Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1983-01-03 1 City Council , Regular Meeting Police Dept. & Council Chambers Redding, California January 3, 1983 7:00 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by City Attorney Hays. The invocation was offered by Pastor Rich Hopping of Twin View Assembly of God. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Demsher with the following Council Members present: Fulton, Kirkpatrick, and Demsher. Council Members absent: Pugh and Gard Also present were City Manager Courtney, City Attorney Hays, Public Works Director Arness , Planning and Community Development Director Perry, Elec- tric Director Lindley, Housing and Redevelopment Administrator Henson, Supervising Accountant Downing, City Clerk Nichols, and Minute Clerk Rupp. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Matters were considered inclusively under the Consent Calendar: Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of December 20, 1982 Approval of Payroll and Accounts Payable Register - Recommend that Accounts Payable Register No. 13, check nos. 88438 through 88681 inclusive, in the amount of $534,620.01 , be approved and paid, and l' Payroll Register No. 13, check nos. 169274 through 169831 inclusive, in the amount of $42.0,747.42, for the period December 5, 1982, through December 18, 1982 , be approved. Total : $955,367.43 Treasurer's Report - October 31 , 1982 q Showing a total Treasurer's accountability of $10,745,637.01 / `tI Claims for Damage and Personal Injury - 1st Hearing Jannece A. Toney - Claim for Personal Injury filed 12/13/82 Recommend referral to Insurance Carrier and set for second hearing on jAV, February 7, 1983 Dri-Lite Foods, Inc. - Claim for Damages filed 12/17/82 /A Recommend denial and claimant be so advised Idus C. Phillips - Claim for Damages filed 12/17/82 Recommend that the claim be paid in the amount of $79.87 Dorothy & Gary Smoot - Claim for Damages filed 12/28/82 Recommend denial and claimant be so advised /A3 Resolution No. 83-1 - Rejecting Bids for Bid Schedule 1420 Recommend adoption of Resolution No. 83-1 , a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding rejecting all bids for furnishing and installing one boiler, Raypak Model 1826 T-C with 1826 MBH input and c,35// 1460 MBH output or equal and one boiler alternating system submitted 111 under Bid Schedule No. 1420, and declaring that the required equipment and installation may be acquired in the open market, and authorizing negotiation therefor by the City Manager. Negative Declaration - re Mortgage Revenue Bond Program Recommend that Council make the following findings re the Mortgage a J Revenue Bond Program: 1/3/83 _- a 2 1 . The project will not cause development that conflicts with the Redding General Plan. 2. The project will not appreciably increase the rate of growth nor cause additional growth beyond that which is planned to occur. 3. All projects which would be financed under this program will be subject to separate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. The project may increase opportunities for low and moderate- income families to own their own homes. Resolution No. 83-2 - Abatement Proceedings at 1252 Oregon Street Recommend adoption of Resolution No. 83-2, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding of intention to begin legal proceedings of abatement under Chapter 9.36 of the Redding Municipal Code on certain real property in the City of Redding (owned by Iva I. Shelton and located at 1252 Oregon Street) . MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that all the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved and adopted as recommended. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None { Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard Resolution Numbers 83-1 and 83-2 are on file in the office of the City Clerk. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Thank You Letter From Motor Supply Company A letter was received from Motor Supply Company thanking Council for the action taken to relieve parking problems near his business on California and Placer Streets. Mr. Jerome Vossen related that the placement of four 30-minute parking meters has completely resolved his 10I complaints and possibly lessened the congestion at the intersection of California and Placer Streets. WESTWOOD MANOR WATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1982-9 City Attorney Hays presented the following documents for filing and adoption relative to the Westwood Manor Water Assessment District No. (o0 1 1982-9: Shasta County Resolution Granting Jurisdiction Resolution No. 83-3 - of Intention MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that Resolution No. 83-3 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding of intention to order improvement in Westwood Manor Water Assessment District No. 1982-9. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard Resolution No. 83-3 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. WILSHIRE AND OTHER STREETS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1983-1 City Attorney Hays submitted the following documents for filing and 1/3/83 3 adoption relative to Wilshire and Other Streets Assessment District No. 1983-1 : Shasta County Resolution Granting Jurisdiction Resolution - of Intention MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that Resolution No. 83-4 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding of intention to order improvement in Wilshire and Other Streets Assessment District No. 1983-1 . Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard Resolution No. 83-4 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Resolution - re Boundary Map MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that Resolution No. 83-5 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding directing the Clerk to file the boundary map in Wilshire and Other Streets Assessment District No. 1983-1 . Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard Resolution No. 83-5 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. CLOVER CREEK SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1981-3 City Attorney presented the following documents for filing and adoption relative to Clover Creek Sewer Assessment District 1981-3: Shasta County Resolution Granting Jurisdiction Resolution - of Intention MOTION: Made by Councilman Fulton, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick that Resolution No. 83-6 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding of intention to order improvement in Clover Creek Sewer Assessment District No. 1981-3. Voting was as follows: • Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard Resolution No. 83-6 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Resolution - Approving Agreement for Engineering Services MOTION: Made by Councilman Fulton, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick that • Resolution No. 83-7 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving agreement for engineering services in Clover Creek Sewer Assessment District No. 1981-3. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard f ' Resolution No. 83-7 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ORDINANCE - re RZ-16-82 MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that /1/V 1/3/83 4 the full reading of Ordinance No. 1613 be waived and the City Attorney be instructed to scan same. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that Ordinance No. 1613 be adopted, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Section 18.06.020 of the Redding Municipal Code relat- ing to the rezoning of certain real property in the City of Redding (RZ-16-82) . Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard Ordinance No. 1613 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ORDINANCE - re Home Mortgage Finance Program MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that the full reading of Ordinance No. 1614 be waived and the City Attorney be instructed to scan same. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that Ordinance No. 1614 be adopted, an ordinance of the City Council of the City q of Redding adopting a Home Mortgage Finance Program and authorizing City 5c2 / officers to implement the program. � �6 Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard Ordinance No. 1614 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ORDINANCE - re Planning Commission Meeting Time City Attorney Hays advised that at its last meeting, Council instructed staff to prepare an ordinance changing the Planning Commission meeting time from 2:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. This ordinance is being submitted for introduction at this time. 32-.3 Councilman Kirkpatrick offered Ordinance No. 1615 for first reading, an ordinance of the City Clerk of the City of Redding amending Chapter 2.52 of the Redding Municipal Code by repealing Section 2.52.070 of said Chapter 2.52 and substituting therefor a new Section 2.52.070 of Chapter 2.52 , pertaining to meeting times. ORDINANCE - re Drug Paraphernalia Ordinance City Attorney Hays reviewed his memorandum to Council dated December 29, 1982. He advised that approximately a year and one-half ago, the City adopted Chapter 10.62 of the Redding Municipal Code dealing with drug paraphernalia. Mr. Hays stated that at that time, State law did not regulate the sale of drug paraphernalia to adults. However, since then, the State has adopted Senate Bill No. 341 which Mr. Hays feels will preempt 3J0,61 the City' s regulations. Mr. Hays indicated that the Police Department believes they can effectively operate under the State laws in enforcing the sales of drug paraphernalia. He also noted that with the repeal of the local regulations and the establishment of State wide preemption in the field, it is now not possible for the ballot measure which was sought to be placed on our municipal ballot in 1984 to be so placed on the ballot. Councilman Fulton offered Ordinance No. 1616 for first reading, an ordi- nance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Chapter 10.62 of 1/3/83 5 the Redding Municipal Code by repealing said Chapter in its entirety, pertaining to drug paraphernalia. ANNEXATION REQUEST NO. 80-19 - Old Alturas Road Planning and Community Development Director Perry reviewed his memorandum to Council dated December 27 , 1982. He stated that in 1980, the City Council received several individual petitions for annexation of property in the Old Alturas Road area generally between Oak Mesa and Abernathy Lanes. A map of the area was shown on the Vu Graph. Mr. Perry explained that in 1980 and 1981 , Council declined to undertake any steps leading to annexation in order to avoid a piecemeal annexation and piecemeal electrical purchases. He indicated that a follow-up petition was recently submitted showing those owners' requesting annexation. 3-33 Issues raised by other departments included fire response time, piecemeal electrical acquisitions , street improvements, water system improvements and future urbanization. Mr. Perry stated that while there are deficiencies in those areas, it is expected that additional development under City standards would slowly upgrade the area. It is recommended that staff be authorized to survey the owners in the area to determine their interest in annexation subject to forming an assessment district to purchase and transfer ownership of the electric facilities to the City. It is further recommended that the matter be referred to the Electric Department for preparation of cost estimates and then to Planning for the mailing of a petition. MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton approving the recommendation of staff as hereinabove stated re Annexation Request No. 80-19, Old Alturas Road Area. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes ANNEXATION NO. 80-13 - Argyle Estates and Forest Hills Subdivision Planning and Community Development Director Perry stated that in response to an initial petition received from 63 property owners in the Argyle Estates area, the City Council indicated it would annex the area, subject to transfer of the mutual water company to the City and the formation of 3-3.3 water-assessment district to install fire hydrants and other water-system improvements. The estimated cost of those improvements ranged from $4,500 to $5,015 per lot. A map of the area was shown on the Vu Graph. Mr. Perry recommended that due to insufficient interest in this annexation, that further efforts to annex the area be discontinued. MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton to discontinue further efforts regarding Annexation No. 80-13, Argyle Estates and Forest Hills Subdivision. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes ANNEXATION REQUEST NO. 82-10 - Tarmac Road Area Mr. Perry stated that in response to an initial petition received from nine property owners in the Enterprise Skypark area, Council indicated it would annex the area, subject to the formation of an assessment district to acquire and transfer electrical facilities to the City. The estimated cost S33 of this purchase was about $1 ,311 per household. A map of the area was shown on the Vu Graph. Mr. Perry recommended that due to insufficient interest in this annexation, that further efforts to annex the area be discontinued. a 1/3/83 r 6 MOTION: Made by Councilman Fulton, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick to discontinue further efforts regarding Annexation No. 80-10, Tarmac Road Area. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING REPORT The Public Works Planning Report for January 1983 was submitted by Public 3 /6 Works Director Arness. RESOLUTION - re Electric Utility Rates City Attorney Hays submitted a resolution regarding the proposed electrical rate increases , as directed by Council at its meeting of December 20, 1982. Mr. Demsher commented that he hopes the citizens of Redding realize that these rate increases are not a matter of choice but of necessity. 02?a- MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that Resolution No. 83-8 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding establishing electrical utility rates for service to customers within the corporate limits of the City of Redding. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - Kirkpatrick, Fulton, and Demsher Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard Resolution No. 83-8 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS: City Attorney Hays advised Council that the following Summons and Complaints have been received: Laverne Alvin White vs. City of Redding et al /, Claim for Personal Injury Earl Carrol vs. City of Redding et al f Claim for Personal Injury /0°- PUBLIC HEARING - re Planned Development PD-13-80, Amendment Request by Vic Kacalek The hour of 7:30 P.M. having arrived, Mayor Pro Tem Demsher opened the public hearing re Planned Development PD-13-80, Amendment Request by Vic Kacalek. /1 0 The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing The City Clerk advised that no written protests have been received and Mayor Pro Tem Demsher ascertained that there were no protests from the floor. Planning and Community Development Director Perry reviewed his memorandum to Council dated December 27, 1982. He stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of amending Rezoning Application PD-13-80, by Vic Kacalek. A map of the area was shown on the Vu Graph. Mr. Perry advised that the original project consisted of 46 townhouse units on 4.4 acres located at 1311 Dana Drive. It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff that PD-13-80 be amended by adoption of an ordinance, subject to the changes in the following conditions: 1/3/83 7 1 . Development is to be in accordance with Exhibits A through G-1 , inclusive, attached hereto, and to conform with the Planned Development District. 4. Exterior building setbacks are to be as depicted on Exhibit A. MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that the public hearing be closed. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Councilman Kirkpatrick offered Ordinance No. 1617 for first reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Ordinance No. 1540 by deleting Conditions 1 and 4 and substituting therefor new Conditions 1 and 4, pertaining to rezoning of certain real property in the City of Redding (PD-13-80) . PUBLIC HEARING - re Resolution of Public Convenience and Necessity for Upper Churn Creek Sewer Assessment District The hour of 7:30 P.M. having arrived, Mayor Pro Tem Demsher opened the public hearing re resolution of public convenience and necessity for 00 Upper Churn Creek Sewer Assessment District. .-0 The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing The City Clerk advised requests to be heard were received from Bobby Whitson of Hag, Inc. , and Mr. and Mrs. Solberg. City Attorney Hays advised that since a 4/5 vote of the Council is required to adopt a resolution of public convenience and necessity, this public hearing should be continued to the next regular Council Meeting. MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Fulton that the public hearing re resolution of public convenience and necessity for Upper Churn Creek Sewer Assessment District be continued to January 17, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes PUBLIC HEARING - re Appeal of Use Permit UP-193-82, Shasta Steel and Salvage, by Westwood Village Shopping Center The hour of 7:30 P.M. , Mayor Pro Tem Demsher opened the public hearing re the appeal by Westwood Village Shopping Center of Use Permit UP-193-82, Shasta Steel and Salvage. 1 The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: ia- Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing The City Clerk advised that in addition to the letters of protest already received by Council , two additional protests have been received, one from Paul and Janie Chabot and one from Harlan and Betty • Eakens. Planning and Community Development Director Perry reviewed his memo- randum to Council dated December 28, 1982, which is incorporated herein by reference. He stated that the Planning Commission, by a vote of four to zero, granted Shasta Steel and Salvage permission to establish a new and used steel sales and metal-recycling business on property located at 6401 Eastside Road. A map of the area was shown 1 1/3/83 8 i1 on the Vu Graph. Subsequent to that decision, an appeal was filed by the management of Westwood Village Shopping Center. Mr. Perry noted that several letters , petitions, the negative declaration and Planning Commission minutes have been submitted to Council . Mr. Perry advised that the property is located at the southeast corner of Eastside Road and Star Drive and is classified "Service Commercial" and "Residential , 2.0 units per acre" on the General Plan. He ex- plained that the applicant proposes to occupy the western 190 feet or 1 .8 acres of the property, which falls entirely within the "Service Commercial " designation. Mr. Perry continued to state that the current zoning of the property is "U" Unclassified District and he described the surrounding uses. He said that prior to annexation, County zoning on the property was "C-3" General Commercial , "R-3" Limited Multiple Family Residential , and "R1-B2" Single Family Residential . He noted that the "C-3" District extended east from Eastside Road to an approximate depth of 350 feet. Council was advised that the new owner of Shasta Steel and Salvage proposes to move the business from its present location at 1015 Sutter Street to the subject property, where only existing structures will be occupied. The balers and the saw are proposed to be located in the old block manufacturing building, Mr. Perry stated. Mr. Perry reviewed the operations of the new business as stated by the applicant. They consist of new steel sales, used steel sales, can recycling, and handling other metals such as copper, brass, aluminum and some iron. He also reviewed the types of equipment to be used in the operation. Mr. Perry said that part of the expressed concern has to do with the fact that the subject property is located at the entrance to the Tobiason Subdivision and is, therefore, a highly visible "gateway" to this and other residential areas to the east. At the present, Star Drive and Girvan Road are the only two functional access roads to the residential areas; however, two other access points are proposed for the residential area in conjunction with new development. Mr. Perry stated that in approving the use permit, the Planning Commission acted on the description of the business as stated by the applicant. This also formed the basis for the staff recommendation for approval . He emphasized that if the use were an auto-wrecking yard or a salvage operation such as is on Girvan Road, then he agreed it would be inappropriate for this location. Mr. Perry indicated that the appropriateness of the proposed use is based on the General Plan designation of the property. He stated that in approving the use permit, the Planning Commission limited the height of storage, the hours of operation, the area of the use, and noise levels. The Commission also required landscaping, street improvements, improve- ments on the street corner and a review of the use permit every six months for 18 months. These conditions addressed many of the identi- fied concerns. Mr. Perry stated that it was the opinion of the Planning Commission and staff that the business will not attract much traffic nor will it generate excessive noise levels. Mr. Perry advised that since the Commission meeting, staff has checked with the County Health Department regarding problems with rodents and insects at other can-recycling operations. According to a Health Department representative, there have not been any complaints filed to 1/3/83 9 date. However, they did recommend that a condition be added to • indicate that they can require spraying if a problem occurs. Mr. Perry stated that Council has the following options regarding the appeal : 1 . Deny the appeal . 2. Uphold the appeal based on one of the following findings: a. The use does not conform to the General Plan. b. The use will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or injurious to property. 3. Deny the appeal but add additional conditions. 4. Take no action. This would affirm the action of the Planning Commission after 30 days. In the absence of a demonstrated land-use conflict, Mr. Perry said it is the recommendation of staff that the appeal be denied and that the action of the Commission be upheld subject to the addition of a condition requiring compliance with Health Department regulations. Since numerous residents from the subject area were present for this public hearing, Mayor Pro Tem Demsher suggested that comments be as concise as possible and limited to new concerns if possible. He an- nounced that those who wished to speak in opposition to the project should speak first, followed by the proponents. Robert Rehberg, attorney representing the Westwood Village Shopping Center, stated that this matter was before the Planning Commission on two occasions. He said that the first staff report did not indicate a great number of opponents to the project and felt that the Planning Commission did not give the opposition full consideration. He stated the Planning Commission did not give interested people a full oppor- tunity to be heard. He said State Law encourages maximum participa- tion in zoning matters. Mr. Rehberg emphasized that the proposed operation is a junkyard pure and simple and added that the economics of the operation will dictate the amount of new and used material handled and how the business will proceed. He felt that the Shasta Block operation at that location was probably a non-conforming use in the County and this type of use in not appropriate for the entrance to a residential area. Mr. Rehberg felt that the area deserves the same zoning protection as other areas of the City. Mr. Rehberg stated that the C-3 zoning classification does not allow junkyards , but are covered in the "M" Industrial district by use permit. He also felt that the staff reports indicate an inaccurate description of the surrounding areas, and the area to the north of the subject property is not "wide open" . In the opinion of Mr. Rehberg, the block fence and buildings are not appropriate for the proposed use. He predicted that the majority of the business will consist of scrap metal collection and processing on the site and that the economy will determine the type of business activity. He emphasized that the noise contributed by this operation will be abrupt, metal-on-metal , obnoxious type noises. In regard to the block wall , Mr. Rehberg stated that it is not six feet high, not solid, and will not do what it is expected to do. He 1/3/83 9 10 said there are sections which are only 22 feet tall . Mr. Rehberg stressed that noise levels for this type of operation should be tested. He said the Shasta Block operation did not have a noise factor of metal-on-metal . He also felt that the recommendations regarding landscaping are not appropriate for the purposes for which they are proposed. He said that Star Drive is inadequate in its present design and the conditions of the use permit are not enforceable. It was the opinion of Mr. Rehberg that the staff reports to the Planning Commission should have contained some of the disadvantages which were pointed out in the reports to City Council . Mr. Rehberg also pointed out that the negative declaration for the project may not have been broad enough in scope and added that the premises have not been inspected. He said that the decisions made in regard to Star Drive may result in poor street design planning. He further noted that tenants and owners couldn't be expected to enforce conditions , and that public agencies don' t have real effective enforcement capabilities. In conclusion, Mr. Rehberg emphasized that the area is residential , the proposed use is not appropriate, and the use permit should be denied. Bob Bronson, 2460 Star Drive, said when he purchased his home in 1955, Stewart Masonry was in this location as a non-conforming use. He stated that he was a leading proponent for annexation to the City. He now feels that this project will devalue his property and will have negative aesthetic impacts. Mr. Bronson felt there is a better use for the property. He also noted that the block fence is only 21 feet tall in some sections and will make the operation visible. He felt that the operation will be an eye sore to the area and emphasized that the existing junkyard at Girvan has junk piled ten feet high and nothing has been done by the City to curtail this. Mr. Bronson pointed out that at the present location of Shasta Steel on Sutter Street, there is junk piled 20 feet high and felt that the same thing would happen in the new location. Other concerns expressed by Mr. Bronson included the recycling activities, bees and flies , increased traffic, and noise. He said he was a frustrated property owner and definitely opposed the permit. He noted that Eastside Road and South Bonnyview Road was a mess. Mr. Bronson speculated that once the business is established, there will be a gradual creeping movement. He also expressed concern about noise from the back-up claxtons. He pointed out that the distance from the block wall to the street on Star Drive is not sufficient to install the improvements required. He noted there were 37 businesses on Eastside Road and felt retail was viable. In conclusion he emphasized that this business would be obnoxious and detrimental to the surrounding area and that the sidewalk on Star Drive would leave poles in the middle of the sidewalk. He asked that the use permit be denied. Hugh Tenney, 2380 Star Drive, said his property is located on the northeast corner of Star Drive and Eastside Road, and is the closest residence to the subject property. He said that the businesses in this location since Shasta Block moved have not been a problem. He wanted to make Council aware of the need to widen Star Drive and emphasized that if the south boundary is the block wall , additional property would have to come from him. He is opposed to this. Mr. Tenney said that in regard to the conditions of approval , it is indicated that most of these conditions will be in the lease agreement and enforced between the property owner and the tenant. He felt this E 1/3/83 11 would be like "the fox guarding the hen house" . He concluded that the business is not compatible with the area and asked that the permit be denied. Earl Gledhill , 2481 Star Drive, said he strongly objects to this business at the entrance of one of Redding' s finest residential areas. He felt that a junkyard was totally inappropriate for the area. Mr. Gledhill stated that when he considered buying his property here, he realized that there was C-3 zoning nearby; however, in reading the code, he felt assured that this would not interfere with the public peace, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. Mr. Gledhill questioned how the conditions would be enforced. He asked why a crane is needed if no stacking of materials is required. He was very concerned about excessive noise and pointed out the the Case Tractor facility to the south of the subject property has back-up claxtons going continuously. He also asked about enforcement, increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic, what kind of violations warrant revocation of the use permit, and who will keep the applicant from varying the ratio of the use. Sue Gledhill , 6842 Riverside Drive, stated that only a small number of residents were notified of these hearings and by the time most of the • other residents heard about it, it was too late to protest. She felt that some type of provision should be made for notifying a larger area when so many people are affected. It was Ms. Gledhill ' s opinion that the City does not have the money or manpower to continuously inspect this type of business. Ms. Gledhill felt this application should be denied as it is poor planning and not compatible with the neighbor- hood. R. L. Harris, 2520 Star Drive, said he purchased his lot in 1955 and was there when the block wall was constructed on the subject property. He stated that it was hastily constructed and should be removed to widen the street. He is opposed to the project. Virginia Loftus, 6879 Riverside Drive, distributed her written protest to Council . She disputed the negative declaration for this project stating that further studies are needed regarding noise and traffic. She felt that a turning lane needs to be provided due to impacts on Eastside Road. Ms. Loftus contended that a junkyard is inappropriate and not consistent with the General Plan. Elizabeth Peltier, Westwood Village Shopping Center, stated that the center is against the permit as it would have a negative impact on the businesses. She said the welfare of the shopping center depends on complimentary uses and a junkyard is not compatible. Virg Yadon, 2969 Balaton Avenue, expressed concern for children wandering into the storage yard and getting hurt. He also objected to the 21 conditions of approval without any means to enforce them. He also said there is insufficient distance for curbs, gutters , and trees along the north boundary of the property. Mr. Yaden said this type of business should be located in an industrial area and is not wanted or needed in this area. He asked Council not to rubber stamp the Planning Commission. Steve Mefford, 2380 North Drive, said he was angry at the way people were not notified of the hearings. He said he and his wife saved for a long time to buy a home and he felt this business would change the standard of living, since it was not there when they purchased their home. He strongly objects to the operation, feeling it was poor planning. 1/3/83 12 Jack Mayberry, 2703 Sacramento Drive, objected to the use permit and said there are some 50 lots behind Star Drive that will be developed and those residents would probably be opposed also. Milbern Jay, 2501 Star Drive, felt that objectionable noises will be associated with any steel operation. He said it is not compatible with the residences, not a good neighbor plan and he is opposed. Ray French, manager of Perkos Restaurant, said he speaks on behalf of the owner of the restaurant and his customers. He felt it will be objectionable to have this type of use within sight distance of his business. Carol Lynn, 2500 Star Drive, said she is opposed to a junkyard in that location. Ken Dow, 2469 Sacramento Drive, felt that a 25 foot crane is excessive and will make this operation a junkyard and he is opposed to such a use. Wilma Gledhill , 2481 Star Drive, said she cannot see how this use would fit the area and felt this would expose the residents to possible infestation of insects and rodents. She was also concerned about being exposed to the insect sprays which may be used. Mrs. Gledhill was also concerned about traffic congestion, devaluation of property values, and where the gate would be relocated. Melvin C. Gledhill , 6842 Riverside Drive, said he is opposed to having junkyards at both entrances to his subdivision. George Osborn, 2783 Sacramento Drive, said that traffic congestion at Star Drive and Eastside Road was very dangerous when Shasta Block was in business at this location. He felt there will be much more traffic from this operation than Shasta Block. He is opposed to the junkyard and concurs with all the concerns expressed before him. Floyd Harrison, 6981 Reflection , concurred with the comments that have been made and felt it is not a proper use of the property. Mr. Harrison felt that the railroad tracks have been used as an excuse for determining that this is a proper use for the property. He felt that the wall is much too close to the street and should be similar to residential setback requirements. He is opposed to the property being used for a junkyard. Dan Frost, attorney representing Shasta Steel and Salvage, said the opposition to the use permit is based on the fact that the proposed use is a junkyard. He emphasized that the applicant does not propose to use this as a junkyard and signed a statement that there will be no wrecking of auto bodies at this location. Mr. Frost explained that the proposed use is relatively small in scale and will enhance the E area. He stated that the business will consist primarily of the sale of new steel . At this time, Mr. Frost submitted some pictures of the applicant' s Oregon site which is similar to the proposed use. Mr. Frost stressed that the 20 foot pile at the existing location of Shasta Steel on Sutter Street will remain there and will not be resur- rected on this site. He said the improvements to the existing site are many, such as painting, street improvements, and landscaping. He stated that the property is located directly across from a railroad track where switching operations go on night and day, and is adjacent to a four-lane freeway. He emphasized that the existing block wall is a minimum of six feet and in some places it is eight feet. Mr. Frost 1/3/83 13 said it is the applicant' s intention that recycled materials will be compacted almost immediately, placed on a conveyor and stored in bins contained on the property. He said the use of the property will enhance the property itself. In regard to noise, he said this is covered in stringent requirements in the conditions for approval . He added that the saw used is an abrasive type saw which makes very little noise. Mr. Frost maintained that the hearings held on this matter were thorough and the residents had adequate time to express their opin • - ions. He said the conditions are tough and will be reviewed fre- quently. He suggested that the proposed use of this property is more than reasonable and appropriate and more than fair to all concerned. In response to an inquiry from Councilman Fulton, the applicant, Mr. Bill Linkleter, advised that he purchased the existing Shasta Steel business around the end of July, 1982. Mr. Frost emphasized that the existing operation on Sutter Street is strictly temporary and reiterated that the pile was there when the new owners moved in and it will remain there. He stressed that this operation has no connection with the previous Shasta Steel and Salvage and explained that the ad in the Yellow Pages which referred to the business as "your friendly local junkie" was placed there by the previous owner. At this time, Mayor Pro Tem Demsher allowed time for the opponents to rebutt the applicant' s comments. Mr. Bronson disagreed with Mr. Frost' s remarks that this area is a major railroad switching area. He said they do not switch at that location and this takes place much further up the tracks by Moss Lumber. He also noted that Highway 273 is not a freeway. Mr. Bronson questioned the use of a conveyor and said no place in the application has a conveyor been mentioned and felt this would be an additional source of noise. He asked how high this conveyor would be. He also questioned whether the paving between the fence and the curb on Star Drive would be asphalt or concrete. He was also concerned about what will happen to the junk at the other location. Mr. Rehberg said he did not suggest that the Planning Department did not do its job and submitted that the City has not spoken until this Council speaks. He said the conditions do not deal with exact uses and are not precise enough to govern the type of operation Mr. Frost is talking about. He explained that the short fence on Star Drive permits visibility into the whole back scope of the operation. Mr. Rehberg related that to say a junkyard would enhance the area tells him that they are not familiar with the location. He said that it is a certainty that if this application is granted it will constitute a nuisance. Mr. Frost explained that the conveyor assures that the cans will be compacted and stored without delay and it will be about two feet off the ground. He said it is noiseless. Mr. Frost pointed out that the back yard of the operation will not be visible from Star Drive because a solid fence will be constructed across the back of the subject pro- perty. He noted that the conditions require maintenance of the fence. He emphasized that the opponents to this project have mischaracterized this operation as a junkyard, and explained that no materials will be stacked above the levels of the fence. Mr. Frost indicated that the only thing visible above the fence would be the occasional periods when the boom would be used and this will be limited to four to five 1/3/83 14 hours per week. He maintained that the operation will be low in impact, is appropriate and fair for the property. MOTION: Made by Councilman Fulton , seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick that the public hearing be closed. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Mr. Demsher reviewed the four choices pointed out by Mr. Perry which are available to Council at this time. Councilman Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Perry if there are plans at the present time for the enlargement of Star Drive. Mr. Perry advised that none are planned other than those conditions of this permit. He noted that the conditions on this permit would require curb and gutter plus asphalt to match the existing surface. He added that the Public Works Department estimated there would also be sufficient room for trees. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked what type of enforcement would there be for the conditions of the permit. Mr. Perry advised that it would be done by field review or in response to complaints from property owners. He indicated that the major responsibility would fall upon the City, but the property owner and applicant would also be responsible. He explained that the owner is the co-applicant when property is leased. Mr. Kirkpatrick inquired about the location of the gate on Eastside Road and asked why relocation to the south could not be required now rather than within two years. Mr. Perry advised that it would be an increased upfront cost to the applicant, but it could be required. Mr. Kirkpatrick said he also favored changing Condition No. 18 to require only the fence and not the trees. Councilman Fulton stressed that the discussions have centered around a junkyard, while the applicant has indicated it will not be this type of operation. Dr. Fulton indicated that possibly Mr. Linkleter purchased the existing Shasta Steel without knowing the full extent of the operation. He said after checking into Mr. Linkleter' s operation in Oregon, it appears that he has a very reputable business there and felt that residents were associating the Sutter Street property with the Eastside Road operation when they are two entirely separate things. Councilman Demsher felt that if approved, the use permit should require a fence and trees along the east line of the lease area; and, that the boom should be required to be lowered when not in use. He emphasized that the use permit is on a six month review basis and the City Council has a good record of responding to complaints on use permits. He viewed this as a permit with many conditions which he felt was good. Councilman Kirkpatrick stated he would like to delete the tree requirements in Condition No. 18. Planning Director Perry advised that one further option available on the relocation of the gate would be to require that the north gate be closed now and that access be from the south gate only; and, that the south gate be formally located as required in Condition No. 16. MOTION: Made by Councilman Fulton to uphold the appeal and deny the use permit because it does not conform to the General Plan and would be a detriment to the area. This motion died for lack of a second. 1/3/83 15 MOTION: Made by Councilman Kirkpatrick, seconded by Councilman Demsher that the appeal be denied and Use Permit UP-193-82 be approved as recommended with the following changes: Change Condition Number 18 to read: The owner or applicant is to construct a solid board fence along the east line of the lease area. Evergreen trees are to be planted and maintained at 40-foot intervals adjacent to the fence and provided with an irrigation system. Add Condition Number 21 : When not in use, the crane is to be kept along the south property line and in a lowered position. Add Condition Number 22: The north driveway on Eastside Road is to be closed, and a block wall that matches the existing wall is to be constructed across the opening. Add Condition Number 23: The property is to be maintained in a sanitary condition to prevent infestation of insects or rodents as per the requirements of the County Health Department. This motion was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Demsher and Kirkpatrick Noes: Council Members - Fulton Absent: Council Members - Pugh and Gard ROUTINE REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Public Utilities Commission: Application of PGandE to Increase Rates Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association: Publicity Alcoholic Beverage Licenses: Gene's Drive In #2 (Eve & Michael Nash) 1410 Beltline Road, #7 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 9:45 P.M. , Mayor Pro Tem Demsher declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED:;;;; or Pro Tem ATTEST: City C erk,Cle� 1/3/83