HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1994-10-04 - Special City Council, Special Meeting
City Council Chambers
1313 California Street
Redding, California
October 4, 1994 6:00 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 Interim City Manager McMurry, City Attorney Hays, Electric
Utility Director Lindley, Electric Utility Resources Manager Coleman,
Electric Utility Power Plant Manager Heckenberg, Fire Chief Bailey, and
Director of Personnel Bristow.
CLOSED SESSION
- Anticipated Litigation and Labor Negotiations
(L-100 & E-120-150)
Mayor R. Anderson stated that pursuant to California Government Code Section
54956.9(b)(1), the City Council would adjourn to closed session to discuss
the following: a) significant exposure to litigation involving one case
(City of Redding-MLP Energy); and b) conference with labor negotiations
regarding International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Firefighters
Unit.
At the hour of 6:00 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson adjourned the meeting to closed
session.
At the hour of 7:05 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson reconvened the meeting to
regular session.
Special Counsel Dugan Barr recalled that the City Council approved a
settlement with Zurn/NEPCO for its claim which totaled slightly over
$5,000,000. The settlement provided for the City paying Zurn/NEPCO
$3,200,000 and receiving an assignment of Zurn/NEPCO's rights against MLP.
Mr. Barr related that an arrangement has been reached with MLP, which is
believed to be insolvent, and provides for the City releasing its claims,
including the claims assigned from ZURN/NEPCO, and MLP releasing its
approximately $17,000,000 in claims against the City. This arrangement does
not require any exchange of money and eliminates any exposure the City has
with regard to MLP's $17,000,000 in claims. He recommended that the City
Council accept the proposed settlement, thereby eliminating the potential
exposure of litigation costs.
Mr. Barr added that there are outstanding claims totalling approximately
$1,600,000 against MLP and it is anticipated that some or all of the claims
will be raised against the City. He expected that most of these claims
would be found not to be appropriate charges against the City.
Council Member Murray pointed out that the original contract for the peaking
power plant provided for a maximum contract price of $39,551,400 if all
incentives were paid. The total of the proposed settlements, including the
$1,600,000 in potential claims, is $40,866,946, representing a difference of
$1,300,000, compared to the original claims of $22,000,000. He thanked Mr.
Barr for his efforts on behalf of the City.
MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member McGeorge,
approving the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release with MLP and
authorizing the Mayor to sign same if the original document is determined to
be identical to the faxed copy. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes
Mr. Barr provided the news media with copies of the Settlement Agreement and
the estimated project completion costs as of September 30, 1994.
No action was taken with regard to the International Association of Fire
Fighters, AFL-CIO, Firefighters Unit.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, at the hour of 7:12 p.m., Mayor Anderson
declared the meeting adjourned.
APPROVED:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Council, Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers
Redding, California
October 4, 1994 7:12 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by City Attorney Hays.
The Invocation was offered by Pastor James Hunt, Church of God Community.
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 Interim City Manager McMurry, City Attorney Hays, Director
of Electric Utility Lindley, Director of Planning and Community Development
Perry, Assistant City Engineer Aasen, Principal Planner Keaney, Director of
Recreation and Parks Riley, Director of Information Systems Kelley, Director
of Personnel Bristow, Director of General Services Masingale, Senior Planner
King, Budget Services Officer Starman, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary
to City Council Rudolph.
RESOLUTION
- Declaring October 10, 1994, as "Women's Refuge Day"
(A-050-060-600)
MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P.
Anderson, that Resolution No. 94-290 be adopted, a resolution of the City
Council of the City of Redding declaring October 10, 1994, as "Women's
Refuge Day."
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. 94-290 is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Mayor R. Anderson presented Mary Stegall, Executive Director of the Women's
Refuge, with a framed resolution declaring October 10, 1994, as "Women's
Refuge Day."
Mary Stegall introduced Sally Peters, Chair of the Anniversary Event, and
Karen Copsey, Chair of Fund Development Committee. Ms. Stegall expressed
pride in the accomplishments of the Shasta County Women's Refuge for the
past 15 years in both Shasta County and the City of Redding.
CALIFORNIA SMOKE-FREE CITIES 1994 LEADERSHIP AWARD
(E-020-010)
Ann Klink, California Smoke-Free Cities, stated that the California Smoke-
Free Cities 1994 Leadership Award is not necessarily given for the strongest
ordinance, but for leadership. It is cities such as Redding that have
provided leadership which is leading the nation in tobacco control policy.
The City of Redding was nominated by the Shasta County Health Department for
its endorsement of the strong comprehensive County-wide ordinance and its
commitment to that ordinance. It is city government that has been in the
forefront of leading the people in tobacco control. She showed a news
release featuring C. Everett Koop, MD, former U.S. Surgeon General.
Jerry Thacker, Shasta County Health Department, congratulated the City on
receiving the 1994 Leadership Award and thanked the City for its ongoing
support of the smoking ordinance.
Jean Canfield congratulated the City for receiving the 1994 Leadership Award
and for being visionary and strong in the face of a very vocal minority.
She emphasized that in order to maintain the current smoking ordinance, it
will be necessary to defeat Proposition 118 on the November ballot.
Salvone Howser, a student at Parsons Junior High School, thanked the City
Council for its leadership in protecting the rights of children to breathe
healthy, smoke-free air in public places. During a mock election, she
related that 84 percent of the students at Parsons Junior High School voted
in support of Measure B. She presented Mayor R. Anderson with a scroll
signed by students of Parsons Junior High School thanking the City Council
for its support of the Smoking Ordinance.
Dr. Michael Cleary stated that due to the support of the citizens of Shasta
County, the citizens organization Smoke-Free Air for Everyone (S.A.F.E.),
and the support of the Redding City Council, the citizens of Shasta County
have made the County, for the most part, a tobacco-free County. He opined
that this is the greatest public health achievement in this County since the
polio epidemic. He added that the smoking ordinance in Shasta County not
only protects the employees and public from the hazards of second-hand
smoke, but sends a message to the youth that the adults understand the
health hazards of tobacco smoke and are willing to do something about it.
On behalf of the medical community, the citizens of Shasta County, and
S.A.F.E., Mr. Cleary thanked the City Council for helping to make the City
of Redding and Shasta County a healthy place to live.
Karen Morgan, California Department of Health Services, offered the
Department's congratulations in making the City of Redding and Shasta County
a healthier place to live. She said the City has shown a great deal of
courage and determination in this effort.
Mayor R. Anderson noted that Measure B passed in the City of Redding by a
vote of 64.9 percent.
Ann Klink presented Mayor R. Anderson with the California Smoke-Free Cities
1994 Leadership Award.
PRESENTATION OF PUBLIC POWER WEEK ESSAY AWARDS
(A-050-125 & E-090)
Mayor R. Anderson presented plaques to the following winners of the annual
Public Power Week Essay Contest:
1) Enterprise High School - First Place - Julene Tegerstrand
- Second Place - Mike Berry
2) Shasta High School - First Place - Suzanne Mack
- Second Place - Jenny Holland
3) Pioneer High School - First Place - Vanessa McCoard
4) Foothill High School - First Place - Emily M. Robinson
- Second Place - Aaron A. Norman
- - - - - - - - -
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following matters were considered inclusively under the Consent
Calendar:
Approval of Minutes
- Special Meeting of July 15, 1994
Adjourned Regular Meeting of July 16, 1994
Special Meeting of July 18, 1994
Regular Meeting of July 19, 1994
Special Meeting of July 27, 1994
Regular Meeting of August 2, 1994
Adjourned Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994
Approval of Payroll and Accounts Payable Register
(A-050-100-500)
It is recommended that Accounts Payable Register No. 6, check numbers 211535
through 212167 inclusive in the amount of $8,548,248.70, be approved and
paid and Payroll Register #7, check numbers 385929 through 386686 inclusive,
in the amount of $909,578.06, and Automatic Payroll Deposits, check numbers
21268 through 21469 inclusive, in the amount of $308,569.74, for the period
of September 11, 1994, through September 24, 1994, be approved.
TOTAL: $9,766,396.50
Treasurer's Report
- August 1994
(A-050-100-600)
Total Treasurer's Accountability - $ 58,786,224.93
Total City of Redding Funds, Funds Held in
Trust, and Funds of Related Entities - $ 226,442,934.53
Cash Reconciliation Report
- August 1994
(B-130-070)
It is the recommendation of the Finance Director that the Cash
Reconciliation Report for August 1994, be accepted.
Set Public Hearing
- re Appeal of Use Permit Application UP-34-94, by John
Abacherli
(L-010-390)
It is the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Community
Development that a public hearing be set for 7:00 p.m., October 18, 1994, to
consider the appeal of Use Permit Application UP-34-94 conditions required
for street improvements and the relocation of utilities.
It is further recommended that said appeal be referred to the Planning
Commission for consideration at its meeting on October 11, 1994.
Resolution
- Endorsing the Joint Application for Establishment of a
Recycling Market Development Zone
Resolution
- Second Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding between the
Cities of Redding and Anderson, the County of Shasta, and the Economic
Development Corporation of Shasta County
(E-050)
It is the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Community
Development that Resolution No. 94-291 be adopted, a resolution of the City
Council of the City of Redding endorsing the Joint Application for
Establishment of a Recycling Market Development Zone during the fourth
designation cycle.
It is further recommended that Resolution No. 94-292 be adopted, a
resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and
authorizing the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment to the Memorandum of
Understanding between the County of Shasta, the City of Redding, the City of
Anderson, and the Economic Development Corporation of Shasta County to
expand the scope and add the City of Shasta Lake.
Indemnity Agreement
- re Acquisition of Property at 2725 Bunker Street and
Authorize Bids for Demolition and Debris Removal
(C-070-010 & B-050-100)
It is the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Community
Development that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Indemnity
Agreement regarding acquisition of property at 2725 Bunker Street and
authorize staff to obtain bids to remove the structure and debris from the
property.
Set Public Hearing
- re Rezoning Application RZ-7-94, by Jim Graves and the
City of Redding (1397 Buenaventura Blvd.)
(L-010-230)
It is the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Community
Development that a public hearing be set for 7:00 p.m., October 18, 1994, to
consider the rezoning of property at 1397 Buenaventura Boulevard from "CO-
B40-F" Commercial Office District and "C1-B40" Neighborhood Commercial
District to "CO-B40-F" Commercial Office District.
Electric Department Project Status Report
- Quarter Ending September 30,
1994
(A-050-125)
It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that the Electric
Department's Project Status Report for the quarter ending September 30, 1994
be accepted.
Public Works Department Fourth Quarter Planning Report
(A-050-300)
It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that the Public
Works Quarterly Report for Fourth Quarter 1994 be accepted.
Notice of Completion
- Bid Schedule No. 2829, Eastside Road Bicycle Lane
(B-050-020 & T-100-050)
It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that Bid Schedule
No. 2829 (Job No. 9118), Eastside Road Bicycle Lane, awarded to Standard
Traffic Services, be accepted as satisfactorily completed, and the City
Clerk authorized to file a Notice of Completion. The final contract price
is $71,785.
Request by Redding Area Bus Authority
- Utilization of Benton Landfill
Property to Stockpile and Conduct a Land Farming Soil Clean-Up Remediation
Process
(S-020-300)
It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that the City
Council approve the Redding Area Bus Authority's (RABA) request to utilize a
portion of the Benton Landfill property for soil remediation efforts with
the understanding that RABA shall be responsible for the soil placed on City
property and the clean-up required by the State of California Water Quality
Control Board.
Resolution - Initiating Abatement Proceedings on Property Located at 891
Locust Street, owned by Samuel Hinman and Sue Hinman; Edmund J. Rudoni and
Frances M. Rudoni, Trustees; Deborah E. Claypole; and Evelyn H. Giordano
(A-030-070)
It is the recommendation of the City Attorney that Resolution No. 94-293 be
adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding of
intention to begin legal proceedings of abatement under Chapter 9.36 of the
Redding Municipal Code on certain real property in the City of Redding
located at 891 Locust Street, owned by Samuel Hinman and Sue Hinman; Edmund
J. Rudoni and Frances M. Rudoni, Trustees; Deborah E. Claypole; and Evelyn
H. Giordano.
Resolution
- Ordering Abatement of Three Lumber Storage Buildings Located on
Property at 4063 Eastside Road, owned by Kennie C. Knowles Trucking, Inc.
(A-030-070)
It is the recommendation of the City Attorney that Resolution No. 94-294 be
adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving
the Report and Findings of the Board of Appeals, and ordering the abatement
of the three unsafe and unsightly lumber storage buildings and debris on the
property at 4063 Eastside Road, owned by Kennie C. Knowles Trucking, Inc.
Resolution
- Releasing Abatement Proceedings on Property at 1261 East
Street, owned by Richard C. Shave, Sr. and Betty M. Shave
(A-030-070)
It is the recommendation of the City Attorney that Resolution No. 94-295 be
adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding releasing
the proceedings of abatement under Chapter 9.36 of the Redding Municipal
Code on certain real property in the City of Redding located at 1261 East
Street, owned by Richard C. Shave, Sr. and Betty M. Shave.
MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, 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 & R.
Anderson
Noes: Council Members - None
Abstain: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Members - None
Resolution Nos. 94-291, 94-292, 94-293, 94-294 and 94-295 are on file in the
Office of the City Clerk.
PRESENTATION BY SONNY STUPEK RE SOFTBALL COMPLEX
(P-050-600-200)
Director of Planning and Community Development Perry and Director of
Recreation and Parks Riley provided the City Council with background
information and a history regarding the proposed Softball Complex in the
Report to City Council dated September 26, 1994, incorporated herein by
reference.
Staff is of the opinion that it would be desirable to have a citizens group
spearheading the Softball Complex project with staff providing the necessary
technical support.
Sonny Stupek, Head Softball Coach at Shasta College, suggested
reestablishing communication regarding a softball complex and utilizing both
private and public funding for the project. He indicated that over 4,000
people in the City of Redding participate in organized softball each year
and that tournaments bring additional revenue into the community. He
requested that the City Council authorize the development of a citizens
group as recommended by City staff.
Steve Westlake emphasized that the proposed citizens group would consider
the proposed facility to be a multiple-use complex, i.e., soccer, car shows,
dog shows, fund raisers, arts and craft fairs, etc. He urged the City
Council to reconsider the development of a softball complex.
Roger Dawes opined that any type of industry locating in the City will
consider the availability of recreational facilities for children. He
indicated that the City of Redding does not have adequate facilities and
supported Mr. Stupek's proposal.
Michelle Smith believed it would be very beneficial for the City to have a
facility for individuals of all ages, especially younger children.
Bert Meyer, Meyer Motels, stated that there has always been community
support for the softball complex, but the main problems have always been
location and funding. As Redding grows, he said the City has to consider
the needs of the community, the amount of land and infrastructure required,
and the necessary recreational activities for the community. He also
supported the formation of a citizens group to address the issue of
developing a softball complex.
In response to Council Member Kehoe, Mr. Riley related that the potential
developers (Dave Saccani, et al) seemed to lose interest when they became
apprised that the developer would be responsible for the infrastructure. He
indicated that the City Council will need to discuss the matter of
infrastructure, as developers do not seem to be interested if they are
responsible for the infrastructure.
In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Assistant City Engineer Aasen
estimated that it would cost approximately $250,000 to have the road
improved and water, sewer and power brought to the site.
Mayor R. Anderson believed the timing was right for forming a community
involved group, similar to that developed for Project Playground, which
considers the utilization of public funds, private funds, and volunteer
labor, with the City Council directing staff to work with the group once it
is formulated.
Council Member Kehoe believed it would be beneficial to have individuals
dedicate their talents to the City and see if the issue could be resolved.
Council Member Murray believed the necessary energy exists in the community
and possibly new concepts can be explored. He did not object to setting
aside 35 acres of land near the Corporation Yard for the complex for a
specified period of time.
Mayor R. Anderson favored setting the land aside, however, if any other
priority use developed for the property, it should be brought back for the
City Council's consideration.
Council Member McGeorge concurred with the formation of the group and viewed
the proposed location as being ideal. He stressed the importance of the
complex having multiple uses.
Council Member P. Anderson supported the proposal. She stated that Project
Playground has demonstrated what citizens can accomplish when they come
together with a single focus.
Council Member Kehoe suggested that the City Council liaison to the
Recreation and Parks Department also serve as liaison to this committee.
MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe,
that the City Council support a citizens-based effort toward the future goal
of developing a softball complex, direct staff to work with the proponents
of the project, and set aside the designated 35 acres of City-owned property
at the City's Corporation Yard for said purpose for the next two years,
unless some other purpose develops. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
- re Application for Ambulance Owner's License by
Shasta View Ambulance, Inc.
(T-100-030)
Council Member P. Anderson and Mayor R. Anderson abstained from discussion
and voting on this matter.
The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the continued
public hearing regarding the Application for Ambulance Owner's License by
Shasta View Ambulance, Inc.
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
Staff recommendation dated September 29, 1994
City Clerk Strohmayer advised that a letter was received from North Valley
Ambulance Service dated October 3, 1994.
Budget Services Officer Starman provided an overview of the Report to City
Council dated September 29, 1994, incorporated herein by reference,
concerning the Application for Ambulance Owner's License by Shasta View
Ambulance, Inc. The report provided responses to the various questions
raised by the City Council concerning public convenience and necessity,
decision-making model, regulations, and evaluation of the application by
Shasta View Ambulance, Inc.
Mr. Starman summarized that staff believes that the City's ambulance
ordinance is no longer needed. The matter of ambulance regulation is
clearly the responsibility of the State of California and, via a contract
with the County of Shasta, Northern California Emergency Medical Services,
Inc. Staff believes that the City's ordinance could be repealed with little
or no adverse impact on the public. Thus, staff recommends that the City
Council direct the City Attorney to repeal Chapters 6.08 and 6.10 of the
Redding Municipal Code.
Mr. Starman stated that staff must receive and evaluate new evidence
presented before it can make a recommendation on the issuance of an
ambulance license.
Robert Lintern, President of Shasta View Ambulance, Inc., 523 Country Oak
Drive, indicated that he is in the process of moving his base operation to
the City of Shasta Lake, with the goal of serving the north end of Redding
down to Highway 299 with a six-minute response time. This move reduces the
response time to the northern part of the County by approximately four
minutes from the previously location.
Mr. Lintern stated that he did extensive research regarding this business
and believed there was a good opportunity for another ambulance service in
the area, specifically the north part of Redding and Shasta County. He
noted that the three existing ambulance services are based downtown within a
square mile area. The response times to the north end of the City and
County areas are inordinately long and require fire department personnel to
be on the scene for long periods of time. He explained that there are
several instances per month where no life support units are available to
respond to calls. He cited the following instances: August 9, 1994 - 2 1/2
hours where no ambulances were available to respond to calls; September 19,
1994 - 2 hours where no ambulances were available to respond to calls; and
September 20, 1994 - one accident approximately 20 miles east of Redding
required four ambulances and three helicopters on the scene at one time.
North Valley II in Anderson was on a call, which left one ambulance in the
City to cover any emergencies. Because of instances such as these, he felt
another ambulance service would be beneficial.
Mr. Lintern supported staff's recommendation to eliminate the ordinance
since, in his opinion, Northern California Emergency Medical Services
(NCEMS) regulates the industry very efficiently and effectively. He
explained that Shasta County has a similar ordinance for which it is also
considering repealing.
Council Member Murray questioned how Shasta View Ambulance intended to fit
into the rotation schedule when its base operation is located in the City of
Shasta Lake.
Mr. Lintern replied that Shasta View Ambulance would be placed on rotation,
ideally serving the north area of Shasta County. If possible, calls
received to the Anderson area would be referred to North Valley II. Shasta
View's base station is located along the freeway and calls to the Redding
area can be responded to quickly. He believed that eventually ambulance
service would go to geographic service areas and he wanted to be positioned
for that conversion. He stated that he is currently negotiating for the
location in the City of Shasta Lake, however, he wanted to await the outcome
of this meeting before dedicating additional monies and effort.
In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Lintern related that it is
difficult to obtain quantitative information regarding response times as the
information is not broken down in a useable manner without devoting numerous
hours to research.
Council Member McGeorge did not believe the City should be licensing
ambulances if it is being adequately covered by Shasta County and NCEMS.
In response to Council Member McGeorge, City Attorney Hays explained that if
the City Council denied the ambulance owner's license, but instructed staff
to draft an ordinance repealing the existing ordinance, it would be
approximately 45 to 60 days before the ordinance no longer existed. During
this period of time, Shasta View Ambulance would be unable to conduct
business in the City of Redding.
Conrad Anderson, Vice President of North Valley Ambulance Service,
recommended that the ordinance not be repealed but amended to eliminate the
licensing of ambulance personnel. He noted that Shasta County's Section
8.04.020 does not pertain to the incorporated areas of the County.
Budget Services Officer Starman stated that Mr. Anderson is correct that the
licensing does not cover the incorporated areas of the County; however, with
regard to the emergency medical system itself, Shasta County has purview
over the entire County, with its authority being delegated to NCEMS via a
contract.
Mr. Anderson stated that he could have his corporate attorney prepare a
brief for submission to the City Attorney regarding court cases relating to
the determination of public convenience and necessity.
In response to Vice Mayor Kehoe, Mr. Anderson stated that the response times
noted in his letter dated October 3, 1994, are based on zoning pertaining to
the City of Redding. The times reflect all calls, including dry runs and no
transports. He explained that no matter how many ambulances are authorized
within the City of Redding, there are still going to be times when
ambulances are not available to respond to calls. He conveyed that North
Valley Ambulance has pager crews; however, it takes approximately 20 minutes
to call a crew in and often times ambulances become available during this
20-minute period.
In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Anderson stated that Redding
Police Department Dispatch is the party which determines when an ambulance
is not available. California Highway Patrol Regulations require private
ambulance companies to record times when calls are received and ambulances
are not available.
Council Member Murray questioned procedures for handling accidents which
involve eight or nine individuals, when only five ambulances are on duty at
any one time.
Mr. Anderson replied that an ambulance is capable of carrying more than one
patient. Not more than one critical patient should be in an ambulance at
any one time. He cited North Valley Ambulance's revenue loss ratio as
follows: 1991-51%; 1992-59%; and 1993-59%. In Mr. Anderson's judgment,
existing ambulance services might not be able to continue if the volume of
calls continues to be diluted and the City discontinues regulating ambulance
services.
Wally Quirk, Associate Administrator for Redding Medical Center, opined that
relying on another authority such as the County to regulate ambulance
services may complicate matters. He noted that there are various
organizations and regulations which deal with emergency services. The major
function of NCEMS is personnel certification and it does not have complete
purview over all the ambulance and transportation issues. He did not
believe ambulance zoning was under active consideration.
Vice Mayor Kehoe determined that there were no additional individuals
present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing.
In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Starman indicated that if a
company was licensed and had a City business license, it would be added to
the rotation. This action would not require NCEMS approval, merely the City
notifying NCEMS of the change.
In response to Council Member McGeorge, Mr. Starman related that the
County's contract with NCEMS references State statutes regarding overall
planning and coordination of emergency medical services within the County.
The State does not issue a license, however, the California Highway Patrol
is active in this area in terms of vehicle inspection, reviewing personnel
records and ensuring proper training.
Mr. Anderson stated that the California Highway Patrol is the sole licensing
agency for inspection and licensing of ambulances. Each ambulance is issued
a certificate with a number and a master license. At the time an ambulance
is sold or replaced, the certificate must be returned along with a
disposition sheet which describes the vehicle and the reason for being taken
out of service.
Council Member Murray stated that after listening to testimony this evening,
in his judgment the applicant had not demonstrated a need for the new
service. He did not believe it was possible to demonstrate need within the
framework of the ordinance and information available from NCEMS. While he
was not prepared to support approval of the application, he recommended that
the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance
repealing Chapter 6.08 and 6.10 of the Redding Municipal Code.
Council Member McGeorge concurred that need and necessity had not been
demonstrated. He believed the incidents cited could occur no matter how
many ambulances were licensed within the City.
Vice Mayor Kehoe stated that he had not heard any additional data to support
the approval of the application.
City Attorney Hays recommended that Chapter 6.10 remain, as he did not
believe the same regulations were applicable to limited ambulances.
MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member McGeorge,
to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance for the City
Council's consideration which repeals Chapter 6.08 of the Redding Municipal
Code pertaining to ambulances.
Voting was as follows:
Ayes: Council Members - Murray, McGeorge, and Kehoe
Noes: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Members - None
Abstain: Council Members - P. Anderson and R. Anderson
MOTION: Made by Council Member McGeorge, seconded by Council Member Murray,
to deny the Application for an Ambulance Owners' License by Shasta View
Ambulance, Inc.
Voting was as follows:
Ayes: Council Members - Murray, McGeorge, and Kehoe
Noes: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Members - None
Abstain: Council Members - P. Anderson and R. Anderson
At the hour of 8:45 p.m., Vice Mayor Kehoe declared the meeting recessed.
At the hour of 8:58 p.m., Vice Mayor Kehoe reconvened the meeting to regular
session and turned the meeting back over to Mayor R. Anderson.
ORDINANCE NO. 2097
- Amending Redding Municipal Code Chapter 2.90 pertaining
to the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Positions of the City of
Redding
(F-010-150)
MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member Murray,
that the full reading of Ordinance No. 2097 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. 2097 be adopted, an ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Redding amending Redding Municipal Code Chapter 2.90 pertaining to
the Conflict of Interest Code for designated positions of the City of
Redding.
Voting was as follows:
Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R.
Anderson
Noes: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Members - None
Ordinance No. 2097 is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
RESOLUTION
- Memorandum of Understanding with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1245, Covering the Maintenance Unit
(P-100-050-070)
Interim City Manager McMurry related that City negotiators have reached
agreement on a proposed two-year extension of the existing Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW) covering wages, hours, and working conditions for the members of the
Maintenance Unit.
Mr. McMurry noted that economic features of the agreement include a 3
percent wage adjustment effective September 25, 1994; 3.25 percent wage
adjustment effective September 10, 1995; an increase in meal allowances to
$7.50 and $15.00; a $200 allowance for attainment of an Arborist's
Certificate; the capping of educational expenses at $100 per semester, and a
requirement that two hours be worked at the end of shift before qualifying
for a meal allowance.
It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the resolution
approving the MOU and providing for an agreement covering wages, hours, and
working conditions for employees in the Maintenance Unit through September
20, 1996.
MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe,
that Resolution No. 94-296 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of
the City of Redding approving the provisions of the Memorandum of
Understanding entered into between the City of Redding and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1245, Maintenance Employees,
effective September 20, 1994, through September 20, 1996.
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. 94-296 is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
- August 1994
(B-130-070)
Budget Services Officer Starman provided an overview of the Report to City
Council dated September 26, 1994, incorporated herein by reference,
detailing the August 1994 Monthly Financial Report.
MOTION: Made By Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P.
Anderson, to accept the Monthly Financial Report for August 1994. The Vote:
Unanimous Ayes
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
(G-030)
Director of Planning and Community Development Perry provided an overview of
the Report to City Council dated September 26, 1994, incorporated herein by
reference, which provided information concerning the General Plan and the
costs, time, and commitment associated with a comprehensive General Plan
update.
Council Member P. Anderson noted that some of the area plans have recently
been updated which should assist in the update process. She also questioned
the probability of obtaining the potential sources of funds noted in the
Report to City Council. Mr. Perry stated that the probability of receiving
the sources of funds referenced is approximately 50 percent.
Council Member P. Anderson questioned the feasibility of identifying weaker
areas of the General Plan, associated costs and the time frame. Mr. Perry
related that the information could be provided, however, it would require
him to make some assumptions. He emphasized that even if a comprehensive
General Plan update is completed, components of the plan should be reviewed
every five years. Historically, the City has been on a ten-year cycle.
Council Member P. Anderson related that planning is very crucial to the City
because of its growth and growth projections.
Council Member Murray complimented staff on the report. He viewed the
comprehensive General Plan update as being an opportunity to proactively
define, with community involvement, the future of the City.
Council Member McGeorge suggested that the matter be deferred to a City
Council workshop to provide more time to discuss the various issues.
Council Member Murray did not favor proceeding with any alternative which
did not involve the updating of the land use maps, and he felt that such an
update requires input from the entire community. Once the land use maps are
updated, he said it may then make sense to proceed with a Vision Plan.
Council Member Kehoe concurred with discussing the matter at a City Council
workshop and stated that the City Council is interested in obtaining the
highest degree of public participation in matters which affect the citizens
of the community. He believed one of the reasons the City Council declined
to participate in the Vision Plan is that the City Council sought a high
level of bilateral communication between the citizens and the articulation
of the land management plan. He concurred that a comprehensive General Plan
update was a critical issue and he was prepared to dedicate additional
General Fund revenues to the planning area.
Council Member Murray stated that the real estate market is slow and is
currently in a recession in terms of permitting activities. He conveyed
that now would be the time to proceed if the City Council wants to stop work
in some areas that are currently being performed to permit staff to work on
General Plan activities.
Mayor R. Anderson stated that he would establish a date for the workshop to
discuss the comprehensive General Plan update.
No action was taken on this matter.
USE OF VOLUNTEERS TO DO CODE ENFORCEMENT (C-110-100-400)
Director of Planning and Community Development Perry provided an overview of
the Report to City Council dated September 29, 1994, incorporated herein by
reference, which outlined the use of volunteers to perform code enforcement
activities.
Mr. Perry noted that staff conducted a state-wide survey of planning
agencies utilizing the City's computer link system and found no cities using
volunteers for code enforcement. In staff's opinion, the current level of
reduced code enforcement effort could probably continue for one more year
without too much impact on the community in terms of its health, safety, and
welfare and without too much loss of City credibility. However, on a
continuing basis, reduced code enforcement will result in blight, more
conflict, and a feeling that government does not care.
Council Member Murray questioned the difference between the use of
volunteers to perform code enforcement and other volunteer activities such
as Neighborhood Watch.
City Attorney Hays clarified that the tasks volunteers perform in the
Neighborhood Watch Program are not tasks which City employees are directed
to perform. Mr. Perry related that Assistant Planners are currently
utilized for code enforcement.
Interim City Manager McMurry stated that if the City Council were to utilize
volunteers for code enforcement, staff would need to meet with the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU). He explained that SEIU would probably
contend that some of the duties are bargaining unit work and could not be
performed utilizing volunteers.
In response to Council Member McGeorge, Mr. Hays indicated that the legal
liability associated with volunteers doing code enforcement work would be
the same as any other volunteer activities.
Mr. Perry stated that if the City Council directed staff to prepare a
detailed recommendation, the City Council would need to establish an
implementation date.
Council Member Murray did not want to limit individuals wanting to donate
time to the City on activities which are not counter productive to the
mission of the City. He supported the concept of utilizing volunteers for
code enforcement activities and stated that the union was the least of his
concerns.
Council Member Kehoe noted that one of the paramount objectives of the City
Council is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of City government.
He noted that volunteers and employees of the City are part of that
resource base. He encouraged the utilization of a holistic approach
incorporating the use of volunteers and also employees of various City
departments which are in the community, i.e., Fire and Public Works
Departments, thereby representing a unified effort.
Mr. Perry emphasized that not all areas of the City need equal levels of
enforcement. He stated that teams could be developed with Police, Fire,
Public Works, Building and General Services. He envisioned eventually
linking Neighborhood Watch and Community Oriented Policing. He noted that
the best enforcement comes from the lowest possible level, which in this
case is citizens living in the impacted area.
Council Member P. Anderson expressed interest in Alternatives 2 and 3
presented in the Report to City Council and requested that staff's
recommendation include the associated costs and problems. She supported
implementing the program this calendar year.
Mayor R. Anderson cautioned that there are costs associated with projects,
i.e., General Plan update, etc. and recommended that the City Council
prioritize the various projects.
Council Member Murray concurred and recommended that staff have the report
available for consideration at the mid-year budget review, thereby providing
staff time to conduct the survey noted in the Report to City Council.
Mayor R. Anderson requested that staff review the possibility of having
other departments, which circulate throughout the community, participate in
code enforcement activities. Mr. Perry stated that he would discuss the
possibility with the various departments.
It was the consensus of the City Council for staff to prepare a report
regarding the utilizing of volunteers for code enforcement for consideration
by the City Council during the mid-year budget review.
MOUNTAIN LAKES INDUSTRIAL PART PROPOSED ROAD EASEMENT RELOCATION
(S-070-100)
Council Member Murray abstained from discussion and voting on this matter.
Director of Planning and Community Development Perry related that a letter
was received from Ron Munk requesting the relocation of a future street in
the Mountain Lakes Industrial Park 50 feet to the west as depicted in the
Report to City Council dated October 4, 1994, incorporated herein by
reference. He stated that Mr. Munk's request is on behalf of a client
proposing to purchase property at 4810 Mt. Lakes Boulevard who desires an
additional 50 feet of land along the westerly property line. The area
desired is encumbered with an unimproved 64-foot road and utility easement.
Parallel to the road are recorded building setback lines and public service
easements which also have to be relocated.
Mr. Perry explained that the Public Works Department has determined that
utilities have not been stubbed out in the existing easement, that the
proposed alignment should not result in increased cost or difficulty in
developing a future street across the City's parcel to connect to the
easement, and that there is adequate sight distance for the relocated
intersection. However, the Electric Utility Department has determined that
there are electrical facilities in the general area, and a street light may
need to be relocated.
Relocating the easement 50 feet to the west does not appear to have any
significant negative impact to the City. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of staff that the City Council agree to relocate the future
street 50 feet west of its current alignment and authorize staff to proceed
with either an abandonment or vacation of the easement, if the private
parties involved successfully negotiate the transfer of land needed for the
new alignment. It is further recommended that the relocation be subject to
the dedication of an unencumbered public street and utility easement with a
title policy insuring same, that the City receive assurance that the new
easement is free of any hazardous materials, and that all City facilities
located in the existing easement area will be relocated at the expense of
the party seeking the street relocation.
MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member
McGeorge, authorizing the relocation of the future street within the
Mountain Lakes Industrial Park as recommended hereinabove.
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
ANIMAL PERMIT AP-3-94, BY VICKY GIBSON
(A-130-140)
Principal Planner Keaney related that Vicky Gibson submitted Animal Permit
Application AP-3-94 requesting to stable three horses and a lamb on property
located at 3080 Sacramento Drive in an "R1-B2" Single-Family Residential
District. The lamb would be on the property for a temporary period, from
February to June 1995. At its meeting of September 14, 1994, the Board of
Administrative Review (BAR) unanimously recommended approval of AP-3-94 with
the condition that the permit be restricted to one horse and one lamb. The
applicant has stated that she maintains her request to stable three horses
and a lamb. He explained that an animal permit was granted to Ms. Gibson in
May 1993 for three horses for one year with no fee for renewal; however, a
renewal request was not received.
Mr. Keaney advised that neighbors to the west, east and south of the
property attended a BAR meeting on September 7, 1994, to voice objections
regarding possible health hazards and aesthetics associated with keeping of
horses adjacent to their homes. The meeting was continued for one week to
permit one member of BAR to visit the project site to determine if
complaints were justified. At the September 14, 1994, BAR meeting, two
neighbors spoke in favor of the animal permit, and three neighbors spoke in
opposition of three horses and a lamb. In addition, several letters of
opposition were submitted at that meeting and included in the Report to City
Council dated September 26, 1994, incorporated herein by reference.
Mr. Keaney related that the primary concerns associated with the keeping of
large animals are odor, flies, and dust, all of which relate to having an
adequate area for the animals and sufficient separation from adjoining
homes. The City Code requires that large animals be kept a minimum of 75
feet from any residence other than the owner's. At this time, the
applicant's horses are kept a minimum of 80 feet from the nearest residence.
Chapter 7 of the Redding Municipal Code does not specify minimum areas for
the keeping of horses. In this case, the parcel size is 1.3 acres. If the
property were zoned with the "A" Combining District, the standard could be
one large animal for every 20,000 square feet or, in this case, two animals.
Mr. Keaney conveyed that an inspector from the Environmental Health Division
of the Shasta County Department of Resource Management visited the location
twice in November 1993 in response to a complaint from the neighborhood
regarding odor, dust, flies and disease. The inspector did not note an
excessive amount of flies or odors and stated that there was no
justification for the complaint. In June 1994, the site was again visited
and noted very few flies and that a large accumulation of manure was not
observed.
Mr. Keaney stated that on September 9, 1994, a staff member visited the site
and noted some odor and flies associated with the animals on site.
Subsequent to that visit, the draft conditions of approval on the animal
permit were revised to reflect that no more than one horse be stabled on the
property and that one lamb be allowed for a temporary period of five months.
Based primarily upon surrounding residential properties and testimony by
neighbors, BAR felt it was necessary to limit the number of large animals on
the site to one horse and one lamb. It is the recommendation of BAR and
staff that the City Council approved Animal Permit AP-3-94 for one horse and
one lamb subject to the list of conditions developed by BAR and authorize
the City Manager to issue the animal permit.
In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Keaney related that the one horse
represented an effort by BAR to develop a compromise which satisfied both
parties. The criteria utilized by the City for many years concerning barn
animals is one large animal per half acre. This particular property would
allow two large animals.
Council Member P. Anderson questioned why Ms. Gibson was previously granted
a permit for three horses. Mr. Keaney replied that the decision was based
on the fact there had been animals on the property to the east and west.
Council Member Kehoe questioned whether there was opposition when the permit
was issued in May 1993. Mr. Keaney indicated that at least one property
owner objected to the permit.
In response to Council Member Murray, Planning and Community Development
Director Perry stated that in 1993 the applicant requested four horses,
however, only three were approved. At that time, neighbors residing to the
south, east, and west voiced objections to the permit. Ultimately, the City
Council approved three horses.
Council Member Murray inquired if an Animal Permit is usually only issued
for one year.
Mr. Keaney related that when there is neighborhood controversy, standard
procedure has been to issue a one-year permit. Mr. Perry stated that
depending on the location, he has seen the Planning Commission and City
Council approve six-month reviews, sometimes one year. If no problems or
complaints are encountered during this period, the permits are often
extended anywhere from two to five years.
Applicant Vicky Gibson, 3080 Sacramento Drive, related that 70 percent of
the City's active permits are for more than two horses and have been issued
for two years or longer. Of the permits issued, one was issued in 1985 in a
multi-family zoning area with no complaints; four animals were permitted in
an unclassified area with a density classification of six units per acre,
with one complaint being received; three permits for two horses in a "R1-
B1"; one horse in a "R1-B10"; one horse in a "R1-B15"; one horse in a "R1-
B20"; three horses in a "R1-B20"; and three horses in a "R1-B40." She noted
that the only exception to the permits is that her permit was only issued
for one year and she was required to maintain the 75 feet distance from the
residence.
Ms. Gibson related that she lost the lease on the property where she had a
stable for three years and moved into this area where she was raised. She
stated that she is active in the community, is a co-leader and project
leader in 4-H. She indicated that her daughter has shown lambs and horses
for several years and would like to maintain her current lifestyle. Because
of her busy schedule, she would prefer to keep the animals on her property.
She noted that two of the horses have been on and off the property. The
colt needs constant attention and is kept on the property at all times. She
related that fly traps are used, the ground is treated with lime for the
urine smell, and manure is picked up daily and hauled off by a private
individual. She believed her request is consistent with neighboring uses
and permits granted in smaller lot subdivisions. She contended that the
property to the north has cattle, the property to the west has goats, and
there is a horse on the property to the east.
Ms. Gibson requested that the City Council adopt the draft conditions of
September 1, 1994, and that she not be excluded from keeping the horse in
the front area. If the City Council does not grant the permit for three
horses, she requested a two-year permit for two horses, which is allowable
under the formula previously referenced, and that three horses be permitted
during the winter months when there is no dust or flies. In addition, she
requested permission to have a lamb for her daughter's 4-H project. She
referenced a letter from Annie Bertagna of the Haven Humane Society
concerning the care of the animals. She invited the City Council to inspect
her property at any time.
Council Member Kehoe questioned why Ms. Gibson did not renew the permit in
May.
Ms. Gibson stated that it was her understanding that the permits were for
two years, when she discovered the permit had expired, she immediately
applied for a new permit and paid the associated fees.
Cassie Gibson, 3080 Sacramento Drive, related that she is an active member
of the Shasta County 4-H and requested that the City Council approve her
family's request for three horses and a lamb.
Edward Dabrowski, 3061 Sacramento Drive, contended that Ms. Gibson's initial
request was misleading due to the fact that she used the property's gross
area as being the area to keep horses. She, however, restricts the horses
to an area of less than 900 feet directly in front of her property. Last
year, he submitted a petition he circulated to property owners receiving
notices from the Planning Department, however, three horses were permitted.
He related that the County permits one horse per half acre and the area in
the rear of Ms. Gibson's property is .6 acres. He stated that the animals
referenced by Ms. Gibson were grandfathered in, but other residents have
conformed to City zoning since being annexed.
Mr. Dabrowski explained that the general consensus of the neighborhood is
that one horse is acceptable if it is not kept in the front area. He
suggested that one of the requirements should be for a timer and an
automatic on sprinkler, versus an automatic shutoff. The property is only
watered approximately one-half hour per day by two rain birds. He did not
believe anyone opposed the lamb for a 4-H project. He referenced Ms.
Gibson's letter dated September 26, 1994, and viewed her comments toward him
as being libelous and requested they be retracted. He did not object to
having one horse and one lamb provided they were kept in the back portion of
the property.
Greg Wilbur, 9474 Placer Road, stated that there is odor from the horses
when the swamp cooler is turned on at 3100 Sacramento Drive. He presented
pictures for the City Council's review which depicted problems experienced
with the horses on Ms. Gibson's property. He related that they had horse
flies on their Christmas tree this past year. He explained that he has been
trying to increase the value of his property, however, the disclosure of the
horses and the potential offensive odor have made it difficult to obtain
more rent and thus reduced the property value. He opposed the permit
authorizing one horse and one lamb.
Barbara Wilbur stated that she owns the property at 3100 Sacramento Drive.
She related that the horses are a nuisance because of the smell, flies and
dust. She indicated that she kept a record for a period of time which
showed that the manure would not be picked up for days. She noted that the
tenants are also complaining about the horses, which are 75 feet from the
house. In her opinion, three horses are too many for a residential area.
In response to Council Member McGeorge, Ms. Gibson related that the colt was
in the front area because she did not want it injured from fighting with the
horse to the east. Periodically, one of the other horses is placed in the
front area for companionship; however, the majority of the time, there is
only one horse on the premise.
Council Member Murray stated he did not object to following the ordinance's
requirement and restricting the animals to the back area. He believed that
a compromise might be possible if the matter were referred back to staff for
further discussion with Ms. Gibson to determine if there might be an
alternative which is acceptable for all parties.
In response to Mayor R. Anderson, Mr. Keaney stated that the ordinance does
not provide a ratio of animal per acre, but does require a 75-foot
separation.
In response to Council Member Kehoe, Mr. Dabrowski conveyed that Ms.
Kitchen, one of the property owners, moved to Vacaville, however, her
renters have submitted a complaint regarding the animals.
In response to Council Member McGeorge, Mr. Perry stated that Condition No.
4 of the Animal Permit requires that the animals be kept in the back area of
the property.
MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P.
Anderson, to approve Animal Permit AP-3-94, by Vicky Gibson, for one horse
and one lamb subject to the Conditions of Approval established by the Board
of Administrative Review. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes
ROUTINE REPORTS AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
10-1 Notification of Comtech, Inc. dba Comtech Mobile Telephone Company re
changes to its one-way paging and signaling
service tariff
(S-050-350)
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, at the hour of 10:34 p.m., Mayor Anderson
declared the meeting adjourned.
APPROVED:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk