Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1994-11-151 11/15/94 City Council, Regular Meeting City Council Chambers Redding, California November 15, 1994 7:05 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by Assistant City Attorney Calkins. The Invocation was offered by Reverend Jerry Bingham, Tecate Mission. 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, Director of Public Works Galusha, Director of Planning and Community Development Perry, Electric Utility Engineering Manager Russell, Police Captain Byard, Assistant City Attorney Calkins, Director of Finance Downing, Principal Planner Keaney, Director of General Services Masingale, Director of Recreation and Parks Riley, Superintendent-Wastewater Craig, Director of Information Systems Kelley, Director of Personnel Bristow, Director of Utilities/Customer Service Vokal, Assistant Director General Services Kohn, Transportation Coordinator Duryee, Associate Planner Hanson, Assistant City Clerk Moscatello, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary to City Council Rudolph. RESOLUTIONS - Commending Marisa Emmerson, Mary Bond, and Gretchen Melburg for their Service and Outstanding Contribution to the City of Redding in the Construction of Project Playground (P-050-145 & A-050-060) MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that Resolution No. 94-320 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding commending Marisa Emmerson for her service and outstanding contribution to the City of Redding in the construction of Project Playground. 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. 94-320 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that Resolution No. 94-321 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding commending Mary Bond for her service and outstanding contribution to the City of Redding in the construction of Project Playground. 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. 94-321 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that Resolution No. 94-322 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding commending Gretchen Melburg for her service and outstanding contribution to the City of Redding in the construction of Project Playground. 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. 94-322 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2 11/15/94 Mayor R. Anderson stated that without the vision and dedication of Marisa, Mary and Gretchen, Project Playground would not be a reality today. He expressed the City's appreciation to these three individuals and presented each with a framed resolution. Marisa Emmerson stressed that Project Playground demonstrates what a community can accomplish when it works together. She thanked the City of Redding, the City Council and staff for their support. On behalf of Project Playground, the City Council was presented with certificates making each an Honorary Member of the Playground. RESOLUTION - Commending and Congratulating Ray Foust on His Retirement as the National Park Service Superintendent and Manager of the Whiskeytown Unit of the National Park Service (A-050-060) MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 94-323 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding commending and congratulating Ray Foust on his retirement as the National Park Service Superintendent and Manager of the Whiskeytown Unit of the National Park Service. 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. 94-323 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 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. 9, check numbers 213167 through 213646 inclusive, in the amount of $4,810,347.49, be approved and paid, Payroll Register No. 10, check numbers 388217 through 388957 inclusive, in the amount of $884,233.77, and Automatic Payroll Deposits, check numbers 21877 through 22078, in the amount of $310,273.62, for a total of $1,194,507.39, for the period October 23, 1994 through November 5, 1994, be approved. TOTAL: $6,004,854.88 Planning and Community Development Monthly Status Report (A-050-250) It is the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Community Development that the Monthly Status Report through October 1994, for the following work areas be accepted: 1) Annexations; 2) Zoning, Subdivisions, and General Plan Amendments; 3) Building and Population; 4) Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation; and 5) Surplus Property. Resolution - Approving CDBG Funding Agreement with Shasta County Women's Refuge for Rehabilitation of Peterson House (G-100-030-039) It is the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Community Development that Resolution No. 94-324 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving the agreement between the City of Redding and Shasta County Women's Refuge providing funding in the amount of $74,459.00 for the rehabilitation of the existing shelter and authorizing the Mayor to sign same. Requests for Quote - re Repair of Fire Damaged Sawmill Building at Redding Power (B-050-100 & E-120-150) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that the City Council authorize the issuance of Request for quotations for the repair of the sawmill building at Redding Power. Resolution - City Council Policy on Demand-Side Management Review of City Construction Projects (A-050-060-555 & E-120) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Resolution No. 94-325 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of 3 11/15/94 the City of Redding adopting a policy implementing Demand-Side Management Review of City of Redding construction projects. Award of Bid - Bid Schedule No. 2888, Electronic Platform Truck Scale for Resource Recovery (B-050-100 & S-020-550) It is the recommendation of the Assistant Director of General Services that Bid Schedule No. 2888, electronic platform truck scale for Resource Recovery, be awarded to Gifford Construction, Inc. in the amount of $28,385.71. Funds for this purchase are available from the 1994-95 Solid Waste bond financing package. Resolution - Appropriating Funds for Stillwater Park * (B-130-070 & P-050) It is the recommendation of the Director of Recreation and Parks that Resolution No. 94-326 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 24th amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 94-199 appropriating $130,000 for Stillwater Park. Utility Pay Station Agreement - The Mail Box (A-050-700) It is the recommendation of the Director of Utilities/Customer Service that the City Council approve the Utility Pay Station Agreement with The Mail Box effective January 1, 1995. Notice of Completion - Bid Schedule No. 2862, Enterprise Community Park Phase I Infrastructure (B-050-020 & P-050-145) It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that Bid Schedule No. 2862 (Job No. 9203), Enterprise Community Park Phase I Infrastructure, awarded to Bobby Martin Construction, be accepted as satisfactorily completed, and the City Clerk be authorized to file a Notice of Completion. The final contract price is $985,422.26. Resolution - Amending Contract with United States of America Providing for Water Service to the Buckeye Area (W-030-050) It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that Resolution No. 94-327 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding (1) rescinding Resolution No. 94-314, and (2) authorizing entering into an Amendatory Contract between the United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project, and the City of Redding providing for water service; Contract No. 14-06-200-5272A Amendatory. Acceptance of Final Map - Forest Homes Subdivision, Phase 3 (East side of Shasta View Drive at Leonard Street) (S-100-208) It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that the Final Map for the Forest Homes Subdivision, Phase 3, be approved, the Mayor authorized to sign the Subdivision Agreement, and the City Clerk authorized to file the Map with the Shasta County Recorder. Resolution - Approving Reimbursement Agreement with Gunner/Clermont, Inc. for Water Main Extension (A-070-300 & W-030-725 & S-100-043) It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that Resolution No. 94-328 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving entering into a Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Redding and Gunner/Clermont, Inc., not to exceed $6,748.00, for the construction of a 8-inch water main along Nighthawk Lane, and authorizing the Mayor to sign same. Resolution - Approving Reimbursement Agreement with Gunner/Clermont, Inc. for Sewer Main Extension (A-070-300 & W-020-575 & S-100-043) It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that Resolution No. 94-329 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving entering into a Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Redding and Gunner/Clermont, Inc., not to exceed $6,748.00, for 4 11/15/94 the construction of an 8-inch sewer main along Nighthawk Lane, and authorizing the Mayor to sign same. MOTION: Made by Council member McGeorge, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, 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. 94-324, 94-325, 94-326, 94-327, 94-328, and 94-329 are on file in the office of the City Clerk. PRESENTATION BY SHASTA HILLS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION - re Shasta Hills Left Turn Pocket (T-080-300 & L-010-210-695) Director of Public Works Galusha stated that a petition was received from the homeowners in the Shasta Hills Estates requesting that a left- turn pocket be installed on Churn Creek Road at the entrance to Shasta Hills Estates. The subdivider of the Shasta Hills Subdivision was required to build a portion of Churn Creek Road as a condition of the project, with access via State Route 299 to the north. Churn Creek Road was constructed in several phases and is now a major arterial serving approximately 10,000 cars a day. Mr. Galusha explained that as a two-lane arterial, Churn Creek Road can accommodate the current traffic volumes and additional lane capacity will not be necessary for many years based on current development trends. Existing traffic volumes and the speed of the approaches to this intersection do, however, warrant consideration for the construction of a left-turn pocket at the entrance to the subdivision. Based on preliminary engineering, the construction of a left-turn lane is estimated at $40,000. This project is not included in the 1994-95 capital budget or contained in the adopted traffic impact fee program. Funding for this project could come from the Capital Improvement Fund or General Fund. It may also be possible to obtain 90 percent federal funding for this project under the Federal Hazard Elimination Program. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council direct staff to prepare a preliminary design and cost estimate for the left-turn facility for consideration during the 1995-96 Capital Improvement budget review process. Staff would also pursue grant funding under the Federal Hazard Elimination Program. Norman Leavell, 332 Mammoth Path, conveyed the concern and frustration the residents of Shasta Hills Estates are experiencing when making a left turn while traveling northbound on Churn Creek Road into Shasta Hills Estates. In order to alleviate any danger and prevent a catastrophe from occurring, he asked that the City Council act as quickly as possible to provide a left turn lane. Hubert Miron, 1359 Southfork Trail, invited each member of the City Council to drive north on Churn Creek Road at approximately 3:00 p.m. to view the dangerous traffic conditions the residents of Shasta Hills Estates are experiencing. He added that the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) bus stop immediately across the street from the entrance to the subdivision contributes to the danger. He stated that when cars are stopped on Churn Creek waiting to make a left hand turn, cars will pass on the right hand side and throw gravel. In response to Mayor R. Anderson, Mr. Galusha explained that the left turn lane would provide shelter for those vehicles turning into the entrance of Shasta Hills Estate. He stated that there many projects such as this that are needed within the City; however, there is only a limited amount of funding available. If this particular project were approved in the 1995-96 budget, work could begin as soon as the budget is approved. He explained that this type of project is normally completed during good weather conditions. 5 11/15/94 Council Member Murray emphasized that building a project and considering a project are two separate issues. He explained that one of his disappointments as a City Council Member is the fact that the public will come before the City Council with a legitimate need, however, does not participate in the capital improvement budget hearing process where all such projects are prioritized. He encouraged the public to attend these hearings to better understand the City's fiscal constraints. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, to direct staff to prepare a preliminary design and cost estimate for a left-turn facility on Churn Creek Road to accommodate Shasta Hills Estates for consideration by the City Council during the 1995-96 Capital Improvement budget process. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - re Amendment to Schedule of Fees and Service Charges (F-205-600) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the continued public hearing regarding the Amendment to Schedule of Fees and Service Charges. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Posting - Continued Public Hearing Staff recommendation dated October 28, 1994 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Director of Planning and Community Development Perry provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated October 28, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, which discussed the following issues relative to the proposed amendments to the Schedule of Fees and Service Charges: 1) Recommendations from the "Fees Task Force;" 2) The City as a Business; 3) Changing Trends in Financing Services and Improvements; 4) Services by Funding Source; and 5) Response to the Fees Task Force. It was the recommendation of staff that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Adopt the Master Fee Resolution with an effective date of January 1, 1995; 2) Defer an increase in the traffic impact fee. While staff believes a nexus exists to support this increase and that deferral is not in the best interest of the community as a whole, the City Council may want to review the work prepared by the Public Works Department in a workshop or in the context of the Capital Improvement Plan before taking an action; and 3) Defer consideration of the increase in the park development fee. While the fee is obviously too low, a foundation has not been established to support the fee and consideration should be deferred until after the update of the Capital Improvement Plan or until staff can develop a comprehensive report. Kent Dagg, representing the Fees Task Force, provided a history of the task force's evolution from a Traffic Task Force to its present responsibility as the Fees Task Force. He explained that the current task force is composed of representatives from the following organizations: Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Corporation, Private Industry Council, Shasta County Board of Realtors, Shasta Builders Exchange and Shasta Business Council. He stated that in January 1994, the task force began meeting to review the Public Works Department's proposed fee increases, as well as its Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Dagg indicated that based on the City Council's direction to the task force on June 7, 1994, to take a more global view of the City's current fee structure for new construction in the City, the task force made the following recommendations: 1) All City of Redding fees on development should be limited to a single annual review; 2) Any percentage based adjustments to fees should be limited to those fees under the City's purview; 3) The proposed fees should take into consideration the social and economic impact to the community, particularly housing and business affordability. He noted that statistics obtained from the Shasta County Board of Realtors indicate that a fee increase of $250 could result in as many as 26 individuals no 6 11/15/94 longer being able to afford a residence. Statistics obtained from the National Association of Home Builders show that the construction of 100 single-family residences generate the following: 176 worker years of employment in construction and construction related industries; $4,500,000 in wages; $1,880,000 in combined local, state and federal tax revenue; and $160,000 in local property taxes the first year. He stressed the importance of the City recognizing the value associated beyond the original construction of the residence and the importance to the community; 4) As part of the review process, any department proposing an increase in fees on development shall provide a budget comparison of actual revenues and expenses; and 5) Defer any fee adjustments on development (including the Schedule of Fees and Service Charges as it pertains to Planning, Public Works and Building) until a "Council-approved" review process has been established. He noted that a recent article in U.S. News and World Report ranked California 50 according to employment growth, income growth, new business growth, building permit growth, home price growth and retail sales growth. He provided the following statistics relative to Shasta County for the first nine months of 1990 and 1994: 1990 1994 Single-family units and permits 1,457 710 New commercial building construction $18 million $6 million All construction activity $212 million $111 million In response to Council Member McGeorge, Mr. Dagg stated he would obtain the state-wide figures for the same period of time for the City Council's review. Carl Arness, 2216 Oakridge Drive, stated that decisions of previous City Councils have provided the necessary infrastructure to accommodate current growth. As a citizen, he did not know whether growth was good for the community. He explained that the issue is how much the City Council believes each resident should pay for growth. He stressed the need for continued good planning and maintaining healthy City utilities. Paul Edgren, Signature Northwest Partnership, stated that growth has brought the City better competition, medical and health services, the Civic Center, and Turtle Bay complex. He stressed that a few dollars difference in the price of a residence can mean the difference between an individual qualifying for financing. He stated that the City needs to consider how it is going to pay for required services to accommodate growth. Jack Lynch, 1065 Dara Court, believed that the City Council's goal in having the proposed fee increases reviewed by the task force was to educate the business community on the City's fee structure and allow them to provide input. Charlie Menoher, Shasta County Superintendent of Schools, explained that school representatives have been meeting with the City Planning Department, the development community, and the County Planning Department, in an attempt to reach some type of consensus concerning school fees. He stated that he would be providing the City Council with an update on the progress being made in the near future. When reviewing the City's fee structure, he requested that the City Council take into consideration the decreasing ability of schools to house students within Shasta County and provide assistance in ensuring there are adequate school facilities to accommodate children. Council Member P. Anderson inquired as to the recovery of costs versus the cost of service delivery. She also questioned how the City could be underfunded with a 100 percent decrease in building costs. Mr. Perry related that the figures provided by Mr. Dagg represent building permits within the County, while the City Council minutes provided in the Report to City Council referred to planning permits only. He expected the Planning Department to process slightly under 1,000 planning permits in 1994. He stated that following two 15 percent fee adjustments, the current recovery rate is approximately 16 percent, 7 11/15/94 as compared to 8 percent in 1992. At the time of the recession, the City Council chose to direct staff to obtain a 100 percent cost recovery for the permit processing components. He noted that the difference in the cost recovery is attributed to the following: 1) Fewer revenue generating permits are being processed, i.e., subdivision and general plan amendments; 2) More administrative permits are being processed; and 3) Work loads have increased in areas where the City receives no cost recovery. He explained that the City has also received Community Development Block Grant funds for approximately three years to assist with General Plan work and also an Air Quality Grant which has funded the equivalent of one person in order to meet State air quality mandates. Council Member Murray opined that the City Council must determine the level current residents and future residents are to subsidize growth in the City. He noted that the establishment of the Planning Department was a political decision based on the desire of the individuals residing in the City to protect their investments, not because of growth. He stated that he has not received any documentation explaining why new development should pay for both the construction of new parks as a result of their new development, and pay for the lack of parks which already exists within the community. He was not willing to accept the premise that the City's costs are only attributed to growth. He recommended that the City Council discuss this matter in further detail at a workshop and noted that the General Plan is directly tied to the issue of fees. Council Member McGeorge recommended that the City Council identify potential costs associated with various issues, i.e., Capital Improvement Plan and the General Plan, before approving any fee increases. Council Member Murray explained that the rental rates for the Convention Center are based on what the market will bear, generate or return. He noted that at some point, the fees will become more than the construction industry can support. He, therefore, recommended that staff compile such analytical data prior to the City Council adopting any new fee structure. Council Member Kehoe, while not a proponent of increased fees or costs, supported taking a holistic approach to increasing fees within the City of Redding. He noted that one of the key ingredients in establishing a fee structure is the capability of the rate payer to pay the increased costs and recommended that this matter be considered during budget deliberations. Mayor R. Anderson stated that a fee structure should be developed which supports the budget on an annual basis. By consensus, the Mayor was directed to provide possible study session dates for the City Council to consideration this matter further. Mayor R. Anderson determined that there were no additional individuals present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. No action was taken on this item. PUBLIC HEARING - re General Plan Amendment Application GPA-5-94 and Rezoning Application RZ-8-94 by Bob Roesner (Southeast corner of Shasta View Drive and Goodwater Avenue) (G-030-010 & L-010-230) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment Application GPA-5-94 and Rezoning Application RZ-8-49 by Bob Roesner. 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 November 8, 1994 8 11/15/94 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that a letter dated November 14, 1994, was received from Dawn Gama-Barber, as well as petitions containing 123 signatures opposing the applications. Director of Planning and Community Development Perry related that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 11, 1994, recommended approval of both an amendment of the General Plan and a rezoning of approximately one acre, owned by Bob Roesner, from a General Plan classification of "Residential, 4.0 units per acre" to "Office/Residential" and from "R-1" Single-Family Residential District to "R4-40-B15-F" Multiple-Family Residential District. Mr. Perry explained that the property is situated at the southeast corner of what will someday be the intersection of Shasta View Drive, and the future extension of East Cypress Avenue, both of which will be widened to five-lane, urban thoroughfares. Goodwater Avenue will also be widened to five lanes adjacent to the property. A traffic signal will eventually be installed at this intersection which will create some conflict for vehicles entering and exiting the property to be reclassified. The projected traffic counts for Shasta View Drive at this location is 14,900 average daily trips in the year 2000 and 20,217 average daily trips in 2010. Mr. Perry indicated that the option of "Office/Residential" and "R-4" zone was presented by staff to provide greater market flexibility. The "R-4" zoning is a multiple-family zone which allows offices by use permit. With no public comment at the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of "R-4" and "Office/Residential." He stated the development of offices at the location may cause some conflicts with the single-family homes, but offices are generally considered an excellent buffer between an arterial street and a single-family area at what will be a busy intersection. Compared to "Office," multiple-family uses usually generate more opposition from existing neighbors. Usually, the primary concern in either case is privacy from the single-family lots if multistory office structures are built or the fact that the residents are tenants and not homeowners. The former can be remedied by restricting multistory offices and/or requiring increased setbacks. Mr. Perry conveyed that at the time the Commission considered these requests, there was not any significant input from the adjacent property owners concerning the possibility of multiple-family development at the location. Therefore, the Commission gave the property owner the option of developing the property with either multiple-family units or offices, which is considered more restrictive than "Office" in the General Plan and zoning hierarchies. After the mailing of the public notice advertising "Office/Residential" and "R4-40-B15-F," staff has received verbal and written opposition to the General Plan classifications which were recommended by the Commission. From staff's perspective, either the "Office" or the "Office/Residential" is suitable for the corner. The City Council needs to determine if the General Plan should be changed, designate a zoning consistent with the General Plan, ratify a Negative Declaration, and direct staff to prepare the implementing resolutions and ordinance. In response to Council Member Murray, Principal Planner Keaney related that the utility and storm drain easement, while not legally considered an alley, is utilized as such. The easement is part of a subdivision which was approved in the County. The alley is, however, necessary for fire access to accessory structures at the rear of properties and maintenance of utilities. Mr. Perry explained that as an easement, the City is not responsible for the paved surface. In this particular instance, the City would require an easement which would permit the alley to serve as access to the parking of the office building. In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Perry related that Shasta View Drive is envisioned to be a major intersection, consisting of four to six lanes. 9 11/15/94 Randall Swift, 2564 Rainbow Lane, indicated that Shasta View Drive and Goodwater Avenue is already a busy intersection and believed that multi- family residences would add to the problem. Based on the petitions presented, he opined that multi-family residences would decrease the value of his property. He requested that the City Council maintain the "R-1" Single-family residence classification. George McMaster, 2621 Shasta View Drive, stated that traffic is the major issue. The neighborhood supported the single-family subdivision which was originally proposed; however, it is not in favor of commercial development. Wayne Little, 2633 Shasta View Drive, expressed concern with the widening of Shasta View Drive in relation to his front-yard setback. Mr. Perry explained that Shasta View Drive was originally established as a 60-foot wide street. When Shasta View Drive is expanded to four- lanes, a residence with a 20-foot front yard set back would be reduced to a 8-foot set back. He emphasized that although Shasta View Drive will eventually be expanded, no plans have been developed. Chris Kraft, Sharrah Dunlap Sawyer, representing Bob Roesner, explained that the applicant has been unsuccessful in developing a residential subdivision on the property because it is too cost prohibitive. Subsequently, a small mini-mart was suggested; however, staff was not supportive of the proposal. After considering several other options, Mr. Roesner requested an "Office" designation which received no opposition at the Planning Commission. Due to the lack of opposition at the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Kraft requested the Planning Commission approve the "Office/Residential" classification. He asked the City Council to approve the "Office/Residential" classification thereby providing Mr. Roesner an opportunity to develop either offices or multi-family residential units on the property. In response to Mayor R. Anderson, Mr. Kraft stated that if the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application are approved, Mr. Roesner would proceed with submitting a subdivision map to develop the residential lots on Rainbow Lane. He noted that the development would require the completion of Rainbow Lane. Mr. Perry stated that the residents are already utilizing Rainbow Lane for access to Goodwater Avenue. The developer would be required to complete Rainbow Lane in lieu of a cul-de-sac. Mayor R. Anderson asserted that the completion of Rainbow Lane is necessary for fire protection. Council Member P. Anderson questioned why these individuals did not appear before the Planning Commission. Mr. Perry explained that the notice for the Planning Commission was based on the applicant's request to rezone the property to "Office" or a more restrictive district. The City Council notice was based on the Planning Commission's recommendation so that the surrounding property owners would know there had been a change in the recommendation. Mr. Keaney indicated that the property owner immediately to the south of the project did not testify at the Planning Commission because the office designation, while not the preferred choice, was acceptable. He, however, strongly objected to the multi-family designation and indicated that a petition would be forthcoming. The Planning Commission chose staff's option which included the classification of "R-4" which permits either office or multi-family uses. Mr. Perry added that it is not uncommon for areas to prefer offices for neighbors, as it is primarily 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. activity. In response to Council Member McGeorge, Mr. Perry stated that office and multi-family development have approximately the same traffic counts, with the major difference being office is more peak hour traffic. 10 11/15/94 In response to Mr. Swift, Mr. Perry explained the configuration of the original proposed subdivision. Mayor R. Anderson determined that there were no additional individuals present to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. Given the amount of available land after landscaping and improvements, Council Member McGeorge favored office development with height restrictions. He concurred with the residents that multi-family would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Council Member Murray concurred with Council Member McGeorge that the west portion of the property should be restricted to office development with site plan review criteria which mitigates some of the concerns of adjacent property owners and minimizes the impact on the residential neighborhood. He also favored maintaining the "R-1" single-family residential classification on the east portion of the property. Mr. Perry explained that the only item the current site plan review criteria does not include is the requirement that the building be located a certain distance from the street. He reiterated that there was nothing wrong in the way the public hearings were noticed but recommended that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. Mayor R. Anderson concurred in referring the matter back to the Planning Commission. He also agreed that there should be stringent site plan review criteria, the classification "R-1" should remain in the back portion of the property, and Rainbow Lane should be completed to Goodwater Avenue, thereby providing the necessary access to the "R-1" area. MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, to refer General Plan Amendment GPA-5-94 and Rezoning Application RZ-8-94 by Bob Roesner back to the Planning Commission. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes At the hour of 9:20 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson declared the meeting recessed. At the hour of 9:30 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson reconvened the meeting to regular session. PUBLIC HEARING - re Rezoning Application RZ-9-94 by James Crummett and the City of Redding (1276 and 1290 West Street) (L-010-230) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor R. Anderson opened the public hearing regarding Rezoning Application RZ-9-94. 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 November 8, 1994 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Director of Planning and Community Development Perry stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 25, 1994, recommended an expansion of the boundaries and approval of the rezoning of properties located at 1276 and 1290 West Street from "R4-25-F" Multiple-Family Residential District to "CO" Office District. The proposed rezoning would establish consistency with the City's General Plan designation of "Office" for the two properties in addition to consistency with the existing and proposed use of the properties. It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff that the City Council approve the rezoning of the subject property to "CO" Office District, 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. 11 11/15/94 MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, to approve Rezoning Application RZ-9-94 as recommended and make the following findings: 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 Board of Administrative Review on October 5, 1994. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Council Member Murray offered Ordinance No. 2100 for first reading, an ordinance 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 "CO" Office District (RZ-9-94). ORDINANCE NO. 2099 - Amending Redding Municipal Code Title 18, Zoning, by repealing Chapter 18.49 and adding a new Chapter 18.49 entitled Home Occupations (L-010-500-050) MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that the full reading of Ordinance No. 2099 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 P. Anderson, that Ordinance No. 2099 be adopted, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Redding Municipal Code Title 18, Zoning, by repealing Chapter 18.49 and adding a new Chapter 18.49 entitled Home Occupations. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge and R. Anderson Noes: Council Members - Murray Absent: Council Members - None Ordinance No. 2099 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT TURTLE BAY (P-050-460-700) Director of Planning and Community Development Perry provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated November 8, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, outlining the pedestrian bridge committee's recommendations, the proposed costs, funding, and McConnell Foundation's offer to participate in the project. Mr. Perry explained that the McConnell Foundation has agreed to participate in helping to fund the project subject to the following conditions: 1) The City shall actively pursue all eligible grant funds with the bridge as its highest priority for any eligible grant dollars; 2) City staff costs necessary to complete the project shall not be charged to the project or reduce project funding identified; 3) The McConnell Foundation staff to be closely involved in the process to help control costs; and 4) The McConnell Foundation funds will be the last to be expended. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council proceed with the process recommended by the committee. It is also recommended that the City Council accept The McConnell Foundation's conditions for participation and direct the Mayor to respond in writing. The City Council must also waive the requirements of City Council Policy No. 1501 relating to the selection of technical consultants. Should the City Council concur it would be appropriate to direct staff to: 1) Prepare and distribute a Request for Proposals for the bridge design work as outlined, incorporating the recommendations of the committee and any input from the City Council; 2) Direct staff to work with The McConnell Foundation on the execution of a contract with a firm to prepare the appropriate environmental document and meet the requirements of CEQA, NEPA, and the City Council and the Bridge Committee; 3) Submit a budget appropriation to cover staff's costs; and 4) Direct staff to review and submit an application under the ISTEA and EEMA programs. 12 11/15/94 In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Perry stated that the McConnell Foundation's request regarding grant monies might take ISTEA grant monies from other City trail projects. Staff prepared a follow-up letter to the McConnell Foundation regarding the grant monies and it was determined that it was not The McConnell Foundation's intent to require the City to apply for every possible grant. He clarified that only the italicized wording represents The McConnell Foundation's stipulations. Associate Planner Hanson indicated that the ISTEA funding program is broad; however, the grant monies referenced would only be enhancement dollars. Mayor R. Anderson explained that The McConnell Foundation wants to ensure that the City pursues some grants for the project and does not solely rely on the money from The McConnell Foundation. Based on information known to date, Mr. Perry estimated that total staff costs for both the Planning Department and Public Works Department would be approximately $55,000. He stated that he would have to divert staff time from other projects to write grant applications. He noted that staff costs could change if the project becomes controversial. Council Member Murray questioned whether The McConnell Foundation's conditions, would take effort away from other projects. Mr. Perry affirmed that the conditions would take staff efforts away from other project, but that would be a priority decision on the part of the City Council. Interim City Manager McMurry indicated that if staff is permitted to hire additional personnel, current projects would not probably be affected; however, if that is not the case, other projects will be delayed and the associated monies would remain outstanding. In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Perry stated that there is enough money currently available to do the design work and retain a consultant to complete the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He did not believe the City would award any type of construction bid until written assurance was received from The McConnell Foundation based on the low bid and any related contingencies. Mayor R. Anderson interjected that before making any specific commitment, The McConnell Foundation wants to know the cost of the project. The McConnell Foundation's position is non-negotiable. They are, however, willing to commit to the project's shortfall once the cost is known. Based on The McConnell Foundation's design choice and funding commitment, the committee basically views The McConnell Foundation essentially has 90 percent of the input as to the bridge style. Mayor R. Anderson did not see the City committed beyond the $1,800,000 currently set aside for the project. MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, to direct staff to: 1) Prepare and distribute a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Turtle Bay Pedestrian Bridge design work as outlined in the Report to City Council dated November 8, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, incorporating the recommendations of the Committee and any input from the City Council; 2) Work with The McConnell Foundation on the execution of a contract with a firm to prepare the appropriate environmental document and meet the requirements of CEQA, NEPA, and the City Council and Bridge Committee; 3) Submit a budget appropriation to cover staff's costs; and 4) Direct staff to review and submit an application under the ISTEA and EEMF programs. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE (G-030-070) Director of Planning and Community Development Perry indicated that the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan is scheduled to be updated as part of the Planning Department's ongoing long-range planning effort. He explained the purpose of the Seismic Safety Element is to protect the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of 13 11/15/94 seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body. Basically, the Element helps identify the level of risk and recommends solutions to minimize risk. Mr. Perry stated that the Element adopted in 1975 was based on a review of literature at that time. There have since been numerous earthquakes in the region from Oroville to just north of Redding to the coast. To update the Element requires a review of literature and new information. This may be critically important for the area, as insurance companies doing businesses in California have stopped selling homeowners insurance. Mr. Perry explained that the 1994-95 budget includes $40,000 designated for undertaking a seismic risk assessment. Funding sources for the project are Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in the amount of $16,500, and General Fund money in the amount of $23,500. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council authorize the circulation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Seismic Risk Assessment as a first step toward updating either the Seismic Safety Element or the General Plan. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, authorizing staff to circulate a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Seismic Risk Assessment to be utilized to update the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan in the Spring of 1995. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes AWARD OF BID - Bid Schedule No. 2856, Construction of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Line RESOLUTION - Authorizing Project Change Orders (B-050-020 & E-090-160-500) Director of Electric Utility Lindley stated that the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Loop Project involves construction of approximately nine miles of 115kV transmission line with 12kV distribution underbuild in the north/northwest Redding area. The project route also involves the future construction of a 115/12kV substation along the project route. At its meeting of September 15, 1992, the City Council made several findings regarding the Quartz Hill/Keswick Project, certified Final EIR 3-91, adopted a Project Mitigation Monitoring Program, and authorized proceeding with project development. Mr. Lindley indicated that the low bid for the construction of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission line was received from D & B Electric Inc. in the amount of $2,128,640. Funds for the project are included in the 1993 Electric System Project Financing Programs, Job Order 9157-24. In order to continue to provide reliable electric service to the north/northwest Redding area, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council: 1) Award Bid Schedule No. 2856 to D & B Electric Inc in the amount of $2,128,640; 2) Authorize the Mayor to sign a standard City of Redding Public Works Agreement; and 3) Adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve project change orders up to a not-to-exceed total of $215,000. In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Interim City Manager McMurry stated that a 10 percent contingency is standard in Public Works contracts and the authority for granting has previously been delegated to the City Manager. MOTION: Made by Council Member P. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Murray, to award Bid Schedule No. 2856, construction of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Line, to D & B Electric Inc. in the amount of $2,128,640, authorize the Mayor to sign a standard City of Redding Public Works Agreement for the subject work, and adopt Resolution No. 94-330, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding authorizing the City Manager to sign Project Change Orders up to an aggregate not to exceed $215,000 on the Public Works Contract between 14 11/15/94 the City of Redding and D & B Electric Inc. for the construction of the Quartz Hill/Keswick 115/12kV Transmission Line. 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. 94-330 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. RESOLUTION - Approving Amendment to Contract with Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System re Third Level of the 1959 Survivors Benefit for Employees Covered in the Peace Officers Association of Redding Memorandum of Understanding ORDINANCE - Authorizing Amendment to Contract with Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (P-100-320 & P-100-050-120) Director of Personnel Bristow stated that one element of the recently completed bargaining agreement with the Peace Officers Association of Redding is going to the third level of 1959 Survivor Benefits effective January 1, 1995. The Public Employees Retirement System has informed the City that the increased benefit will not raise the City's contribution rate because of the surplus in the City's Survivor Benefit Account. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution of intention and offer the ordinance for first reading. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member Murray, that Resolution No. 94-331 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding to approve an amendment to the Contract between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Redding regarding Third Level of the 1959 Survivors Benefit for employees covered in the Peace Officers Association of Redding Memorandum of Understanding. 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. 94-331 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Council Member Kehoe offered Ordinance No. 2101 for first reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Redding and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employee's Retirement System. RESOLUTION - Eliminating Two Part-Time Waste Inspector and One Wastewater Laboratory Technician Positions and Establishing One Full- time Waste Inspector Position and One Full-time Wastewater Laboratory Technician Positions in Association with Benton Landfill Post-Closure Monitoring Program RESOLUTION - Appropriating Funds for Landfill Monitoring Costs * (B-130-070 & A-050-300-400) Public Works Director Galusha explained that the 1991 Closure Plan approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board for the City's Benton Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill requires extensive monitoring of the air and gas, storm water, groundwater and leachate around the Benton Landfill site for the next thirty years. Mr. Galusha indicated that the Solid Waste Division of the General Services Department requested quotes from private consultants to perform portions of the required work. The low quote for groundwater monitoring was $6,500 per quarter or $26,000 per year. The low quote for air and gas monitoring of eleven wells was $7,027 per quarter or $28,108 per year. Since the quotations received were much higher than anticipated, staff did not complete the request for quotation process for the remaining monitoring tasks. As an alternative, the Wastewater Division 15 11/15/94 of the Public Works Department was asked to submit a cost for the required monitoring. The Wastewater Division routinely performs similar monitoring, reporting and laboratory testing. Laboratory tests beyond the City's in-house capabilities are sent to private laboratories. Mr. Galusha stated that it will cost the Solid Waste Division approximately $75,582 per year to contract the work to private consultants. The Wastewater Division could perform the same work at a cost of $47,436 per year, representing a 37 percent savings. The Wastewater Division could accommodate the Solid Waste Division's needs with minor staff reorganization. Two one-half time waste inspector positions and one three-quarter time laboratory technician position would be deleted and one full-time waste inspector position and one full-time laboratory technician position would be added. The proposed reorganization would increase full-time equivalent budgeted positions in the industrial waste and laboratory sections from 5.71 to 6 and would cost the Wastewater Utility $27,910 per year. This additional cost would be funded by cross charges to the Solid Waste Utility. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council approve the proposed reorganization, thereby allowing the Wastewater Division to reorganize with a net increase of 0.29 full-time equivalent and increase the Solid Waste Division's Benton Monitoring Budget by $30,000 in the current fiscal year. In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Wastewater Superintendent Craig indicated that $3,000 of the appropriation has been allocated to supplies. A certain amount of the necessary field equipment will be transferred from General Services to the Wastewater Division. The work involved is considered standard routine monitoring. Interim City Manager McMurry stated that any foreseen costs will be absorbed by the City, the same as if a private sector firm were performing the work. Staff wanted to ensure that the City Council was aware that any unforeseen issues would increase the monitoring costs. Council Member Murray clarified that if something unforeseen is discovered through the monitoring efforts, it might be appropriate at a later date to contract these services out. In the interim, however, the City will save approximately $30,000 annually by performing this work in-house. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that Resolution No. 94-332 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 23rd amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 94-199 (1) eliminating two part- time Waste Inspector positions and one part-time Wastewater Laboratory Technician Position; and (2) establishing one full-time Waste Inspector Position and one full-time Wastewater Laboratory Technician position. 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. 94-332 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that Resolution No. 94-333 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 25th amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 94-199 appropriating $30,000 for landfill monitoring costs. 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. 94-333 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 16 11/15/94 ORDINANCE - Amending Redding Municipal Code Title 6, Business Taxes, Licenses, and Regulations, by Repealing Chapter 6.08 Entitled Ambulance Regulations (T-100-030) Council Member P. Anderson and Mayor R. Anderson abstained from discussion and voting on this matter. Assistant City Attorney Calkins recalled that the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance repealing Redding Municipal Code Chapter 6.08 regarding the regulation of ambulances. If the City Council concurs with this ordinance, it is the recommendation of staff that it be offered for first reading. Conrad Anderson, Vice President of North Valley Ambulance Service, entered his letter dated November 14, 1994, incorporated herein by reference, into the record. He opined that Shasta County's ordinance only pertains to the unincorporated areas of the county and if the City repeals its ordinance, there would be a void in the licensing process. He concurred that such matters, as the licensing of personnel and ambulances, was repetitive as these items are dealt with at the State level. He also expressed concern that the City might still have implications of liability, as it still dispatches ambulances. He questioned why the City proposes to retain the limited ambulance licensing requirements which also involves need and necessity when the ambulance service requires a much higher level of service to the public and more safe guards. He believed there is a legal precedent for maintaining the needs and necessity portion of the ambulance regulations. He stated that data can be provided which shows that the elimination of the ordinance will increase the cost of health care. He requested that the City Council not repeal the ordinance in its entirety. In response to Council Member Murray, Assistant City Attorney Calkins stated that there is always a possibility of the City being sued. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, there are various immunities against the duties of the obligations of the cities. He pointed out that the dispatching will soon be the responsibility of the Shasta Area Safety Communications Agency (SHASCOM), which is a joint powers agency. Council Member Murray noted that the County derives its responsibility regarding ambulance services as a subdivision of the State and indicated that their ordinance may not be in conformance with State law. He suggested that the City notify the County of its intention to repeal its ordinance, so the County may have an opportunity to amend its ordinance if necessary. Interim City Manager McMurry stated that he has had conversations with the County Administrative Officer and indicated that he would provide written notification to the County. Council Member Kehoe requested that the City Attorney's Office review the retention of the limited ambulance regulations before the second reading of the ordinance. Council Member McGeorge offered Ordinance No. 2102 for first reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Redding Municipal Code Title 6, Business Taxes, Licenses, and Regulations, by repealing Chapter 6.08 entitled Ambulance Regulations. Vice Mayor Kehoe turned the meeting over to Mayor R. Anderson. REQUEST TO SPEAK RE CITY OF REDDING V. DON ROCHLITZ, ET AL (L-100) Assistant City Attorney Calkins stated that Verlin Johnson, current legal counsel for Don Rochlitz, Inc., has requested the City Council to again review the matter of City of Redding v. Don Rochlitz, et al. He provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated November 10, 1994, incorporated herein by reference. 17 11/15/94 Mr. Calkins explained that as recently as November, 1994, the matter was brought back before the City Council in order to confirm its position since the point in time when the events agreed to in the Settlement Agreement are to have been completed is nearing rather rapidly. The business operation of Don Rochlitz, Inc., located at its current location is to be terminated on or before November 29, 1994. Again, based upon the City Council direction subsequent to its review of the matter on November 1, 1994, a letter was sent to Mr. Johnson indicating the direction given to this office. Subsequent to the receipt of that letter Mr. Johnson wrote the letter to the City Clerk which has resulted in the matter being placed on the agenda. Mr. Calkins indicated that Don Rochlitz had four years to accomplish the closure of the business pursuant to the terms of the agreement. In essence, the circumstance represents a situation where Rochlitz had approximately eight years in order to bring the business into compliance with various regulations. That compliance to date has not been accomplished. It is, therefore, the recommendation of the City Attorney that the City pursue its remedies based upon the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into in good faith by all parties. Verlin Johnson, representing Don Rochlitz, Inc., indicated that John Kenealy, representing Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, was present earlier in the evening. He noted that in July, 1994, a letter was received from the City Attorney indicating that the City Council had approved a two-year extension subject to obtaining concurrence from Mr. and Mrs. Bones, which has not been obtained. He understood that the City Council at a subsequent meeting earlier in November, instructed the City Attorney to proceed with the terms of the agreement. Mr. Johnson stated that he has been authorized by Mr. Kenealy to indicate to the City Council that an agreement has been reached with Mr. and Mrs. Bones which will result in their concurrence to the extension, but involves additional terms which need to be addressed. With the concurrence now obtained, he requested that the City Council revert to its position of approving a two-year extension. It was the consensus of the City Council to defer action on this matter for two weeks. ROUTINE REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Notice of Filing to FERC by Portland General Electric Company, Docket No. ER95-71 (S-050-350) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 10:25 p.m., Mayor R. Anderson declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk