded by Council Member Murray, that Resolution No. 94-151 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding rescinding Resolution No. 94-67 as of midnight, June 4, 1994, and establishing a new Executive Management Pay-for-Performance Salary Plan for unrepresented employees effective June 5, 1994. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, McGeorge, and Murray Noes: Council Members - Kehoe and R. Anderson Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-151 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PRESENTATION ON NEXRAD (A-090-100-935) City Manager Christofferson recalled that the City Council, at its meeting of May 17, 1994, approved a letter to be signed by the Mayor on behalf of the City expressing concerns relative to weather service for this region. He provided the City Council with a packet containing the City's letter and those letters received from a variety of organizations and individuals who would be affected by reduction in the level of weather forecasting service. It has not yet been determined how the letter would be presented after the accompanying letters were accumulated. Mr. Christofferson related that a map is being prepared which depicts the area's topography to emphasize why the current radar will not be beneficial to this area. Mr. Christofferson stated that it is now necessary for the City Council to determine its preferences as to how the letter is presented to the Secretary of Commerce. A delegation can be sent to Washington D.C. to ensure that the message is conveyed in as strong a manner as possible, or to rely on some representative already in Washington, such as Congressman Herger, to perform this task on behalf of the City. Mayor R. Anderson expressed concern with sending a delegation and not knowing if it will be effective. In view of the importance of obtaining White House support, he felt it would be important to have a Democrat in the delegation. Council Member Murray favored sending a representative to Washington D. C. to present the material. He did not believe that the delegation should consist solely of City of Redding representatives. Council Member P. Anderson believed it would be more effective to send at least one City of Redding representative and asked if it would be possible to put together a delegation of members of the task force, as well as Congressmen Herger and Fazio. Mr. Christofferson related that both Congressmen would be delighted to do their part. He noted that other members of the task force joining the delegation would be conditioned upon their ability to come up with the necessary money. He envisioned the City paying for a City Council Member's expenses. He could see several individuals being part of the delegation and providing a varied viewpoint. If a City Council Member were to join the delegation, Council Member Kehoe did not want to send a message to the public that City Council Members would be participating in a lot of these type excursions. Mr. Christofferson stated that both Congressman Herger's Chief of Staff, John McGill, and Del Smith have indicated that there is no substitute for someone from the affected area to come to Washington D.C. The Congressman have the necessary power, but do not speak with the knowledge of local circumstances. In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Christofferson indicated that individuals in Washington D. C. have guaranteed access to individuals in the White House on an appointment basis. Mayor R. Anderson asked Mr. Christofferson to determine if any of the other agencies involved in the task force would be willing to send a representative to Washington D.C. No action was taken on this item. PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 (B-130-070) City Manager Christofferson provided an overview of the proposed budget for fiscal year 1994-95 utilizing the following viewgraphs, incorporated herein by reference: 1) Recommended Financial Plan for 1994-95; 2) Summary of Budget Effect; 3) The Resource Picture; 4) Major Goals and Program Strategies for 1994-95; 5) Capital Improvement for 1994-95; 6) Council Options for Meeting Unfinanced Needs; and 7) The Gann Limit. It was the consensus of the City Council to hold the first budget study session on Monday, June 13, 1994, at 8:00 a.m., in City Hall Conference Room A. PROJECT UPDATE - Redding Power Combustion Turbine Project (E-120-150) City Manager Christofferson related that the City's Special Counsel and the City Attorney are moving forward with the preparation of the City's positions related to the developer's claim for additional funding and the developer's performance failure. It is anticipated that the arbitration procedure set forth in the agreement between the developer and the City will resolve the issues related to the developer's claim. Mr. Christofferson explained that Mayor R. Anderson, Council Member Murray, Special Counsel and staff have initiated negotiations with the developer's prime contractor, and staff is investigating the following alternatives available to the City for expediting completion of the project: 1) Negotiating an agreement for completion with the developer's prime contractor, Zurn/NEPCO; 2) Hiring an outside independent contractor to complete the project; and 3) Assume direct control for project completion utilizing City staff for project management and directly sub-contracting for completion of the remaining project tasks. It is anticipated that within the next two to four weeks, that staff will be prepared to move forward in an expeditious manner following the City Council's selection of a completion alternative. The project is anticipated to be completed within the original budget and will be completed in time to be available to meet the City's peak power needs in the summer of 1995 as scheduled. Mayor R. Anderson related that the City's Special Counsel has determined that MLP has abandoned the project and it is incumbent upon the City to move forward with the project's completion as expeditiously as possible. He requested that staff prepare a recommendation for the City Council's consideration regarding the best alternative along with an estimated cost breakdown. Council Member Murray stated that the City Council has been working diligently to resolve this problem. He opined that his first responsibility is to be accountable to the public and that the same accountability extends to staff for their action, however, before that can occur, it is important to get the project on line. He noted that this entire process started in 1980 when the City Council decided to become energy independent from PG&E, which was achieved in June 1994. He stated that if the City were to start the project over, the ratepayers would still realize a savings of $325,000,000. The problems need to be addressed, however, the City has made a very wise investment with regard to the Redding Power combustion turbine project. This was an information item and no action was taken. SET PUBLIC HEARING - re Adjustment of Schedule of Fees and Service Charges (F-205-600) Director of Finance Downing stated that in accordance with City Council Policy 802, staff submits to the City Council on an annual basis the proposed increases in the City Schedule of Fees and Service charges. She related that most of the proposed adjustments will be based on the change of 3.5 percent in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the year ended April 1994. Some of the fees, however, will be adjusted based on input from the departments detailing operating costs connected with providing the service which are above the CPI. In accordance with adopted City Policy and California Government Code requirements, it is the recommendation of staff that a public hearing be set for June 21, 1994. Council Member Murray opined that as a matter of disclosure, the public should know what the proposed increases are prior to setting the public hearing. He indicated that he would be willing to accept a report in two weeks which depicted the current fees, as well as the proposed fees, and conduct the public hearing on July 5, 1994. Ms. Downing stated that the proposed fee increases, which exclude utility rates, have been submitted to the various departments for review. She noted that Proposition 4 does not permit the City to charge more than the cost of providing the service. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, to set a public hearing regarding the proposed increase in the City's Schedule of Fees and Service Charges for 7:00 p.m., July 5, 1994. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - April 1994 (B-130-070) Budget Services Officer Starman provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 31, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the Monthly Financial Report for April 1994. MOTION: Made by Council Member McGeorge, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, to accept the Monthly Financial Report for April 1994. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes RESOLUTION - Allocating Funds for Sacramento River Trail Extension to Hilltop Drive and Authorizing Receipt of Grant Funds (P-050-460-700) Associate Planner Hanson recalled that the City Council previously authorized staff to submit a request for funding under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) for river trail improvements. The requests were approved as follows: 1) Trail Extension to Hilltop Drive - ISTEA $120,000, State Match $30,000, for a total of $150,000; and 2) Pedestrian Bridge at Turtle Bay - ISTEA $300,000, State Match $60,000, for a total of $360,000. Mr. Hanson stated that Caltrans has indicated that funding is available for street improvements along Hilltop Drive in conjunction with the trail extension project under its Local Partnership Program. The amount of funds available to the City is unknown at this time because they are computed on a statewide basis in July; however, Caltrans has indicated that it may be in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. Mr. Hanson indicated that the cost estimate of $150,000 includes design, environmental review, construction and $10,000 for acquisition of right-of-way easements if necessary. The decision on which alignment will be recommended will be based primarily on environmental concerns not yet identified and steepness. Based on preliminary review, it is expected that property utilized by Bella Vista Water District will be recommended. The Bella Vista Water District has already passed a resolution in support of utilizing its right-of- way for the trail. The final approval will come from the Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Federal land and leases it to Bella Vista. Bureau staff has also indicated its support. Mr. Hanson explained that the majority of Federal and State grants, including these, are based on a system of reimbursements. Once a portion of the project is complete, a payment request is submitted for reimbursement. There is a time lapse of approximately 60 days before reimbursement is received. This process requires that local funds be budgeted to complete the project. In this case, staff is suggesting that the In-Lieu Park Fund be utilized because the bulk of the Park Development Funds have been dedicated to the Enterprise Community Park. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the necessary budget resolution allocating $166,000 from the In-Lieu Park Fund for the project, including $6,000 in overhead charges from Public Works. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 94-152 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 73rd amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 93-239 (1) appropriating $166,000 to extend the Sacramento River Trail; and (2) authorizing the receipt of $160,000 in revenue. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-152 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - Buenaventura Boulevard, by Signature Northwest and the City of Redding (A-070-300 & C-070-010) Principal Planner Keaney recalled that the City Council, at its meeting of April 5, 1994, directed staff to prepare an agreement between Signature Northwest Partnership (SN) and the City of Redding that could result in the construction of the missing segment of Buenaventura Boulevard south of Placer Road and north of Canyon Creek Road. Payment to Signature Northwest for the construction work would primarily be in the form of surplus property. The principal parcel of surplus property is located on the ridge top just west of where Buenaventura Boulevard will be constructed. Mr. Keaney summarized the main framework of the agreement as follows: 1) SN designs the road. A plan line and an environmental impact report (EIR) for the road have already been completed and certified by the City Council; 2) City reviews design and approves improvement plans; 3) SN bids project and hires construction contractor. City must approve the contract and any change orders; 4) City inspects work as standard road construction procedure; 5) Upon completion of the road, the City files a Notice of Completion; and 6) After filing of the Notice of Completion, SN is compensated by the City, granting to SN up to four parcels that are currently declared surplus. The agreement also provides the flexibility to include additional surplus parcels with mutual agreement of City and SN. Any difference between appraised land value and construction cost would be paid in cash. Mr. Keaney stated that in addition to the approval of the agreement, there are the following issues that may need policy consideration by the City Council: 1) Any cash needed by the City for the project would be allocated from the traffic impact fee (TIF) fund; 2) Resolution No. 90-543 established the policy that revenue from surplus property sales be set aside in a "building and property acquisition fund." This agreement would essentially result in the surplus property fund paying for road construction, which is counter to that policy. Staff is proposing that the Citywide TIF reimburse the "building and acquisition fund" over a ten-year period; and 3) The scope of the project includes construction of a pedestrian/bike trail parallel to the road. Since the trail is required mitigation, the trail is being considered as part of the road project and funded accordingly. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council approve the Road Construction and Reimbursement Agreement, authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement, and allocate the funds as recommended. If the City Council concurs, it must also find that in accordance with Sections 15090 and 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council has considered Final EIR-2-92 and that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. In response to Council Member Murray, Transportation Coordinator Duryee related that the funding plan for the TIF covers a ten-year program with projects spread out over that same period. The construction and signalization of Buenaventura is at the end of that ten-year period. If the project were to be funded up-front, all the other projects would have to be shifted accordingly. By utilizing a ten-year repayment schedule, the debt will be repaid as funds come in. This would be the same as if the funds would have been set aside in anticipation of the construction of Buenaventura. None of the projects on the ten-year program will be postponed because of this particular project. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, finding that in accordance with Sections 15090 and 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council has considered Final EIR-2-92 and that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, to approve the Road Construction and Reimbursement Agreement for Buenaventura Boulevard between the City of Redding and Signature Northwest for the construction of the missing segment of Buenaventura Boulevard south of Placer Road and north of Canyon Creek Road. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes NORTHEAST AREA FIRE STATION (C-050-275) Principal Planner Keaney related that the City Council, at a prior meeting, raised questions regarding a proposed fire station in the northeast area and fire stations in general. He provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 30, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, which discussed both existing and future fire stations. Mr. Keaney explained that the City Council made a commitment to construct a fire station on Old Oregon Trail on March 17, 1992, when it adopted its resolution to commence annexation proceedings for Annexation 90-15, Tierra Oaks Subdivision. The paperwork to record the dedicated fire station site has been received and is being checked. To date, 86 lots have been recorded. As noted, the time line for the station will be by the year 2001 or upon completion of the 143rd dwelling unit in the project. Assuming an average of 25 units a year in this price range, it would be about seven years also. Previously, the developer dedicated a site for an electrical substation. Mr. Keaney indicated that while this would be a new station in terms of construction and location, it would not be a new station in terms of manning and equipment. With the extension of Buenaventura Boulevard from Placer Street to Canyon Creek Road expected soon, the City will have two stations covering nearly the same area. To increase the efficiency of coverage by the station, the potential exists to close the station on Canyon Creek Road and to relocate its personnel and equipment to an area not as effectively covered. The selection of the northeast area is based upon the commitment made with the Tierra Oaks annexation and the projected high land values that will occur near the Oasis Road/I-5 Interchange. The location also anticipates future annexations occurring north of Highway 299 in the area and the ability for an engine to respond in four directions based upon existing streets. From staff's perspective, placing a station in the area is a matter of when, not if. Mr. Keaney stated that the keys to the project are not the funds to design the station nor the funds to construct it, rather the keys are construction of Buenaventura Boulevard, which frees up a station crew, and the sale of the redundant fire station on Canyon Creek. Proceeds from the sale of the property would be used to repay the construction costs for the new station. Council Member Murray inquired as to the whereabouts of the architectural plans for the previous fire stations. Mr. Keaney replied that the plans for the last fire station the City constructed are the ownership of the architect. Mr. Murray opined that he did not see a substantial difference between the stations, and the cost of updating those plans to current code might be less expensive than developing the entire plans. Mr. Keaney clarified that the point of this particular item was to identify the long-term staffing plans for the fire station and also the contractual commitments the City has made with regard to Tierra Oaks. Council Member Murray questioned whether there was more of an immediate need for a fire station in the area south of Highway 299 and north of Old Alturas Road. Mr. Keaney stated that the Fire Chief would have to answer that question, however, based on the current street system, until Shasta View Drive is connected, it would not be very beneficial to have a fire station at that location. Council Member Murray opined that the City should be placing a priority on locations where the most residences are located and not based on contractual obligations. Mayor R. Anderson stated that before he would concur with authorizing staff to proceed with drawings, he would want to know the timeline for constructing the station and the funding source. Mr. Keaney replied that construction funding would be based on the sale of the fire station on Canyon Creek, which is commercial property and has a substantial value. Council Member P. Anderson asked when Buenaventura Boulevard was scheduled for completion. Mr. Edgren related that the project should be completed sometime in October 1994. This was an informational item and no action was required. At the hour of 11:14 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson declared the meeting recessed. At the hour of 11:25 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson reconveyed the meeting to regular session. QUARTZ HILL AREA PLAN - Traffic Mitigation Fee (T-080-400) Principal Planner Keaney recalled that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 10, 1994, referred the "Summary Report: Quartz Hill Plan Area Traffic Mitigation Fees" to the City Council for further direction and comment. The reason for the referral by the Planning Commission was primarily concern over establishing multiple fees and the relationship of any Quartz Hill traffic mitigation fee to revisions of the Citywide traffic impact fee (TIF). The Commission is concerned about policy direction of whether or not the City should move for the current two-level approach or should focus on one Citywide fee. Mr. Keaney explained that the Quartz Hill traffic fee issue was originally referred to the Commission by the City Council. The City Council, at its meeting of December 7, 1993, directed staff to reevaluate the methodology and fee structure for the traffic mitigation fees in the Quartz Hill Road area. The issue was before the City Council due to the questions by the developer of the River Ridge Park Subdivision seeking credit or reimbursement for improvements to Quartz Hill Road adjacent to the subdivision. In addition to discussing the specific conditions of River Ridge Park Subdivision, the City Council raised questions concerning the financial feasibility and fairness of the Quartz Hill area traffic mitigation fees. The City Council directed staff to prepare a report reevaluating the fee structure and what was required for River Ridge Park, Units 4 and 5 and bring back a report to the City Council which includes a recommendation from the Planning Commission. He noted that Unit 5 has subsequently been recorded. Mr. Keaney provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 31, 1994, incorporated herein by reference. Mr. Keaney stated that one of the interested parties feels that the draft minutes and the motion of the Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 1994, are not complete and that the Planning Commission recommended that there should only be one fee. Staff has reviewed the tape of the meeting and the minutes will be revised to include more Commission discussion, however, the motion reflected is fairly accurate. Mr. Keaney related that the issue before the City Council is for the City Council to provide direction to the Planning Commission on whether or not the City Council wants to proceed with multiple fees. He noted that there are numerous areas in the City where there are adopted fees in one form or another. If the City Council wants to focus on one Citywide fee and eliminate all the sublayers, it would involve much more than just the Quartz Hill area. Mr. Keaney indicated that within the last 15 years, he could not identify any new arterial that has not been built by the developer in connection with a subdivision, either utilizing fees, reimbursement of fees or assessment district. Traffic fees have been designated with two exceptions, which have other direct traffic benefits: 1) Buenaventura Boulevard; and 2) Short segment of Old Alturas Road. Mr. Keaney summarized that the issues are as follows: 1) Does the City Council want to focus on one fee. In staff's opinion, this is a departure from past practice. This has avoided serious questions of why should a developer or property owner in the Rancho Road area pay for improvements to Quartz Hill Road which he may not utilize; and 2) How the City Council wants staff to proceed with multiple layers of traffic impact fees. Council Member P. Anderson questioned whether the Transportation Task Force considered the multiple-layer fee versus one fee. Public Works Director Galusha stated that staff met with the task force to consider the City-wide Traffic Impact Fee. Mr. Keaney stated that the fee is already in existence. The question is whether the fee was the fairest method of allocating the dollars. Council Member Murray stated that if the City is going to consider adopting fees for road improvements for the next 30 years, it should be based on an updated area plan. He believed that the City should consider some type of methodology of integrating the existing area plans into a General Plan effort that promotes the recently adopted Air Quality Element. Council Member P. Anderson recommended that the City Council defer action until input is received from the Transportation Task Force and until a decision is made concerning the Citywide traffic impact fee. Leonard Bandell, attorney representing Jaxon Baker, was of the impression that the Planning Commission recommended by unanimous vote that the City not have layered fees and that the major improvements be combined into the Citywide traffic impact fees. He questioned why Buenaventura Road south of Placer is being funded through the traffic impact fees, however, Buenaventura Road north is not. He provided a brief overview of why the item had originally been referred back to the Planning Commission. He requested that the City Council notify the Planning Commission if it concurs with the multiple fee approach before additional time is spent on the matter. Mike Cronic, 2120 Churn Creek Road, stated that if the City Council is going to defer action on this item, he would make his presentation at a later date. Don D. Davis, 1246 East Street, discussed problems associated with the Quartz Hill Road area and the ongoing problems relative to subdivision requirements. The traffic projects being proposed by staff for various projects anticipates what might occur in the next 30 years, however, the Quartz Hill Road area is not experiencing the same accelerated growth as the Dana Drive and Churn Creek Road area and place added costs on development. He entered his letter dated May 6, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, into the record whereby he is appealing conditions of previous subdivisions which have been modified. Fred Willis, P.O. Box 1834, Redding, stated that staff has folded in the improvements for the entire length of Quartz Hill Road. One of the reasons for doing this is the extremely dangerous condition that would be created by doing road improvements on an individual basis. In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Assistant City Manager McMurry related that fees of other cities are available and can be included in the follow-up report to the City Council. In response to Mayor R. Anderson, Kent Dagg, Shasta Builders Exchange, stated that the Transportation Task Force was originally established in 1989 and had representatives from the Builders Exchange, Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors, Private Industry Council, Economic Development Corporation, and Shasta Business Council. The Task Force recently met with Public Works Director Galusha regarding the Citywide traffic impact fee. MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Murray, to refer the Quartz Hill Plan Area Traffic Mitigation Fee back to staff and defer consideration until the City Council has been provided with information on all fees and until a recommendation is received from the Transportation Task Force relative to the traffic impact fee and multiple layers of traffic impact fees. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes RESOLUTION - Commencing Annexation Proceedings Regarding Annexation 94-2, Knighton Road/I-5 Interchange (A-150-251) Associate Planner Morgon related that the City Council, at its meeting of May 17, 1994, authorized staff to enter into an agreement with the applicants to pay for staff costs and fees associated with processing Annexation 94-2, Knighton Road/I-5 Interchange, and the Mello-Roos district. The City Council also directed staff to refer the request to Departments for review, to the Board of Administrative Review for an environmental determination, and to the Bureau of Land Management and the State Lands Commission for their approval. He noted that the primary reason for the request by the truck stop for annexation is to receive City sewer to replace a failing septic system. Mr. Morgon stated that the agreement to pay staff costs and all processing fees has been prepared and is in the process of being signed by the applicants. Total fees and staff costs have been estimated at $12,200 and the applicants have been asked to pay this amount to establish a funding source to pay for processing the annexation and forming the Mello-Roos District. The cost estimate assumes that there will not be an environmental impact report or litigation. Mr. Morgon related that the general consensus of the departments is that the City is in a position to service this area. He noted, however, that subsequent to the May 17, 1994, meeting, staff received petitions from other property owners in the area requesting to be included in the annexation. If the City Council wishes to process the annexation as originally proposed, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution authorizing the commencement of the annexation proceedings. Staff will then follow up with submittal of an annexation application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and preparation of documents necessary to form a Mello-Roos District. In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Mr. Morgon stated that if the additional properties are not included in this annexation, a separate request for annexation could be made and processed once this annexation has been recorded. This would also require entering into an agreement to pay all related costs. Mayor R. Anderson favored keeping the annexation on the fast track and not include any additional properties in the boundary. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that Resolution No. 94-153 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding of application by the City of Redding requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to take proceedings for the annexation to the City of Redding of uninhabited territory designated City of Redding Annexation No. 94-2 (Knighton Road/I-5 Interchange). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-153 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. RESOLUTION - Tax Exchange Agreement for Annexation 90-5, Twin Tower Drive (A-150-227) Associate Planner Morgon related that the City Council, at its meeting of March 1, 1994, authorized the commencement of annexation proceedings for Annexation 90-5, Twin Tower Drive, by Jeff and Marsha Mora. The property is located on the east side of Twin Tower Drive, north of Highway 299, and west of Old Oregon Trail. The annexation request was applied for in April 1990. The delay in processing was the result of the following factors: 1) Property tax distribution impasse with the County; 2) Processing of a General Plan amendment and rezoning to meet the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requirements; 3) Determining if a Mello-Roos district could be formed per City policy; and 4) Determining the cost of staff time to process the request and entering into an agreement for the applicants to pay the costs. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution which provides for the Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Annexation 90-5, Twin Tower Drive. Council Member Murray asked when it might be possible to hold a study session to discuss the entire annexation process and Mello-Roos Districts. Mayor R. Anderson asked that Assistant City Manager McMurry arrange to have a study session sometime in July to discuss the matter. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 94-154 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving a resolution involving property tax transfers between the County of Shasta and the City of Redding for the City of Redding Reorganization No. 90-5, Twin Tower Drive. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-154 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. RESOLUTIONS - Public Interest and Necessity re Acquisition of Property in Fee and/or Permanent Overhead Electric Utility Easement for the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project (C-070-010 & E-090-160-500) Electric Utility Engineering Manager Russell stated that the Report to City Council dated May 27, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, discusses the need to proceed with resolutions of Public Interest and Necessity to authorize the City Attorney to commence eminent domain actions against the property owners who have not granted the City necessary easement and fee property rights required for project development of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. This action is necessary if the City is to proceed with project development as planned. Mr. Russell made the following presentation: The Quartz Hill/Keswick Project is an approximately 9 mile 115/12kV transmission line in the north/northwest Redding area. The project also includes the future construction of the Quartz Hill 115/12kV Substation located along the project route. Approximately 38 percent of the project is located on Federal lands and includes paralleling the Western Area Power Administration's 500-foot wide and 337-foot wide 230kV Tower Line corridor. The City's project is somewhat dwarfed by Western's right-of-way and towers. The route also follows Oasis Road, Lake Boulevard, Keswick Dam Road, Pine Oaks Drive, and Hardpan Lane. The route crosses the Sacramento River near Keswick switchyard and includes rebuilding a 1.5 mile existing City 60kV line to 115kV. The project includes 1.8 miles of joint construction with Pacific Gas & Electric Co (PG&E), principally along Keswick Dam Rd., Lake Blvd., Pine Oaks Drive, and Hardpan Lane. As discussed in the project EIR, joint construction helps reduce project impacts by minimizing the number of new utility lines in a given City or PG&E area. Approximately 7 miles of the route overbuild existing powerline facilities or is adjacent to a major powerline. The Quartz Hill/Keswick Loop project, including the future Quartz Hill Substation, is vital to maintaining a reliable electric system in the north/northwest Redding area and to providing service to new residential and commercial customers in this area. The proposed Quartz Hill/Keswick 115kV Transmission Loop Project will allow the City of Redding Electric Utility to continue to provide reliable electric service to the north and northwest areas of Redding and to support area development. The purpose of the project is to provide: 1) a necessary 115/12kV loop for Beltline Substation which is currently being constructed, for future Oasis Road Substation, and for existing College View Substations; (Loop 115kV transmission provides uninterrupted customer service for 115kV system failures) 2) 12kV distribution service to existing and future annexations in the Quartz Hill/Keswick area; 3) a transmission link for a needed future 115/12kV substation in the Quartz Hill area; and 4) a vital link in the City's 115/12kV system for backup of existing electrical facilities, which will improve system reliability and reduce system energy losses. The project will benefit Redding business, schools, residential customers, and other ratepayers by enabling the City to maintain a reliable City electric system as the City grows. The Quartz Hill/Keswick transmission line is scheduled for construction during late 1994 through November of 1995. The transmission line is needed by the summer of 1995 and ideally it should be completed by October 1994 coincident with the completion of Beltline Substation which is under construction. If the transmission line is not in service by 1996, it is projected that for a failure of the City's radially fed transmission line between College View and East Redding Substations, approximately 5800 customers including the Mt. Lakes Industrial Park load could suffer a very lengthy electrical outage. 5800 customers represent about 30MW of peak load. The transmission line is the fourth of four loop projects. The East Loop project was completed in 1986, the North Loop was completed in 1988 and the West Loop was completed in 1990. The East, North Loop and West Loop projects were necessary to provide reliable electric service in the east, south, northeast and west Redding areas. The Quartz Hill/Keswick Loop is the culmination of a program to improve electric service and the capability to provide reliable service in all Redding areas. The line has been strategically located to service areas currently in the City and areas within the City sphere of influence that may eventually annex to the City. The line route provides an option of future connections at Keswick switchyard with Western Area Power Administration. The transmission line crosses the substation property. The Quartz Hill Substation is expected to be constructed in the next 6 - 12 years as the City load grows. It will generally serve the area west of Lake Blvd., north and west of Lake Redding Estates, and east of the Sacramento River and Keswick Dam. The substation site needs to be acquired now to assure its availability to provide service to north Redding development. A public hearing for the project EIR was held in July of 1992 before the Redding Planning Commission. Although not legally required, approximately 600 property owners within 300' of the preferred and alternate routes and substation sites studied in detail were notified by mail of the public hearings. In addition, required legal notice was placed in the local paper. The four principal alternative routes studied along with initially considered route segments are shown on Drawing QK-1 included in the Report to City Council. The City Council on September 15, 1992, certified EIR-3-91 as adequately addressing project impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council also adopted Preferred Route 3A and Substation Site D of EIR 3-91 as the routing of the project and authorized the City Manager to direct staff to proceed with right-of-way acquisition along Preferred Route 3A and to acquire Preferred Subsite D in fee. Based on the detailed criteria set forth in the EIR, Preferred Route 3A provides the best balance between land use, environmental, engineering and financial considerations. In fact, Route 3A has the best ranking of the four routes studied in each of the these four areas considered. Substation Site D was considered the best of seven sites studied [show Exhibit 5-2]. In December 1992, Council awarded a contract with Resource Management International (RMI) for surveying, permitting, design, and property acquisition for the project. The design of the line is in final review by RMI and the Electric Department. The project route crosses approximately 3.4 miles of federal land owned by U. S. Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power Administration. The BLM permit has been received. Permits to cross U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power Administration lands have been applied for and no difficulty is expected in obtaining permits. With these federal permits and existing and recently obtained utility rights, the City is able to construct approximately 85 percent of the project route. The project crosses 29 private parcels where new utility rights are required. The City has obtained signed easements "right-to-constructs" or other written commitments from the property owners of all but 10 of the 29 private parcels representing 8 different ownerships. These parcels represent about 15 percent of the project route. The location of these unsigned owners are shown on Map QK-3 included in the Report to City Council. The map also shows property owners who have signed easements, signed "right-to-constructs" or made other commitments. It is believed that those who have signed "right-to-constructs" or made other commitments, will sign the easement in the near future. PG&E has indicated a willingness to sign required easement documents and indicates it is just a matter of processing the documents through its system. All property owners who have not signed easements, signed "right-to-constructs" or made other commitments, were sent, by the project consultant, by certified mail final offer letters on April 12, 1994. All property owners who have not signed easements, signed "right-to-constructs" or made other commitments, were sent by certified mail by the City Attorney on May 19, 1994, letters indicating tonight's intent to adopt resolutions of Public Interest and Necessity to condemn for the needed Quartz Hill/Keswick Loop easement rights and fee property rights. Fair Market appraisals of the easements and fee property acquisitions were performed by the Redding firm of Shaw and Associates, a subconsultant to RMI. Offers to property owners were made by RMI right-of-way acquisition staff in cooperation with the City Attorney's office. City Attorney Hays explained that California Code Civil Procedure Section 1245.240 requires a 4/5 approval vote of the City Council. The hearing that is being provided is pursuant to eminent domain laws of the State and is provided to allow the property owner or their representative to be heard on specific matters that are called out in Section 1240.030 of the Code of Civil Procedures. Those items that are before the City Council this evening to be addressed by the property owner or their representative are as follows: a) Public interest and necessity require the project; b) The project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and c) The property sought to be acquired is necessary to the project. Mr. Russell discussed the property rights needed from eight property owners. He noted that five of the property owners have requested to be allowed to address the City Council. After each easement or fee property right is discussed, he requested that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution of Public Convenience and Necessity authorizing the City Attorney to commence eminent domain actions against each unsigned owner. 1. Cleve F. Beck and Elizabeth H. Beck, his Wife as Joint Tenants: a) The property is located at the south end of the project and fronts Highway 299, Eureka Way; b) A 30' wide overhead powerline easement adjacent to Western Area Power Administration's 337.5' wide 230kV transmission easement is requested; c) Total acreage of the easement is 1.15 acres; d) The total acreage in the parcel is 272.12 acres; e) Nine new poles are on the parcel; f) The property is vacant land located in the City; g) The Becks are not opposed to the project, but feel the City compensation is too low; h) Mr. Beck has not sent a letter to the City requesting to be allowed to speak. Cleve Beck stated that he has owned this particular piece of property for approximately 24 years. He has had several interested parties wanting to develop the property, however, the economy and financing within the last few years have not made it possible. A portion of the easement reduces the back of 18 lots by 30 feet. When the area is developed, it should allow for 245 homes and represent a nice addition to the City. More and more power lines are locating in the area and are detracting from the property. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that Resolution No. 94-155 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding finding that public interest and necessity require the acquisition of a 30' permanent overhead electric utility easement containing 1.15+ acres for a transmission line for necessary public improvements, namely the construction and maintenance of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. The property is owned by Cleve F. Beck and Elizabeth H. Beck, and is generally located along Highway 299 in west Redding, Shasta County (APN 204-030-36). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-155 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. Calvin L. Ballard and Rose M. Ballard, his Wife as Joint Tenants: a) The property is located in the westerly area of the project and fronts Keswick Dam Rd. The parcel is located in Shasta County; b) 30' wide overhead powerline easement is requested; c) Total acreage in easement is .17 acres; d) Total acreage in parcel is 2.88 acres; e) Three new poles are on the property; f) A single homesite exists on the parcel; g) The property is located in Shasta County; h) The Ballards will grant the easement to the City if the City will allow them to connect to the City water system and waive the front footage fees of approximately $6200. They have City water to an adjacent parcel obtained through an annexation agreement where they were not happy about having to pay the front footage fee. The Ballards' property is currently located outside the City; and i) Mr. and Mrs. Ballard have not sent a letter requesting to be allowed to speak. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 94-156 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding finding that public interest and necessity require the acquisition of a 30' permanent overhead electric utility easement containing 0.17+ acres for a transmission line for necessary public improvements, namely the construction and maintenance of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. The property is owned by Calvin L. Ballard and Rose M. Ballard, and is generally located at 1661 Keswick Dam Road in Shasta County (APN 115- 240-02). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-156 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3. Arthur L. Wynant and Betty A. Wynant, Husband and Wife, as to an undivided one-half interest, and Lawrence C. Wynant, A Single Man, as to an undivided one-half interest: a) Two parcels are involved in the taking which are along the westerly project area approximately 2500' west of Quartz Hill Road and 2300' north of Keswick Dam Road; b) 15' wide overhead powerline easement is requested; c) Total acreage of easement is .3407 acres; d) Total acreage in parcels is 35.0 acres; e) No poles on property, however, three poles will be located approximately 2' west of west property line. Conductors will overhang the property; f) A single homesite is located on one of the two parcels which are located in Shasta County; g) Owners are opposed to the location of the transmission line. If compensation were 10 - 20 times higher, they might consider granting the easement or if the transmission line were installed underground; and h) The Wynants have not sent a letter requesting to be allowed to speak. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 94-157 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding finding that public interest and necessity require the acquisition of a 15' permanent overhead electric utility easement containing 0.3407+ acres for a transmission line (0.34+ acres on APN 115-310-06 and .0007+ acres on APN 115-310-05), for necessary public improvements, namely the construction and maintenance of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. The property is owned by Arthur L. and Betty A. Wynant, and Lawrence C. Wynant, and is generally located at 16864 Spring Creek Road in Shasta County (APN 115-310-05,06). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-157 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 4. Dallas F. Turner and Colleen Turner, his Wife as Joint Tenants: a) Property is located in the westerly area of the project approximately 2500' west of Quartz Hill Road; b) 15' wide overhead powerline easement is requested; c) Total acreage of easement is .22 acres; d) Acreage in parcel is 7.37 acres; e) No poles on property, however, two poles will be located 2' west of west property line. Conductors will overhang the property; f) Property is vacant land in Shasta County; g) Owners have stated the only way they will grant the easement to the City is if the City would agree to provide them City electric service. This property is not within the City limits and is within PG&E's service area; and h) Mr. Turner has sent a letter requesting to be allowed to speak. Mr. Turner was not present to speak. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 94-158 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding finding that public interest and necessity require the acquisition of a 15' permanent overhead electric utility easement containing 0.22+ acres for a transmission line for necessary public improvements, namely the construction and maintenance of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. The property is owned by Dallas F. Turner and Colleen Turner, and is generally located along McLeod Road in Shasta County (APN 115-310-04). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-158 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 5. Robert E. Austin, a Married Man as his sole and separate property: a) Property is located in the westerly area of the project about 2500' west of Quartz Hill Road; b) 15' wide overhead powerline easement is requested; c) Total area of easement is .23 acres; d) Acreage in parcel is 20.02; e) No poles on property, however, two poles will be located 2' west of west property line. Conductors will overhang the property; f) Property is vacant land in Shasta County; g) Principal issue is that the property owner is currently opposed to the project and he feels the compensation is too low. During the EIR process, Mr. Austin, along with his development partner Mr. LaBella, were supportive of the project, but are now opposed to the project principally, staff believes, because of current City annexation policy; and h) Mr. Austin's attorney [Rehberg, Steven Mansell, Richard Montarbo] sent a letter requesting to speak. Mr. Austin's representative declined to address the City Council on this particular issue. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that Resolution No. 94-159 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding finding that public interest and necessity require the acquisition of a 15' permanent overhead electric utility easement containing 0.23+ acres for a transmission line for necessary public improvements, namely the construction and maintenance of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. The property is owned by Robert E. Austin, and is generally located along Frisky Way, just NW of Redding, in Shasta County (APN 115-310-01). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-159 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 6. Tri County Investments, A General Partnership (LaBella/Austin) Principal owners are Tony LaBella and Robert Austin: a) Two parcels involved located in the northwest area of the project - 2500' west of Quartz Hill Road; b) 15' wide overhead powerline easement which includes an anchor easement is requested; c) Total area of easement is .82 acres; d) Total area of parcels is 140.4 acres; e) Nine poles on the property; f) Property is vacant land in Shasta County; g) Principal issue is that the property owner is currently opposed to the project and they feel the compensation is too low. During the EIR process, the property owners were supportive of the project, but are now opposed to the project principally, staff believes, because of current City annexation policy; and h) The attorney [Robert Rehberg] for Mr. LaBella and Mr. Austin, sent a letter requesting to speak. The representative of Tri-County Investment declined to speak on the matter. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 94-160 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding finding that public interest and necessity require the acquisition of a 15' permanent overhead electric utility easement containing 0.82+ acres for a transmission line (0.36+ acres on APN 115-320-04 and 0.46+ acres on APN 115-320-06), for necessary public improvements, namely the construction and maintenance of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. The property is owned by Tri-County Investments, a general partnership, and is generally located along Eastshore Road in Shasta County (APN 115-320-04,06). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-160 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 7. Todd Sullivan: a) The property is located in the northerly area of the project along Pine Oaks Drive, 1200' west of Quartz Hill Road; b) 30' side overhead powerline easement that overlays Pine Oaks Drive; c) Easement area is .23 acres; d) Total acreage of parcel is 5.0 acres; e) One pole to be located on the property; f) There is a single family residence on the property which is located in Shasta County; g) Mr. Sullivan signed the required easement on February 3, 1994, but subsequently retracted the transaction by letter dated February 14, 1994, after his Hardpan Lane neighbors that are opposing the project persuaded him to reconsider granting the easement to the City. Mr. Sullivan has indicated he is not opposed to the project, but would like to see if his neighbors who are opposed to the project can get the line rerouted. Staff has spent considerable time working with Mr. Sullivan on pole placements fronting his property; and h) Mr. Sullivan has sent a letter requesting that he be allowed to address Council. Todd Sullivan, 16901 Pine Oak Drive, stated that when he originally purchased this property, he was influenced by the fact that there were no power lines located on the property. Since there were no power lines to the north, his residence contains many large windows facing that direction and spent a significant amount of money, to put the power lines for his residence underground. If the City were to agree to place the lines underground, he would provide access without compensation, however, the 70 foot high poles will greatly devalue the property, views, and propose health risks due to electro-magnetic fields (EMF). The amount being offered by the City as fair value is the same approximate dollar amount he spent to put in underground power lines for his residence. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 94-161 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding finding that public interest and necessity require the acquisition of a 30' permanent overhead electric utility easement containing 0.23+ acres for a transmission line for necessary public improvements, namely the construction and maintenance of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. The property is owned by Todd Sullivan, and is generally located at 16901 Pine Oak Drive in Shasta County (APN 115-340-10). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-161 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 8. Lake Keswick Estates Development Corporation, A California Corporation (LaBella/Austin). Principal owners are Tony LaBella and Robert Austin: a) The property is located at north end of the project along Quartz Hill Road; b) 9.9 acre substation site along with a 30' wide overhead powerline easement and a variable width overhead powerline easement is requested. The abandonment of a 30' wide access easement that provides access to the neighboring 61-acre parcel owned by Lake Keswick Estates is also requested. The developer's most recent plan does not use this access easement; c) Total area of the easement is .9 acres; d) Total area of parcel is approximately 21 acres; e) Six poles and a substation are to be located on property; f) Property is vacant land located in Shasta County; g) Principal issue is that the property owners are currently opposed to the project and that they feel the compensation is too low. During the EIR process, the property owners were supportive of the project, but are now opposed to the project principally we believe because of current City annexation policies. In fact, at one point, Mr. LaBella was considering dedicating the substation property to the City as long as it would not affect the number of lots he could develop; h) The attorney [Rehberg, Mansell & Montarbo] for Mr. LaBella and Mr. Austin, has sent a letter requesting to address the City Council. Steve Mansell, 5017 Woodview Drive, representing Lake Keswick Estates and the Orion Corporation which have interests in the property, addressed the following issues: 1) The proposed substation site takes up a great deal of the road frontage of this particular parcel. The substation could have been located outside of the bend of Quartz Hill Road, consequently, the site occupies a great deal more road access to the development than the other sites; 2) The appraisals have some fairly flawed assumptions and overall the eminent domain proceedings may cause the City to expend a lot more money than currently planned; and 3) The impacts and problems of EMF have not been addressed. Mike Cronic related that he also has an interest in this property and the projected site for the substation takes advantage of basically all the usable ground without incurring additional developmental costs. The property was purchased with development in mind. This 20 acre parcel and the 60 acre parcel south, which will also have easements, destroys the ability to create a project. Not only is the City acquiring some of the best access off that road for the interior of the 60 acres, but is also acquiring some of the prime ground. He opposed the development as it utilizes the best property for a substation and high voltage lines. He stated that the City Council needs to consider how close it would want to live to a high voltage line and the overall effect on the property. He related that the City has offered $40,000 for 10 acres of property that is zoned three to the acre. The last time he purchased 10 acres to develop it cost $240,000. He indicated that the City needs to consider not only the cost to purchase the land but the cost to fight it through the legal system. In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Russell related that the during the environmental impact process, there were seven alternatives studies and the route chosen was the preferred alternative. This particular site was selected because it provides superior screening and mature trees and shrubs on the site to conceal the station and is not adjacent to existing residences. It is bounded on Quartz Hill Road on the northwest, Sulphur Creek head waters on the east, and PG&E 60kV line on the south and a PG&E 12kV line on the west. Staff was attempting to work with the developer on the lay out and, at that point, he was not interested in working with staff. Staff believes the site to be the least costly to develop and is well situated from distribution feeder getaways and clearly provides the best buffer for the neighborhood. He noted that Option C was considered, however, there are a number of flaws: 1) The PG&E line would have to be relocated; 2) The access easement would have to be relocated; and 3) An open meadow which makes the site visible. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that Resolution No. 94-162 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding finding that public interest and necessity require the acquisition of 9.9+ acres in fee for a substation site, and a permanent overhead electric utility easement containing 0.90+ acres for a transmission line, for necessary public improvements, namely the construction and maintenance of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project. The property is owned by Lake Keswick Estates Development Corporation, and is generally located along Quartz Hill Road in Shasta County (APN 115-050-01). Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 94-162 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. RESOLUTION - License Agreement with the Exchange Club of Redding for use of Redding Municipal Airport during Air Show '94 (A-090-100) Council Member McGeorge abstained from discussion and voting on this matter. City Attorney Hays related that the item before the City Council concerns the request of the Exchange Club of Redding to hold Air Show '94 at Redding Municipal Airport on June 25 and 26, 1994. The approval is contingent upon review by the City Attorney and the Risk Manager as to proof of adequate insurance. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution approving the License Agreement for Use of the Redding Municipal Airport for Air Show '94. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member Murray, that Resolution no. 94-163 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving the License Agreement between the City of Redding and the Exchange Club of Redding, for the use of Redding Municipal Airport during Air Show '94, June 25 and 26, 1994, and authorizing the Mayor to sign same. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None Abstain: Council Members - McGeorge Resolution No. 94-163 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE (T-080-400) Public Works Director Galusha recalled that the City Council, at its meeting of February 1, 1994, considered the 1994 update of the City-wide Transportation Development Impact Fee Report from the Department of Public Works proposing modifications to the City's traffic impact fee program. At that time, staff indicated it would meet with representatives of the Builders Exchange and other organizations, which formed a task force to review the initial traffic impact fee, to discuss the program modifications. It was also staff's intent to receive input from these various organizations to incorporate into the report to City Council. Mr. Galusha stated that staff met with the Transportation Task Force on April 25, 1994, and reviewed the program. To date, a written response regarding the program update has not been received, however, staff had a conversation with Kent Dagg of the Shasta Builders Exchange (SBE) regarding the traffic impact fee. Mr. Dagg indicated that the Task Force met on June 1, 1994, and was unable to come to any consensus. The Builders Exchange, however, met and decided to take a neutral position on the matter, as it believes there is merit to the proposed modifications. SBE is concerned, however, with the "big picture" impacts to all City fees for new development. As a result, SBE will likely request that the City review all fees collectively versus individually. Mr. Galusha explained that staff's proposal is considered a modest increase in the fee now established by the City Council to fund all or in part, capacity- related traffic projects resulting from new development. The impact on the single-family home is an increase of $251.60. Staff has outlined other sources of funds which can supplement these development fees, with the primary source being the Redding Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Galusha related that the staff believes that the modification to the traffic impact fee program is appropriate given the constant changes that the community is undergoing. The program has not been updated since 1990 and street improvement needs have changed as a result of growth in the community. In addition, there have been changes in state and federal program requirements as well as funding assumption modifications which require that the 1990 report be updated and the fee schedule increased. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council accept staff's proposal to update the traffic impact fee and direct staff to prepare the necessary resolutions and/or ordinances for the City Council's consideration at a future meeting. Mayor R. Anderson summarized the City Council's desire to review fees on an annual basis in order to ascertain the total impact of the fees. Kent Dagg, Shasta Builders Exchange, related that the initial concept of the task force was not only to review fees, but also regulations which are adopted, i.e. swimming pool ordinance and trash container enclosure ordinance. At no time is the cumulative impact of these regulations on the development community and the consumer considered. He requested that the social and economic impact of ordinances be included in the review process. Mike Cronic, representing the Legislative Committee of the Shasta County Board of Realtors, stated that the Task Force discussed the possibility of establishing a committee comprised of the Chamber of Commerce, the Shasta Builders Exchange, the Shasta County Board of Realtors, the Shasta Business Alliance, and any other organizations representing the community as a whole, to provide the private industry's viewpoint concerning the economic impact and possibly providing a different alternative while still achieving the desired goal. Principal Planner Keaney noted that there will be instances whereby developers would be required to pay a fee as a condition of a subdivision and it would not be possible to review these types of fees on an annual basis. Council Member Kehoe also suggested that the revenue enhancement concepts be put before the City Council to determine viability before staff spends considerable time on development of the concept. MOTION: Made Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, directing staff to provide a background report/study addressing the economic impact of all fees on an annual basis and how these fees impact the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan, as well as a listing of those fees which are not within the City's control, i.e. school fees. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes AWARD OF BID - Bid Schedule No. 2862, Enterprise Community Park, Phase I Infrastructure (B-050-020 & P-050-145) Public Works Director Galusha stated that the low bid for Bid Schedule No. 2862, Enterprise Community Park, Phase I infrastructure, was received from Bobby Martin Construction in the amount of $958,177.75. The engineer's estimate was $1,409,468. Funding for this project is through park development funds, pooled financing through the State of California, and through an advance of construction tax funds for the offsite improvements to Victor Avenue. Funds would be transferred from the construction tax fund to the park development fund for this contract. It is the recommendation of staff that the project be awarded to Bobby Martin Construction in the amount of $958,177.75, an additional $96,000 be approved to cover the cost of engineering, inspection fees, and materials testing, and $96,000 be approved to cover the cost of contract change orders, for a total of $1,150,177.75. It is further recommended that the City Council ratify the Negative Declaration. Council Member McGeorge indicated that he received a letter from Dick Smith Electric, Inc. stating that the bid process for this project was not done in accordance with the fair practices that should have been completed for a project of this size and requesting that the City Council defer action on this item. He questioned whether the City would be open to potential litigation by awarding the bid. Public Works Director Galusha related that the low bid and the next bid are within approximately $30,000. There was concern that the electrical portion might have been underbid. While it is not known how the contractor arrived at those numbers, the numbers are listed correctly and meet the criteria established by the City Attorney. City Attorney Hays stated that as far as can be determined, the bid was properly let, properly responded to, the bidder is properly bonded, and there is nothing to indicate that the bid amount is inordinately out of line. Parks and Recreation Director Riley explained that the project engineer discussed the electrical items with the low bidder to ensure that he could perform the contract and the contractor was agreeable. MOTION: Made by Council Member McGeorge, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that the City Council make the following findings regarding Environmental Determination ED-4-93: 1. Project is compatible with the Redding General Plan; 2. Project will not significantly alter existing land form; 3. Project is compatible with surrounding land use; 4. Project is compatible with the Code of the City of Redding, California; and ratify the Negative Declaration authorized by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1993. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Council Member McGeorge, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that Bid Schedule No. 2862 (Job No. 9203), Enterprise Community Park, Phase I Infrastructure, be awarded to Bobby Martin Construction in the amount of $958,177.75, an additional $96,000 be approved to cover the cost of engineering, inspection fees, and materials testing, and $96,000 be approved to cover the cost of contract change orders, for a total of $1,150,177.75. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes ROUTINE REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Application by PG&E to the PUC requesting authority to increase its return on equity and an increase in rate of return PUC decision re application of Sacramento-Valley Limited Partnership for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide InterLATA Telecommunictions Services (P-050-350) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 1:17 a.m., Mayor Anderson declared the meeting adjourned to 8:00 a.m., June 13, 1994, in City Hall Conference Room A, 760 Parkview Avenue, Redding, California, for a budget study session. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk