Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1982-08-25 226 ANDERSON CITY COUNCIL, REDDING CITY COUNCIL, AND SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Joint meeting, 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, August 25, 1982 Redding Civic Auditorium 700 Auditorium Drive Redding, California MINUTES Shasta County Board of Supervisors Chairman Dan Gover called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. , with the following Council Members and Supervisors present: City of Redding Council Members Barbara Allen Gard (Mayor) , Donald Demsher, Lee Fulton, and Howard Kirkpatrick; City of Anderson Council Members Les Baugh (Mayor) , Marvin Bennett, Robert DiLullo, James Dorsey, and Howard Freitag; and Shasta County Supervisors John Caton, Don Maddox, and John Strange. The following staff members from the City of Redding were present: Director of Planning and Community Development Phil Perry and Senior Associate Planner John Keaney. Other staff members present were Assistant Planner Cindy Jewell representing the City of Anderson, and Planning Director Joe Hunter and Assistant Planning Director Jim Cook representing the County of Shasta. Shasta County Supervisor Steve Swendiman arrived at 7:30 p.m. , as hereinafter indicated. APPOINT ACTING CHAIRMAN Mayor Gard moved to nominate Board of Supervisors' Chairman Gover as Acting Chairman of the joint meeting of the City Councils and the Board of Super- visors. Mayor Baugh seconded the nomination. There being no further nominations , the nominations were closed; and Supervisor Gover was appointed Acting Chairman by unanimous vote. The Chairman summarized the importance of the two Cities and the County of Shasta working together on such a complex project. He stated that it was gratifying to see the three entities cooperating in the development of a plan for the Municipal Airport area. Councilman Dorsey clarified that the role of the Supervisors and the Council Members was one of listening and that no final decisions would be made until a later date. PUBLIC HEARING - MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AREA PLAN (--030 - v/0 Summary Plan Comments By Staff Planning Directors Hunter and Perry reviewed the August 18, 1982, staff report, which is incorporated herein by reference. Planning Director Hunter reported that on June 9, 1982 , the Planning Commissions by a 17 to 1 vote determined to "tell their respective legislative body that they have agreed upon a specific plan for the Airport, with the exception of the Circulation Element, and each agency has the right to go back to their own Id legislative body in regard to the Circulation Element." He noted that subsequent to that meeting, each Commission formally recommended to its legislators adoption of a plan for the Municipal Airport area. Planning Director Hunter stated that it was important to emphasize the goals set forth by the legislative bodies in authorizing preparation of the Plan , of the Municipal Airport Plan Committee in directing the consultants' work, and of the Planning Commission in making their recommendation. He 8/25/82 227 summarized these goals as follows: (1) Safeguard the Airport from intru- sion by uses which limit the expansion of air service to Redding, Anderson, Shasta County and the Northern California region by recognizing the vital service provided by the Airport and the need to maintain a level of opera- tions necessary to satisfy existing and future aviation requirements of the user communities; (2) prevent development which will lead to safety pro- blems for air travelers and persons residing or working in the Airport environs; (3) permit persons who live, work and own property near the Airport to enjoy a maximum amount of freedom from noise and other impacts generated by the operation of the Airport; (4) comply with Airport noise standards mandated by the State of California and ensure a development pattern which is compatible with airport-generated noise; (5) protect the public investment in the Airport, a facility for which there is no feasible replacement; (6) recognize the Airport' s role as a major entry point for the Cities of Redding and Anderson and Shasta County and protect and enhance the appearance of the Airport area; (7) provide sufficient develop- ment opportunities for airport-related uses, including those which offer goods and services to air travelers and those which benefit from the proximity to the passenger and air-cargo service provided by the Airport; and (8) comply with the operational and safety requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Planning Director Hunter pointed out that the Plan was prepared pursuant to a joint Planning Agreement between the Cities of Anderson and Redding and the County of Shasta. He reported that under this agreement, a consultant was selected and a committee formed consisting of one legislative member of each agency, one Planning Commissioner of each agency, and one lay member. According to Planning Director Hunter, the Committee met seven times and at the conclusion of the final meeting on November 24, 1981 , the Committee forwarded the draft Plan and EIR to the legislative body and Planning Commission of each agency with a recommendation that the Planning Commis- sions hold joint public hearings. Planning Director Perry stated that the basis for the Plan was five reports prepared by the consulting team of Blayney-Dyett and Hodges and Shutt. He also noted that associated with these two firms was the firm, Planning Associates. According to Planning Director Perry, the reports were as follows: (1) Working Paper No. 1 - Airport Master Plan Update; (2) Working Paper No. 2 - Existing Conditions; (3) Working Paper No. 3 - Issues and Options, Alternative Sketch Plans; (4) Draft Specific Plan; and (5) Draft EIR - prepared by the Consultant. In addition to these materials, Planning Director Perry reported that substantial oral and written testimony was submitted by many interested parties and supplementary papers and staff reports were prepared by the staffs of the three agencies together with the final Environmental Impact Report and the Plan as recommended. He noted that for Shasta County, the Plan was both a general plan amendment and a specific plan; for Anderson, the Plan was a general plan amendment; and for the City of Redding, the Plan was the incorporation of an area plan into the Redding General Plan. Planning Director Perry summarized seven major issues that were identified during the public hearing process as follows: (1) Street patterns and the projected amount of vehicular traffic (mainly the proposed bypass route, Airport Road and Knighton Road) ; (2) the amount and location of industrial land; (3) protection of private property rights; (4) airport and vehicular noise; (5) airport operations; (6) development standards; and (7) protec- tion of the Airport. According to Planning Director Perry, the plans, as submitted, were nearly identical with only one significant difference; namely, the bypass or the Airport Road/I-5 connection. He said the Plan, as recommended by the 8/25/82 228 Shasta County and Redding Planning Commissions , included the bypass; however, the Anderson Planning Commission did not recommend that the bypass be adopted. Planning Director Perry referred to the letter from John Kenny, Shasta County Counsel , which was requested should a impasse occur over the bypass issue. In regard to Fairway Oaks Mobilehome Park, Planning Director Perry reported that it would be Shasta County and City of Redding staffs ' recommendation that the Park be classified as six dwelling units per acre as it had been changed to Planned Industrial by Redding based on the understanding that the County Planning Commission had designated the area as two units per acre. In reviewing the Plan, Planning Director Perry stated that it was the opinion of the staff that the proposed Plan meets the goals set forth by the legislative bodies when the Plan was authorized. He noted that the proposed Plan was predicated upon the area becoming urbanized as compared to the present predominantly rural character. Stating that the Plan, as drafted, would permit a population of nearly 17 ,000 persons, Planning Director Perry said it would provide for over 1 ,000 acres of industrial classified land and over 300 acres of commercially classified land. He further stated that actual implementation of the Plan would require crea- tion of new zoning districts or modification of existing ones. Planning Director Perry pointed out that while the Plan might not please everyone, it was a significant intensification of what was allowed in the area today. He reported that an effort had been made by both the Commissions and the staff to accommodate the wishes of the property owners in the Plan area where they did not conflict with safety or noise criteria. (Supervisor Swendiman arrived at this point. ) Planning Director Perry stated that it was the recommendation of the staff that the legislative bodies determine if there were a consensus of opinion on the Plan as a whole and if not, what the points of disagreement were. He reported that if the Plan were referred back to the staff for additional input, the legislative bodies would need to determine if they wanted a second joint meeting. According to Planning Director Perry, if a consensus of opinion were reached, it was expected that due to different process requirements , each legislative body would act on the Plan as soon as possible at a regularly scheduled meeting. He also noted that unless a legislative body chose to reopen the public hearing, this hearing would finalize public input and that each legislative body would take action on the EIR prior to acting on the Plan. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Marcia Howland, 4120 Story Lane, stated that she was representing the homeowners of Story Lane. She noted that there were volumes of information received from private consultants, airport and traffic planners, tax groups , the Anderson Area Improvement Association, Anderson Chamber of Commerce, Anderson business- men, and several homeowner groups that were in opposition to the proposed bypass. According to Mrs. Howland, none of this information had made any apparent impact on the planning staff or significantly changed the format of the Plan. She reported that what scared her, as well as infuriated her, was the way the planning staff had ignored, or virtually overlooked, the public's concern. Mrs. Howland emphasized that the proposed bypass would mean: (1) the decimation of the local wildlife, as well as riparian habitat; (2) traffic, noise and dust from trucks; (3) relocation of some along with the financial strain of a move; and (4) deflated property values, loss of a sense of community and closeness , and the inability to appreciate any longer an undisturbed section of the river. 8/25/82 229 Referring to Section 1511.6 (b) (sic) of the CEQA guidelines , Mrs. Howland stated that the State of California 's recommendations on how to deal with objections raised by the public was that "comments must be addressed in detail . . . " She also noted that she expected elaboration of alternate routes as was specified in Section 1511.4 (d) (sic) of the same guidelines. Mrs. Howland then referred to "significant consequences" outlined in Section 1509.3 (d) (sic) of the CEQA Guidelines from which she quoted "Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community" as one of the consequences of the proposed bypass. She contended that Staff' s single-sentence reply, "The location of existing neighborhoods was con- sidered during the course of derivation of the plan" was inadequate to the concerns of the bulldozing of a ,community. According to Mrs. Howland, this was just one of many examples, throughout the Staff's response, of callous indifference to the displacement and disruption of lives. She reported that many of the people at this meeting, as well as people at home, were frustrated, furious, and more resolute than seven months ago, to modify a plan so insensitive to the public needs. She asked that the Council Members and Supervisors listen and understand these concerns. Mrs. Howland stated that because these concerns were not adequately addressed at the first two sessions, they were asked again. She maintained a that the Chairman of the joint Planning Commission meeting stated that the questions regarded old material and could not be covered at that meeting. Stating that the questions were then put to Staff, Mrs. Howland said they were also notified that they could not debate Staff. She opined that with so much at stake, more justification, not less, needed to be given to an alternative which she felt was one of maximum cost, maximum destruction; one that was least acceptable to the people and totally unacceptable to the Anderson Planning Commission. In reference to the Redding Record Searchlight article entitled, "Linden Route Dead," Mrs. Howland ascertained that she did not intend to sit idly by while Staff prepared another Linden fiasco. She remarked that that kind of City planning went out in the fifties; that in the eighties greater weight must be given to those things for which there was no price tag. • Mrs. Howland invited the Council Members and the Supervisors to visit the Story Lane neighborhood, to discover why these people had such pride and love for their community. It was Mrs. Howland' s opinion that the Anderson Planning Commission was assured from the first meeting that the southern route for traffic was their decision. She stated, however, that when the Anderson Planning Commission voted unanimously to drop the bypass, the two other Commissions still insisted on spending additional funds on a traffic study and keeping the bypass in their plans. Mrs. Howland added that when Redding Planning Commissioner Moss asked Staff to come up with a plan that the Anderson Commission could accept, Planning Director Hunter had refused. She pointed out that CEQA Guidelines, Section 1511.4 (d) (sic) stated that alternatives capable of reducing or eliminating any significant environmental effects should be included even if these alternatives impeded the attainment of the project objectives and were more costly. According to Mrs. Howland, the Airport Plan was a plan to urbanize and industrialize what RADCO described as "an attractive quality of life, including a small town rural atmosphere and strong sense of community." She opined that no one could possibly believe that the Airport needed 1 ,000 acres of industrial land. She also maintained that it was safer for a plane to crash into golf courses and open space than into concrete buildings filled with people. 8/25/82 230 In conclusion, Mrs. Howland said questions should be raised as to who would want this so badly that reason, cost, sensibility and ingenuity in planning were lost in the shuffle. Michael Page, 4020 Duryee Lane, stated that he represented the Homeowners Committee, which consisted of approximately 200 property owners south of the Airport. In regard to the proposal to classify his neighborhood "Industrial ," Mr. Page noted that the Airport and the noise was there when he moved into the area and he hardly noticed the noise except once in a while when he was working in the yard. Pointing out that by the year 2000, the noise level would drop, Mr. Page said he would rather live in his house than; for example, to have to cross the Churn Creek and Hartnell intersec- tion. It was his contention that it was much more peaceful where he lived. Mr. Page's opined that it would be a long time before the proposed amount of industrial land was needed. He noted that the County could buy the land, but that it would be expensive. Stating that if property owners retained their homes with the "Industrial" designation, the parcels would be too small for any type of business, Mr. Page said it would also be difficult to resell these homes. He affirmed that he, as well as his neighbors , would like to remain as "Residential ." John Davis, 4311 Story Lane, reported that he wished to touch on the subject of the Airport and its facilities. With respect to large com- mercial-type aircraft, Mr. Davis opined that a larger runway would be needed. He recommended that the green area from the Airport north to Highway 44 be preserved for future aircraft control . Mr. Davis also mentioned the need for railroad spurs in an industrial area, which he had discussed at a previous public hearing. According to Mr. Davis no thought had been given to this subject. The last item Mr. Davis wished to bring forth was the Riverside exchange. He reported that he lived by the exchange, which he felt was never designed to accept anything but local commute traffic. It was the opinion of Mr. Davis that the cost of the modification of the Riverside exchange would be much greater than building a specific interchange to serve the Airport. He further opined that the cost of the exchange modification with the cost of the bridge across the river and the time span involved was not going to be two million dollars--it was going to be a lot more. Mr. Davis pointed out that his concern was due to the fact that his property would be gobbled up by the remodification. Thuel D. Dodson, 9481 Quail Creek Drive, reported that he was co-chairman of the Committee in Opposition to the Airport Road Bypass. He noted one of the reasons for not having the bypass was that it was not needed. Mr. Dodson opined that the traffic-circulation portion of the Airport Plan overstated the amount of traffic that would be crossing the Airport area boundaries in the foreseeable future. He stated that page 68 of the Plan indicated a need for 904 additional acres of employment land by the year 2000 for the entire County. He continued that the Plan also assumed that 380 acres of this development, 42 percent of the entire County, would occur in the Plan area. Mr. Davis asked how such an assumption could be justi- fied when the Plan was designating 1 ,506 acres for industrial and com- mercial use--four times the stated requirement in the Plan. He asserted that even if the industrial area developed as proposed, these 1 ,506 acres would not be developed for 80 years or more. It appeared to Mr. Dodson that the Plan would contrive to cluster 18,000 residents and 1 ,500 acres of commercial and industrial development within a mile or so radius of the Airport. He stated that the Plan had many aspects of an attempt to funnel a disproportionate share of Shasta County' s growth 8/25/82 231 into the development area. Mr. Dodson contended that the Plan designated far more land for development than prudence, reason, objective forecasting and the operation of free market forces would likely require for the next 50 to 100 years, if ever. He maintained, however, that the zoning of all of this land was only the surface of the problem. Mr. Dodson proceeded to state that the proposed traffic circulation system would cost many scores of millions of dollars. He pointed out that the south corridor proposal , which included the Bypass, carried a price tag of 20 million dollars. Mr. Dodson remarked that this money alone could possibly purchase and set aside as "Open Space" all the land required to protect the Airport. It was the opinion of Mr. Dodson that other plans for the County and Cities of Redding and Anderson did not project zoning, acquisition, right of ways, roadways, etc. , based on the full build out of the desirable area. He asked why then should the Airport area take such a course. According to Mr. Dodson, even if the development forecast and traffic volumes projected in the Plan were acceptable, the Airport Road Bypass was not an acceptable solution. He stated that the proposed bypass was disruptive, damaging and more expensive than other plans--one being an alternate proposal submitted by the Committee in Opposition to the Bypass. Reading a list of names of organizations against the bypass, Mr. Dodson said opposition was determined and wide spread, and support for the bypass was virtually nonexistent. He urged the Council Members and Supervisors, as legislative representatives, to respond by removing the Airport Road Bypass from the Plan and setting in motion a process that would replace it with an alternative that was based on a more realistic projection of what would actually take place around the Airport. Robert D. Walker, P. 0. Box 485 , Shasta, stated that he also represented the Committee in Opposition to the Bypass. Mr. Walker reported that he owned property on Quail Creek Drive, located at the corner of Churn Creek and the Sacramento River. He noted that he had wanted to build his home some time ago, but hadn't done so because of the question of the bypass. Mr. Walker pointed out that if the bypass were constructed, the bridge crossing would be in his front yard, which would drastically reduce the value of his property. He also maintained that there would be a noise problem as well as a pollution problem. Stating that he had not started construction until the previous week, Mr. Walker said he could not wait forever; he could no longer avoid going on with his life. Another reason Mr. Walker gave for proceeding with the con- struction of his home was that, according to Mr. Walker, Commissioner Bosworth had stated that- the bypass would not be built in his or Mr. Walker' s lifetime. Mr. Walker called attention to a letter from the Department of Fish and Game dated January 12 , 1982, which was addressed to the Planning Department of the City of Redding. Stating that the Fish and Game Department objected to the crossing of the Sacramento River with a bridge, he read the follow- ing excerpt from the letter, "Since Knighton Road is proposed to connect Interstate 5 with Airport Road in the plan, we strongly recommend that you consider developing this route as your Expressway and delete the route south across the Sacramento River. This alternative is shorter in dis- tance--1.7 miles as opposed to 2. 1 miles. Furthermore, this alignment will not destroy as much riparian habitat and will not cross the Sacramento River." 8/25/82 232 It was the opinion of Mr. Walker that the proposal of the tremendous quantity of industrial land was unreasonable. He stated that development of this land would not occur in this century. Mr. Walker reported that they were supposed to be dealing with a specific plan that called for a 20-year projection, not the plan that was before them, which was exceeding the projection by going 80 years into the future. Mr. Walker referred to one other element that he previously touched upon, which was the possibility of a change in the structure of the proposed road in the event that I-5 was realigned. He opined that if Shasta Dam were raised 200 feet, there would be a realignment of I-5. According to Mr. Walker, Caltrans had stated that I-5 would be shifted somewhere to the east, which meant that the staff may be building a road that was going nowhere. Another item that Mr. Walker referenced was remarks made at the last public hearing by the City of Redding' s Traffic Planner. Mr. Walker opined that the Traffic Planner had stated that 80 percent of the proposed 42,000 cars would be utilizing the expressway. As he understood it, the Traffic Planner had said the traffic would be generated from Meadow View south. Mr. Walker' s concern was how these cars would be entering the expressway. In conclusion, Mr. Walker expressed dissatisfaction and dismay. He asserted that his questions, as well as those of the people he represented, had not been answered and was hoping that the Council Members and Super- visors would provide a solution to their problems and dilemma. Leonard Stayer, 4623 Airport Road, reported that he had moved into the Airport area in 1949. Mr. Stayer stated that he and his wife would like to have a little peace and live comfortably in their older life with as much money as possible. He depicted his property located north of Rancho Road on the east side of Airport Road. According to Mr. Stayer, the consultants had indicated that his property was entirely out of the approach area where any plane could land. He requested that his property be reclassified to "C-3," which he felt would be the best for him. Dick Vogt, 3780 Hole In One Drive, submitted a petition signed by property owners opposing the proposed bypass. He stated that he was representing Fairway Oaks Homeowners Association which consisted of approximately 270 people who, without exception, were strongly opposed to the expressway portion of the proposed bypass going through Tucker Oaks golf course. He reported that the surrounding area was already established and that the expressway would wipe out all recreational activities and depreciate property values. It was Mr. Vogt's opinion that this would become a reality should a six-lane expressway be place in these people' s front doors. He contended that there was a more practical and flexible alternative that had been presented in the earlier stages of the Airport Plan. He maintained that by using this alternative plan, the savings in tax dollars would be many millions. Councilman Fulton determined that the other alternative was Knighton Road. Planning Director Hunter verified that Knighton Road was one of the alternatives that had been mentioned. Dean Murray, 3078 Lyal Lane, reported that he was dissatisfied with the amount of industrial land in the Airport area. Maintaining that in the ten years he had lived next door to the Airport he had yet to see the first industry move in, Mr. Murray said he was asking for a compromise that would allow the people who lived on both sides of Airport Road to have 50 percent "Industrial" and 50 percent "Commercial ." 8/25/82 233 It was the opinion of Mr. Murray that Airport Road at four lanes and the Knighton Road interchange would be sufficient access for traffic entering and leaving the Airport. He also stated that other cities had commercial uses interspread between their industrial zoning and by allowing hamburger stands, etc. to serve the industrial areas, a good portion of the traffic would be retained. In conclusion, Mr. Murray said it would be a long time before the industrial land around the airport was going to substain the traffic that was planned for the area and he would like to see somewhat of a compromise. Ed Howland, 4120 Story Lane, representing Story Lane Homeowners, stated that he was frustrated and upset by the arrogant attitude of the County staff and Planning Commission. Mr. Howland opined that the citizens of Anderson were being forced to pay $10,000,000 for three bridges , making a total of six spans in a one and one-half mile stretch of river; to build a new overpass for $2,500,000; to upgrade Riverside Avenue for $200,000 and to buy the new Mormon Church for $2 ,000,000. In regard to having 42,000 vehicles traveling toward Anderson, Mr. Howland suggested saving the citizens of Anderson $20,000,000 by posting a sign which would read "No Trucks. " It was his opinion that that was all the plan was worth and all the money Anderson should spend on it. Mr. Howland summarized the similarities he saw between the Linden Avenue Bypass and the Airport Bypass. Stating that the Planners proved that they couldn't forecast growth in six years, he asked what made them believe they could predict what the future road needs would be in thirty years. Mr. Howland asserted that though the Linden neighborhood was put to death because the residents didn't think they could fight City hall , he and his neighbors were going to fight. At this point, he proceeded to show slides that were taken in his neighborhood. According to Mr. Howland, the County and City of Redding Planning Commis- sions voted to keep the bypass in their plan pending a traffic study, yet it was stated in the Final EIR, "In the opinion of Staff, it appears highly unlikely that a more complete, expanded traffic-analysis computer modeling would significantly change the conclusions of the Municipal Airport Plan concerning trip demand between the Airport and the Anderson area. " He maintained that the land owners north of the river would be required to dedicate roadway before they could develop their property and present homeowners would be faced with severe restrictions on what they could do to improve their homes and would have to live with the knowledge that at any moment the County could come and condemn their houses and force them out. Mr. Howland asked for what--a bypass that could never be completed? With respect to the proposed traffic figure of 129,000 average daily trips, Mr. Howland stated that the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge had only 100,000 ADT; Mission Street-South Van Ness had 127,000; junction of L.A./- Ventura Freeway had 160,000; and the San Francisco International Airport 169,000 ADT. Mr. Howland asked how a member of the Shasta County Planning Commission, who had been deciding the fate of land designations in the Airport Plan, could have his name on real-estate signs advertising property in the middle of the Plan area. He presented a slide showing a real-estate for sale sign. Mr. Howland also asked how a report published in January for RADCO, by SRI International , could show 1 ,063 acres of available industrial sites in the Airport area when the Airport Specific Plan, at that time, was stating that 525 acres were currently zoned "Industrial . " He questioned how SRI could 8/25/82 234 be so positive that over 500 acres of industrial land would be added to the Airport Plan, when the citizens and legislative bodies were suppose to decide the land designations. Mr. Howland requested that the Council Members and Supervisors drop the bypass and protect the people from the loss of their residences, their scenic and recreational values, and wildlife resources. M. H. Greenhaigh, 4048 Prairie Lane, said he felt that the people in his area were getting pushed around. He stated that he had lived in this area for 20 years and neither he nor his neighbors wanted to leave. It was Mr. Greenhaigh' s opinion that the Airport should be moved approximately three miles to the east. He continued that if these properties were to be rezoned, the people should be bought out at a reasonable price. Stating that he had no objection to noise, Mr. Greenhaigh described his neighbor- hood as a nice residential district filled with chickens, ducks, dogs , etc. He asked the Council Members and the Supervisors, one and all , to give him and his neighbors a break. Dick Erickson, 2846 N. Bailey Drive, reported that he was representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He pointed out that the Mormon Church was building a facility at the corner of Story Lane and Riverside Avenue. Mr. Erickson explained that they had proceeded with the construction because they felt that they had to go ahead with their plans and their lives, and take their chances. He said, hopefully, this situa- tion would be resolved. According to Mr. Erickson, the position of the Church was to support its government and abide by the final decision; but during this decision-making process, the Church would stand up and be counted as being opposed to the bypass plan for the same reasons that had been previously stated. On behalf of the Church, he hoped that the Council Members and Supervisors would realize that there had been a lot of years and a lot of sacrifices on the part of a lot of people and that now their plans were becoming a reality. Mr. Erickson said he would like to ask the legislative bodies to carefully study all the alternatives. He pointed out that there were no parties in favor of the bypass that resided in the Anderson area and the only ones in favor lived in the Redding area. Bob Dilley, 1722 Clover Road, expressed his opposition to the bypass. He stated that the bypass was too disruptive to the people who lived in the vicinity of where it was proposed to go. He also said other routes were shorter, more direct and cheaper to build--mainly access via Knighton Road. The Chairman called for a recess at 9:00 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. James C. Hoffman, 532 North Market Street, described the status of Phase I of the Tucker Oaks project. He showed a slide of Tucker Oaks Golf Course, which according to Mr. Hoffman, was the center of the controversy. He depicted where Fairway No. 1 would be taken out, cutting off the mobilehome park. Mr. Hoffman maintained that the road would be a barrier between the mobilehome park and the golf course. He reported that the expressway would take out the pro shop or the clubhouse or if it jogged the other way, a bridge would have to be built over Clover Creek. Mr. Hoffman proceeded to depict on a transparency how he felt the bypass would affect Phase I of the Tucker Oaks project. Directing attention to the brochures that had been distributed, he pointed out that Page "I" illustrated 34 single-family lots that had already been constructed with all utilities. Stating that this project had been approved by the County in 1977, Mr. Hoffman said that approximately $800,000 had already been spent and that these lots could not be marketed because of a moratorium. He remarked that Staff had suggested 8/25/82 235 that the lots could be marketed as "Industrial ," which Tucker Oaks had decided was not feasible. In reviewing the project, Mr. Hoffman depicted on the map where two new fairways would be located. He reiterated that if the bypass proposal was left in the Plan, the Tucker Oaks project would be cut in two. Mr. Hoffman commented that it would not be possible to play golf across an expressway. He then depicted where Phase II would be replacing Fairways 6 and 7. Referring to the cover of the brochure, which was an illustration of Phase I with the mobilehome park in the background, Mr. Hoffman noted that the sewage system that was built to serve this phase would not be serving Phase II or Phase III. According to Mr. Hoffman, the project had been almost a full-time task for the past six and one-half years. He reported that the 34 lots of Phase I were designated by the Plan as "Planned Industrial" ; and if the Plan were approved as is, Tucker Oaks could be place in a position where no homes could be built in this project. Mr. Hoffman then referred to the Subdivision Map recorded on February 11, 1981, and the air easement accepted by the City of Redding on February 5 , 1981 , which he felt was another important aspect of the history of the project. He stated that the air easement represented a contract with the City of Redding that it would accept the air easement, thereby accepting the project. He also noted that there was a five page memorandum that would give the Council Members and Supervisors an insight to the potential problems and solutions to the noise problem. It was the opinion of Mr. Hoffman that because an air easement was created, the noise regulation in the State of California mandated that the Tucker Oaks area would not be included in any map involving noise impact. He maintained that it was State law that where there was a noise easement (air easement granted to the proper authority) in the land, that land was excluded in the determina- tion of the noise impact area. Referring to page two of the memorandum, Mr. Hoffman stated that Section 5011 of State regulations listed alternatives to comply with noise regula- tions. He noted that use of quieter aircraft and reducing flight frequen- cies so that flights were restricted to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. were examples of available alternatives. Mr. Hoffman also referred to State regulations regarding airport accidents. Calling attention to a report completed by WPM that was presented at an earlier meeting, Mr. Hoffman reported that he could not find any incorpora- tion of this study in Staff' s recommendations. In conclusion, Mr. Hoffman asked the Council Members and Supervisors to take Tucker Oaks out of the "Planned Industrial " classification and to take the bypass out of the Plan. William Starrett, 8340 Airport Road, said that he concurred with the previous speakers opposing the bypass, but at this time would like to address his own personal property. Mr. Starrett reported that approxi- mately five years ago he had requested a "Commercial" designation and had received "Recreational" instead. He pointed out that he had built his business on this property, which consisted of a beauty shop, barber shop and repair shop. According to Mr. Starrett, he had moved a mobilehome onto the property after receiving the "Recreational" zoning. He added that a year later the County said they wanted to change the zoning to "Com- mercial ." Mr. Starrett said he was against the change because if anything were to happen to his mobilehome, he would not be able to place another one on his property. He noted that he would accept "Commercial " except that the Plan now changed the designation to "Industrial . " Stating that the property had been changed from "Recreational" to "Commercial" to "Indus- trial ," Mr. Starrett asked why other properties could be changed from "Industrial" to "Commercial ," yet his couldn't remain as "Commercial ." 8/25/82 236 Gerald Flaxbeard, P. 0. Box 2391 , expressed his disagreement with the proposed bypass. He said he was sure if the bypass were located in the Council Members ' or Supervisors' backyards, they would be addressing this meeting as he was. Mr. Flaxbeard also stated that he disagreed with the zoning and parcel sizes. He noted that when he originally purchased his property, it was all right to split the land. Mr. Flaxbeard maintained that as years go by parcel splitting was becoming tougher and tougher. E. J. Gordon, P. 0. Box 3173, requested that her ten acres on Airport Road remain as "C3PDR." She noted that her property, located north of Charlanne Drive and south and north of Sky Park Drive, bordered commercial land with light business and storage already in operation. Stating that she had specifically invested in this parcel because it was commercially zoned, Mrs. Gordon said she had been required to dedicate an easement and add curbs and blacktop with fill in order to be able to four-by- four the parcel . She maintained that a change of zoning to a noncommercial designation would greatly devaluate her property. According to Mrs. Gordon, there was no immediate application for the City of Redding to annex the property; therefore, sewers and other utilities would force her to wait many years to proceed with her plans to develop the ten acres. She stated that a curtain drain system and well had been tentatively approved by the County. Mrs. Gordon asked why, if the County and City of Redding were anxious for clean industry and jobs for people, were areas of potential development being shelved. It was Mrs. Gordon' s opinion that the plan to create multifamily residences of nine units per acre would cause more noise, more traffic problems, more police protection and more hazards than commercial businesses. She urged the Councils and Supervisors to carefully consider allowing her property to remain as "C3PDR." Randy Hauser of Planning Associates, 1714 West Street, noted that he was requesting reconsideration of a land-use designation for NORCO. He re- ported that NORCO' s concern was with the proposed residential designation of three dwelling units per acre for property to the east of Airport Road. According to Mr. Hauser, NORCO was requesting nine dwelling units per acre. He opined that the higher density could be achieved without compromising safety, noise or any of the other objectives of the Airport Plan. Mr. Hauser gave the following reasons for requesting the higher density: (1) Multifamily, nine du/ac, would be more compatible with airport operations than the density proposed; (2) the site is served by a proposed four-lane road; the greater flow of traffic would be within the capacities of Airport Road, the bypass and other access ways in the area; (3) one of four new high-yield wells, which have been proposed for the Enterprise area , has been sited on the NORCO parcel ; and (4) the site offers an opportunity for affordable housing. There being no one else who wished to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. The Chairman opened the discussion within the framework of the three bodies , noting that final action would have to be taken by each individual legislative body. Mayor Baugh asked whether the three entities would be discussing the Airport Plan at this point or at their own meetings. The Chairman suggested that they could meet in joint session again; however, he was not sure what it would accomplish to hold another public hearing. The Chairman pointed out that the public had been promised that their land would not be held in moratorium any longer than necessary. He opined that 8/25/82 237 it would be advantageous to come together after discussing the Plan as individual bodies. Mayor Baugh reported that he would like to make some comments. Stating that the City of Anderson was scheduling a public hearing for sometime in September, Councilman Dorsey said he could go no further until Council for Anderson had reached a decision. The Chairman 111 reported that the joint public hearing was intended to meet the public- input requirement for each of the entities and any additional public hearings could jeopardize joint discussions. Concurring with the Chairman, Mayor Baugh maintained the the Councils and Board of Supervisors should proceed with making some decisions. Councilman Bennett responded that it was his understanding that the City of Anderson would determine after the public hearing whether or not another public hearing was needed. He opined that there had been adequate input to enable the legislative bodies to proceed with the decision-making method. Pointing out that the both the City of Redding and Shasta County had had study sessions before the public hearing, Councilman Dorsey said the City of Anderson should have an oppor- tunity to hold an additional meeting. Stating that there were not a great number of issues on which there was disagreement, the Chairman suggested meeting jointly after the Council Members and Supervisors had discussed these issues individually. Councilman Demsher acknowledged that the three entities had a common goal to work out a reasonable solution. He noted that, except for the study session the City of Redding held, this was the first real input most of the Council Members and Supervisors had from the public and he was not prepared to make any decisions. It was Councilman Demsher' s suggestion that perhaps representatives could be appointed from each of the legislative bodies to work out any differences and come back with an acceptable plan. Supervisor Swendiman concurred that the three entities should meet individually before discussing the issues jointly. The Chairman asked if Staff could pinpoint any new or different information from the public hearing and put it in a report for the three bodies to study. Planning Director Perry responded that there would be a summary of the meeting in the minutes. Concurring with holding individual caucuses, he opined that meeting individually before having a joint discussion would probably shorten the process in the long run. Supervisor Strange requested information regarding the Meadow View alternative. Stating that the study did not include Meadow View, Planning Director described the alternatives that were evaluated as Knighton Road and Churn Creek, where they intersected to extend over to I-5; widening Airport Road to six lanes; and the Churn Creek Bottom residents' recom- mendation known as the "RIM Route." Councilman Dorsey commented that the homeowners felt the questions regard- ing Story Lane were not answered to their satisfaction. Planning Director Perry responded that it was the opinion of the staff and the Commissions that these questions were answered. The Chairman stated that it was their responsibility to determine whether or not they agreed with the staff' s and Commissions ' answers. He clarified that each agency would also have to act individually on the Final EIR. Planning Director Perry advised that the goal on the offset was to have a common plan between the three agencies; however, that goal was not a mandate. Recommending that the Plan be referred back to the individual bodies for consideration, Mayor Baugh stated that the Plan would have to go back to the Planning Commissions if it were changed. Mayor Gard moved that the each governing body meet separately to discuss the Municipal Airport Plan. She further moved that after such meetings, 8/25/82 238 the legislative bodies again meet in joint session. Supervisor Strange seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote. The Council Members and Supervisors directed Staff, along with the Mayors of the Cities of Anderson and Redding and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, to coordinate a time and date for the joint meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. 4 11 to: • Of 0 At ETHEL A. NICHOLS ; , 'B*RA A LEN GAR. Clerk of the City of Redding Mayor of Redding ANN REED DAN GOVER Shasta County Clerk Chairman, Board of Supervisors JACQUELINE J. PADILLA LES BAUGH Clerk of the City of Anderson Mayor of Anderson E - - 8/25/82