Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1996-07-02 163 City Council, Adjourned Special Meeting City Council Chambers 1313 California Street Redding, California July 2, 1996 6:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor McGeorge with the following Council Members present: P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and McGeorge. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, City Attorney Wingate, Director of Administrative Services Starman, Public Works Director Galusha, Assistant City Clerk Moscatello, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary to the City Council Rudolph. PROPOSITION 62 AND SENATE BILL 1590 (L-040-300) City Manager Warren reviewed the handout entitled Proposition 62/Senate Bill 1590, incorporated herein by reference. He noted that Proposition 62 was passed in 1986 and required any tax increases or new taxes to be subject to the vote of residents within the boundaries of the applicable public agency. Subsequent to that, two things happened: 1) In 1990 the State began taking money away from cities and counties, which resulted in a loss of revenue to the City of Redding of more than $2 million over a two-year period; and 2) A number of court cases challenged Proposition 62 and the decisions were ultimately upheld by the appellate courts. The Supreme Court declined to hear these cases which was tantamount to supporting the appellate courts' decisions. Subsequent to the passage of Proposition 62, a total of 162 cities and a number of counties, in relying on appellate court rulings, have acted in good faith and passed various taxes and tax increases. He indicated that in 1990 the City of Redding increased its Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 8 percent to 10 percent (most of which went to the Tourism and Convention Center) and had a nominal increase in its business licenses tax (the first in 30 years). He related that in December 1995, however, the Supreme Court, after deciding to hear a case, ruled in favor of Proposition 62. He explained that not more than 60 days following the Supreme Court's decision, the City began setting money aside ($820,000 annually), pending the outcome of legislation, and is now part of the City's reserve. He noted that since 1990, the City has collected approximately $4.5 million which is attributable to the TOT ($470,000 per year) and business license ($350,000 per year) increases. Mr. Warren related that Senate Bill 1590 (SB 1590) was introduced in an attempt to grandfather in the current taxes. He indicated that SB 1590 passed the Senate, however, the Assembly referred it to three different committees. He stated that the City learned on Monday that the author has pulled the bill, and it does not appear that relief legislation will be passed this session. After reviewing the various alternatives, Mr. Warren recommended that the TOT and business license increases be brought to the vote of the people in order to validate the tax increases already in effect. He believed that the measure would be successful as the taxes have been in existence for six years, the money is used for good purposes, the City is only requesting validation of the taxes and is not requesting an increase, and the bulk of the money is attributable to TOT and is used to promote tourism, thereby fueling the economy. He indicated that the measure should be placed on either the November ballot or a special election should be called. He related that by placing the measure on the November ballot the cost would be less, the decision would be known sooner, and the voter turnout would be greater. He noted that Shasta County is also considering placing a similar measure on the November ballot. He stated that the advantages associated with calling a special election are that it provides more time, voters would only be voting on one issue and the County's measure would not be on the same ballot. In response to Council Member Kehoe, City Attorney Wingate stated that the proposed measure would be worded something to the effect of the following: "Shall Ordinance No. 1937 increasing Transient Occupancy Tax from 8 percent to 10 percent passed by the City Council in September 1990 be ratified and continued and shall Ordinance No. 1935 revising the business license tax and 07/02/96 164 increasing fees adopted by the City Council on October 4, 1990, be ratified and continued?" He related that reference would also need to be made in the measure to an ordinance proposed for adoption. Council Member Kehoe questioned whether the City would still have the potential $4.5 million liability if the measure passes. Mr. Wingate replied that because the prohibition on a tax referendum could still apply, the potential $4.5 million liability could still exist. Council Member Murray noted that if the measure passes, the worst case scenario would be that the City would only have the potential $4.5 million liability. Administrative Service Director Starman interjected that a fax was received today indicating that SB 1590 may become part of the State's budget deliberation process. He opined that the City, however, needs to assume that this will not occur and proceed with bringing the matter to the vote of the people. Council Member P. Anderson questioned where the money would come from if the measure fails. Mr. Warren believed that the City needs to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. He related that he has a number of thoughts on the various options available and could provide them to the City Council at any time. He noted that an $820,000 reduction in the budget would affect service levels. In response to Mayor McGeorge, Mr. Wingate reiterated that there is not a definite answer regarding the City's potential $4.5 million liability. He related that class actions cannot be filed to collect tax refunds, therefore, each individual must demand a refund from the City. He stated that another potential theory, which he believed to be extremely remote, is that the State will request County Auditors to enforce the provision in Proposition 62 wherein the total amount may be deducted from the coming year's property taxes. Mayor McGeorge concurred with bringing the matter before the vote of the people. He believed there was ample time to properly convey the message. He opined that the business community does not have a problem with the business license tax and the TOT has assisted in accomplishing many good things for the City. Council Member Kehoe questioned what parameters exist concerning the City Council's participation in the election. Mr. Wingate stated that once the measure is on the ballot, the City cannot spend money and City officials cannot spend City time promoting it. He related that it would then be necessary for groups or associations to promote it. He indicated that City officials are not, however, precluded from going to service organizations/associations to explain the facts behind the measure or promoting the measure on their own time. In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Wingate stated that once the measure is on the ballot, a Council Member would not be prohibited from speaking at the request of an organization in support of the measure's passage. Council Member P. Anderson questioned if there was a date whereby the City could rescind its decision to place the measure on the ballot. Mr. Warren stated that the decision could be rescinded during a small window period consisting of only a few days after August 9. He noted that in June a number of cities went to the vote of the people to validate taxes already in place and, for the most part, only the utility user taxes did not pass. Frank Straz7arino stated that the Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce has been tracking this issue since the Supreme Court's decision in December. He related that the Chamber applauded the City Council's decision to set aside money relative to the TOT and business license increases. He indicated that the Chamber has campaigned for the passage of SB 1590 and has called members of both the Senate and Assembly. He explained that the Chamber is extremely concerned about the 07/02/96 165 negative impact relative to paying back the associated taxes. He related that the Chamber's Board of Directors voted unanimously to support the City and this measure. He offered the Chamber's support in assisting the City to pass the proposed measure. He noted that the Board of Realtors, Builders Exchange, and Shasta Business Council also share the Chamber's concerns regarding this issue. He stated that the Chamber believes this measure is important to the business community and must, therefore, support its passage. In response to Council Member R. Anderson, Mr. Strazzarino stated that after considerable debate, 111 it was concluded that special elections reflect an anti-tax climate and, therefore, Chamber members favored placing the measure on the November general election ballot. Mr. Wingate clarified that the City Council may make a simple statement in support of the measure or even adopt a resolution supporting it. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, to place the matter regarding the 1990 Transient Occupancy and Business License tax increases on the November ballot. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Mayor McGeorge believed it was important to use the approach of explaining the issues, rather than merely selling the concept. Council Member P. Anderson opined that it may be more persuasive if the ballot measure lists the fiscal impacts on the City in subsequent years, not just the immediate $4.5 million. Council Member Kehoe stressed that if the measure does not pass, the City Council and City management are prepared to take whatever actions necessary to maintain the fiscal integrity of the City of Redding. Council Member Murray agreed, but expressed confidence that it will be an easy decision for the citizens of Redding to vote in favor of the measure because it is the right thing to do for the well- being of the community. Mr. Warren questioned whether the City Council wanted the City Attorney to write one or two ballot measures. It was the consensus of the City Council to have the City Attorney write one ballot measure. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mayor McGeorge requested that the City Council take action relative to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 1996-1997 through 2000-2001. He noted that the motion made at the budget study session was not specific with regard to the CIP. Council Member P. Anderson questioned whether the CIP contained the modification made by the Redding Redevelopment Agency to the Parkview Avenue interchange and the Hilltop/I-5 overcrossing. Administrative Services Director Starman noted that the Redding Redevelopment Agency's projects are included for informational purposes only and the City Council is only accepting City projects. MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, to accept the Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 1996-1997 through 2000-2001. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes 07/02/96 166 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 6:42 p.m., Mayor McGeorge declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: ' c / Mayor ATTEST: - City Clerk 07/02/96 167 City Council, Regular Meeting City Council Chambers 1313 California Street Redding, California July 2, 1996 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Fran Jenkins. The Invocation was offered by Pastor Ron Smith, First Baptist Church. The meeting was called to order by Mayor McGeorge with the following Council Members present: P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and McGeorge. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, City Attorney Wingate, Director of Administrative Services Starman, Public Works Director Galusha, Electric Utility Director Lindley, Police Chief Blankenship, Fire Chief Wagner, Development Services Director Swanson, Finance Officer Strong, Principal Planner Keaney, Assistant City Clerk Moscatello, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary to the City Council Rudolph. CONSENT CALENDAR The following matters were considered inclusively under the Consent Calendar: Approval of Payroll and Accounts Payable Register (A-050-100-500) It is recommended that Accounts Payable Register No. 24, for the period of June 18, 1996, through June 28, 1996, check numbers 234072 through 234611 inclusive, in the amount of$2,350,544.58, and Payroll Register No. 26, check numbers 419937 through 420619 inclusive, and electronic deposit transaction numbers 30161 through 30439, totaling $1,250,321.49, for the period June 2, 1996, through June 15, 1996, be approved. TOTAL: $3,600,866.07 Treasurer's Report - May 1996 (A-050-100-600) Total Treasurer's Accountability - $ 90,948,088.19 Total City of Redding Funds, Funds Held in Trust and Funds of Related Entities - $221,486,399.19 ACRI 13 Report and Cash Reconciliation (F-205-095-650) It is the recommendation of the Finance Officer that the ACR113 Report and Cash Reconciliation for May 31, 1996, be accepted. Ordinance No. 2151 - re Adoption of Redevelopment Plan for the Shastec Redevelopment Project (R-030-200) It is recommended that Ordinance No. 2151 be adopted, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding, California, approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Shastec Redevelopment Project. Ordinance No. 2152 - re Rezoning Application RZ-13-95, by Azi Barzin (11489 Ridgewood Drive) (L-010-230) It is recommended that Ordinance No. 2152 be adopted, 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"RI-BFM" Single-Family Residential District (RZ-13- 95). 07/02/96 168 Funding Agreement - Economic Development Corporation (B-130-030-045 & E-050) It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager that the City Council approve the Funding Agreement with the Economic Development Corporation in the amount of$126,000, for the period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997, and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement. Funds for this agreement are included in the 1996-97 budget. Funding Agreement - Superior California Economic Development District (B-130-030 & B-080-500) It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager that the City Council approve the Funding Agreement with the Superior California Economic Development District in the amount of$7,221, for the period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997, and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement following approval by the Superior California Economic Development District Board of Directors. Funds for this agreement are included in the 1996-97 budget. Property Status Report (C-070) It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager that the City Council accept the property status report as of June 1996 for the following areas: (1) Surplus City Property; (2) Offers to sell land to the City; (3) City initiated purchases of land; and (4) Leases of City land. Letters Supporting Legislation - AB1934 (Sweeney), AB2797 (Aguiar), and SB 1865 (Craven) re Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) Property Tax Shift (L-040-300) It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the City's Legislative representatives, to the Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and to the League of California Cities in support of AB1934 (Sweeney), AB2797 (Aguiar), and SB 1865 (Craven) concerning the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). Resolution- Adopting City Council Policy Pertaining to Utilization of Departmental Budget Savings (A-050-060-555 & B-130-070) It is the recommendation of the Administrative Services Director that Resolution No. 96-131 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding adopting Policy No. 211 concerning the use of budget savings resulting from actions by departments. Electric Utility Status Report - Quarter Ending June 30, 1996 (A-050-125) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that the City Council accept the Electric Utility's Status Report for the quarter ending June 30, 1996. Rejection of Bids - re Bid Schedule No. 3009, Installation of Sidewalk Ramps (B-050-020) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council reject all bids received concerning Bid Schedule No. 3009 (Job No. 8650), installation of sidewalk ramps, and direct staff to rescope the work and rebid the project in the October-November time period. The 1995-96 and 1996-97 CDBG funds for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk program would be combined to fund a larger single project. Award of Bid - Bid Schedule No. 3019, 1995-96 Slurry Seal Program (B-050-020 & S-070-200) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that Bid Schedule No. 3019 (Job No. 9519), 1995-96 slurry seal program, be awarded to California Pavement Maintenance in the amount of $130,304.20, an additional $6,500 be approved to cover the cost of engineering and inspection fees, and $13,000 be approved to cover the cost of contract change orders, for a total of$149,804.20. 07/02/96 169 Acceptance of Final Map - White Hawk Estates Unit 1, aka Country Heights 16, Phase 2 (east end of Cumberland Drive south of Placer Street) (S-100-108) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council approve the final map for White Hawk Estates Unit 1, aka Country Heights 16, Phase 2, the Mayor be authorized to sign the subdivision agreement, and the City Clerk instructed to file the map with the Shasta County Recorder. Public Works Quarterly Report - Third Quarter 1996 (A-050-300) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council accept the Public Works Department's Quarterly Report for Third Quarter 1996. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that all the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be accepted, approved and adopted as recommended. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and McGeorge Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members -None Resolution Nos. 96-131 and Ordinance Nos. 2151 and 2152 are on file in the office of the City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING-re Rezoning Application RZ-10-95, by Bill Van Nes (19300 Lexington Lane) (L-010-230) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor McGeorge opened the public hearing regarding Rezoning Application RZ-10-95. 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 June 21, 1996 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Principal Planner Keaney related that the Planning Commission at its May 28, 1996, meeting recommended approval of the rezoning of property located at 19300 Lexington Lane from "R1-B 15" Single-Family Residential District to "R1-BFM" Single-Family Residential District. He noted that the rezoning is a requirement of the tentative map for the recently approved 15-lot Eastridge Estates Subdivision in order for development and zoning to be consistent. It is the recommendation of both the Planning Commission and staff that the City Council ratify the Negative Declaration, offer the necessary ordinance for first reading to rezone the property to "R1- BFM" Single-Family Residential District, and waive the full reading of said ordinance. Mayor McGeorge determined there was no one present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, to approve the rezoning as recommended and make the following findings regarding RZ-10-95: 1. Project is compatible with the Redding General Plan; 2. Project will not significantly alter existing land form; 3. Project is compatible with surrounding land use; 4. Project is compatible with the Code of the City of Redding, California; and ratify the Negative Declaration authorized by the Planning Commission on May 28, 1996. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Council Member Murray offered Ordinance No. 2153 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 "R1-BFM" Single-Family Residential District (RZ-10-95). 07/02/96 170 MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, that the full reading of Ordinance No. 2153 be waived and the City Attorney be instructed to read the full title. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes ACQUISITION OF CITY PROPERTY - Hartnell and Victor Avenues (C-070-200) Assistant City Manager Perry reviewed the Report to City Council dated June 21, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the request by Jerry Hilburn to purchase a strip of land the City owns adjacent to a parcel he is purchasing. It was noted that the City acquired the property to extend Victor Avenue south of Hartnell Avenue. Mr. Perry explained that subsequent to the staff report being prepared, Tom Shuck, Mr. Hilburn's agent, submitted a proposal wherein Mr. Hilburn would not acquire the property, but would landscape an area in exchange for a driveway to Victor Avenue. He noted that this request is the same as Alternative No. 4 identified in the Report to City Council. Mr. Perry stated that given the new request, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council direct staff to prepare an agreement to grant a driveway in exchange for the installation and maintenance of landscaping and the dedication of a strip of land along Hartnell Avenue until such time as the City finds the area is necessary for the installation of a dual left-turn lane. In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Mr. Perry stated that the removal of trees would be addressed as part of the Planning Division's Use Permit review process. Council Member Murray stated his long-term concerns center around eastbound traffic turning into driveways along Hartnell and creating traffic problems in the turn lanes. Mr. Perry related that with future development a median could be required on Hartnell Avenue which would preclude left turn movements. In addition, he noted that projects could be conditioned whereby the City reserves the right when conditions warrant to limit lanes to right turn only, etc. Council Member Murray opined that the City needs to preserve its future options with regard to traffic flow when entering into agreements. Tom Shuck, representing Mr. Hilburn, related that with regard to the Council Member Murray's concern relative to a right-turn only scenario on Hartnell, there is approximately 270 feet to the ingress on Hartnell from the corner. He noted that ingress and egress to Victor Avenue is the key issue and the applicant would like to proceed with his project as soon as possible. MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, to direct staff to enter into an agreement with Jerry Hilburn granting a driveway in exchange for additional landscaping and the dedication of a strip of property along Hartnell Avenue. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes SURPLUS PROPERTY - Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3 (C-070-200) Assistant City Manager Perry's Report to City Council dated June 21, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, related that in order to begin the process of declaring Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3 surplus, it is necessary to establish their values and to finalize the marketing procedures. It was noted that the values could be established by ordering a single appraisal to cover all three parcels, as the comparables should be similar. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council order an appraisal on the three parking lots, return to the City Council in closed session to set the minimum bid price, and bid the properties for purchase. Frank Sawyer, Chair of the Downtown Task Force, related that part of the Downtown Task Force's recommendation to the City Council and the Redding Redevelopment Agency was for the City to retain ownership of these three parcels for future planning and potential use as parking structures. The Downtown Task Force believed that these parcels could play a significant part in the downtown's evolution to a viable downtown and it may, therefore, be premature to declare these properties 07/02/96 171 surplus. On behalf of the Downtown Task Force, he requested that the City Council postpone declaring Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3 surplus properties. Vi Klaseen opined that, because of the visions of both the Downtown Task Force and the General Plan Task Force, the timing may be wrong to act on declaring Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3 surplus properties. With regard to relocating the park on Airpark Drive and Placer Street, she related that the park is not just used by dog owners, but other members of the community as well. She noted that there is not much open space in this particular area and the park is serving a valuable function. She indicated that when Airpark Drive is straightened out, it may be possible to make the park larger, thereby meeting more of the community's demands. She expressed concern regarding the safety of park users if the park were moved behind the airport and the difficulty the police would have monitoring the activities. She urged the City Council to rethink its June 18, 1996, decision in declaring these properties surplus. In response to Council Member Kehoe, City Attorney Wingate stated that because the staff report and agenda only referred to Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3, the City Council could not deliberate or take action this evening regarding the park on Airpark Drive and Placer Street. Council Member Kehoe concurred with Mr. Sawyer's and Ms. Klaseen's comments and saw no urgency in declaring these properties surplus. Motion made by Council Member Kehoe to defer efforts to sell Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3 until a later date failed. Motion made by Council Member Murray to order an appraisal on the three parking lots, return to the City Council in closed session to set the minimum bid price, and bid the properties for purchase failed due to lack of a second. Mr. Wingate explained that the Brown Act provides that the City Council can negotiate a sale in closed session, however, announcing the minimum bid price would not be subject to a closed session. He stated that it is not necessary to have an appraisal, as the City's rights concerning the sale of property are no different from that of a private party. He cautioned that if the property is sold for less than market value, the issue of a gift of public funds may arise. When the value of the property is known, the City has the option of setting the amount it wants to receive. Mr. Perry related that the Recreation and Parks Division was asked to review alternate locations for the park on Airport Drive and Placer Street, as well as the associated costs, for consideration prior to making a final decision on the property's disposition. In response to Council Member R. Anderson, Mr. Perry stated that the City would need to get approval from the Water Quality Control Board to relocate the park onto the Benton Landfill property. He stressed that the City would not want to do anything which ultimately affected its landfill closure plan. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, to direct staff to order an appraisal on Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3 and return the matter to the City Council for further action once the appraisal is received. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Murray and McGeorge Noes: Council Members - Kehoe Absent: Council Members - None MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - re Electric Utility (B-130-070) Administrative Services Director Starman provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated June 24, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the Electric Utility's monthly financial report for May 1996. Council Member P. Anderson questioned why the interest expense for May 1996 was significantly higher than the same period in 1995. 07/02/96 172 Mr. Starman believed this was attributable to the debt service on the Joint Powers Agreements and the fact that the City is paying more debt than the previous year. Electric Utility Director explained that the joint venture contribution interest expenses were reduced because of the delay in construction start up on the Mead-Phoenix and Mead-Adelanto projects. He noted, however, that interest expense is accumulated on a monthly basis, but is only paid twice a year. This was an information item and no action was required. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - General Fund (B-130-070) Administrative Services Director Starman highlighted the Report to City Council dated June 20, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the General Fund's monthly financial report for May 1996. Total revenue to date ($28.2 million) is higher ($103,713 or .3 percent) than staff's original cash flow estimate. Expenditures to date total $30,126,205 or $1,702,205 (5.3 percent) below staff's original cash flow projection. This was an information item and no action was required. APPEAL REGARDING GRADING VIOLATION - 4963 Mountain Lakes Boulevard (GP-15-96) (A-070-055) Public Works Director Galusha provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated June 19, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning Troy Leckey's appeal of the grading violation at 4963 Mountain Lakes Boulevard (GP-15-96). He explained that Mr. Leckey is appealing the Planning Commission's decision relative to the imposed grading violation fine. He related that the grading violation is for the placement of fill material on the property. He stated that the majority of the fill placed is mineral earth material and the rock and broken concrete (rip rap) is only a small part of the overall fill being considered in this action. He noted, however, that the stock piling of rip rap would also require a grading permit in the absence of a use permit for stock piling. Mr. Galusha explained that the Planning Commission reduced the $5,000 fine imposed by the Public Works Director to"three times the staff costs required to process the violation or $2,500, whichever is greater." He related that staff costs were$620.55. Based on the Planning Commission's decision, the minimum fine of$2,500 was imposed. Given the fact that the Leckey's have openly filled property without regard to the environment or impacts on neighboring properties and in violation of his Use Permit, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to impose a $2,500 fine. Council Member Kehoe questioned the rationale behind the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Galusha replied that he could not provide an answer as Assistant Civil Engineer Boring had attended the Planning Commission meeting and he was ill this evening. Council Member Murray suggested that someone from the Planning Commission address the City Council to explain the rationale behind its decision. Council Member Kehoe asked how the Planning Commission could recommend fines which deviate from the Redding Municipal Code. In response to Council Member R. Anderson, City Attorney Wingate stated that the appeal process set out by law relates to abatement proceedings and not the imposition of fines. He related, however, that a Supreme Court case which remains the law indicates that fines which are not subject to due process will not be upheld, therefore, anyone subject to a fine has the right to appeal it. Secondly, he noted a fine which is a hard and fast number and not subject to modification can also be determined to be invalid. He indicated that the general rule is that if due process is provided by a body, that body has the discretion to vary from the formula set out in the ordinance. Therefore, based on case law, the Planning Commission, as the appeal body, would have the authority to vary from the formula, as would the City Council. 07/02/96 173 Council Member Kehoe believed it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to clearly outline its rationale behind the imposed fine. Council Member Murray concurred with Council Member Kehoe and requested a report which outlines where the Planning Commission's authority starts and stops. Troy Leckey, President of Leckey Land Clearing, echoed Council Member Kehoe's concerns and opined that there was no rationale as to how the Planning Commission arrived at the imposed fine. He stated that he met with Mr. Boring and discussed what work will occur on the property to ensure that the work is done according to the City's code. He explained that he is new to the area and opined that the whole process has been a misunderstanding from the beginning. He related that all of the dirt on the property is from on-site grading. He stated that he provided his grading plans to the Building Division and no one informed him a grading permit would be required. He indicated that the concrete on the property is from a City demolition project and is being stock piled for future sale as rip rap during the winter months. In response to Council Member P. Anderson, Mr. Leckey stated that grading permits in Southern California are usually issued by the Building Department. He related that the only new material on the property is the concrete. He indicated that the land had been cut six to twelve inches and pushed in lifts and roughly compacted. He confirmed that the storage of the concrete was what brought the matter to the City's attention. He believed that he had a stockpiling permit for various substances and did not realize the fine line of what can or cannot be placed on the property. Mr. Galusha interjected that the material was pushed over the side of the bank, which led staff to believe that the material is being used as fill, rather than stockpile. He stated that the Planning Division's letter dated April 5, 1996, states that the Use Permit does not permit stockpiling over the bank. In response to Mayor McGeorge, Mr. Leckey indicated that he had a City Business License and a State Contractor's License. Mayor McGeorge opined that it is incumbent upon Mr. Leckey as a professional to know the rules and obtain the necessary permits for doing business in the City. Mr. Leckey stressed that he attempted to obtain the necessary permits when he showed the Building Division his grading plans. He stated that he assumed the City of Redding was more lax with its regulations given its requirements for demolition permits and its requirements concerning asbestos. He opined that the City is not checking these projects in accordance with the State mandates. Council Member Murray questioned whether the entire two acres is fenced. Mr. Leckey replied that there is fencing on three sides of the property and a fence will be installed on the top portion once the grading is completed. In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Wingate clarified that the condition contained in the Use Permit states approval is granted for a six-foot high fence, but does not require that the entire perimeter be fenced. Council Member Kehoe questioned how Mr. Leckey intended to dispose of the concrete material. Mr. Leckey stated that he intends to sell the material, but he had originally proposed that the City crush the material and turn it into Class 2 aggregate base for the new Civic Center. The City's engineer, however, indicated that the City was not interested in recycling the material. Council Member P. Anderson related that it is confusing why the Public Works Department would issue the grading permits, rather than the Building Division. She viewed this as an example of a lapse in communication and information being properly conveyed. She stated she was not as inclined as the Planning Commission to levy this type of fine. Mr. Galusha explained that staff is constantly trying to communicate the City's requirements to developers and believed the Public Works Department has good dialogue with the Building Division on these requirements. 07/02/96 174 Development Services Director Swanson explained that the Use Permit is specific as to the nature of the project and had the Use Permit been adhered to, it would not have required a grading permit. He stated that as part of the one-stop-permit process, staff is working on improving handout materials to ensure the processes are clear to businesses and residents which use the City's services. Council Member R. Anderson believed it was incumbent upon the contractor to know local laws, but was willing to discuss the amount of the fine. Council Member Murray stated he was inclined to deny the appeal and uphold the $2,500 fine. He believed the implementation of the one-stop-permit process would assist in eliminating problems such as this one. Council Member Kehoe concurred with denying the appeal, but found it difficult to accept the $2,500 fine as he did not understand the rationale behind the Planning Commission's decision. Given the fact that Mr. Leckey is a professional in this area, Mayor McGeorge stated that he tended to concur with the $2,500 fine imposed by the Planning Commission. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to impose a $2,500 fine. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - R. Anderson, Murray and McGeorge Noes: Council Members - P. Anderson and Kehoe Absent: Council Members - None ORDINANCE - Amending Penalty Provisions of Redding Municipal Code Chapters 9.20 (Fire Prevention) and 1.12 (General Penalty) (F-210 & C-110-100-400) City Attorney Wingate's Report to City Council dated June 13, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, related that it is necessary to amend Redding Municipal Code sections 9.20.190 and 1.12.020 in order to be consistent with the provisions of Government Code Sections 36900, 36901, 36903, and 51185. The amendments concern the penalty provisions for violations of the fire prevention ordinance and the general penalty provisions for convictions for violations of the Redding Municipal Code. In order to be consistent with State law, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council offer the necessary ordinance for first reading and waive the full reading of said ordinance. Council Member Murray offered Ordinance No. 2154 for first reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Section 9.20.190 of Redding Municipal Code Chapter 9.20 (Fire Prevention) and Section 1.12.020 of Redding Municipal Code Chapter 1.12 (General Penalty. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, that the full reading of Ordinance No. 2154 be waived and the City Attorney be instructed to read the full title. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes PUBLIC COMMENT (B-130-030 & B-080-500) Bob Nash, representing the Superior California Economic Development Council (SCEDC), thanked the City for its continued confidence via funding for the 1996-97 fiscal year. He related that the SCEDC is moving forward with its Business Retention Program. He noted that Development Services Director Swanson participated in an advisory committee and provided valuable insight into the program. He related that the SCEDC is meeting this evening with Shasta County and the Cities of Anderson and Shasta Lake requesting their support of the program. He indicated that a similar request will be presented to the Redding City Council on July 16, 1996. Mayor McGeorge provided the times the City Council's budget study session would be aired on Channel 11. 07/02/96 175 CLOSED SESSION - re Existing Litigation (L-100) Mayor McGeorge stated that the City Council would be adjourning to closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss the following: Conference with Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: Patrick Buckley and Personal Watercraft Industry Association. Plaintiff and Appellee, Shasta County Superior Court Case No. 119062; and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No. 93-17277. At the hour of 8:21 p.m., Mayor McGeorge adjourned the meeting to closed session. At the hour of 8:35 p.m., Mayor McGeorge reconvened the meeting to regular session. Mayor McGeorge advised that a settlement had been reached in the case of Patrick Buckley and Personal Watercraft Industry Association. Plaintiff and Appellee, Shasta County Superior Court Case No. 119062 and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No. 93-17277. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 8:36 p.m., Mayor McGeorge declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 07/02/96