Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1982-09-29 269 ANDERSON CITY COUNCIL, REDDING CITY COUNCIL, AND SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Joint Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 29, 1982 City Council Chambers 1313 California Street Redding, California 96001 MINUTES Chairman Dan Gover, Shasta County Board of Supervisors , called the meeting to order at 7:02 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, and James Dorsey; and Shasta County Supervisors John Caton, Don Maddox, John Strange, and Steve Swendiman. 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 Planning Director Thomas Hart, Assistant Planner Cindy Jewell , and Consultant Ben Harris representing the City of Anderson. Also present were Planning Director Joe Hunter and Assistant Planning Director Jim Cook representing the County of Shasta. City of Redding Councilman Archer Pugh arrived at 7:15 p.m. , as hereinafter indicated. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilwoman Gard moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of August 25, 1982. Supervisor Caton seconded the motion, which carried by a unan- imous vote. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND REVIEW OF MATERIALS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED Councilwoman Gard stated that the staff report prepared for the Council Members and Supervisors was excellent and, thanks to the combined efforts of the planning staffs , she was now satisfied that she had sufficient material from which a decision could be reached. CONSIDERATION OF PLAN Planning Director Perry referred to the four main areas of concern that had • been received at the previous joint legislative body meeting. These areas of concern were as follows: (1) The Bypass; (2) Planned Industrial--Large- lot "Residential" versus "Industrial ," south of the Airport and north of �� Rancho Road; (3) Commercial--"Office" versus "Industrial " and "Retail Commercial ," south of Rancho Road; and (4) Administrative adjustments. In regard to the fourth topic, administrative adjustments, Planning Direc- tor Perry reported that this could be handled within the planning staffs prior to action being taken by the individual legislative bodies. He noted typos in the report, clarification of some policies and policy numbers, and changes that had come out of the various study sessions as examples of administrative adjustments. At this point, Councilman Baugh introduced Thomas Hart, Anderson' s new Planning Director. The Chairman welcomed Planning Director Hart to the Shasta County community. 9/29/82 • 270 Planning Director Perry stated that from this point on, the objective of the joint meeting was to agree on the topics for discussion and to deter- mine if there were a consensus of opinion among the legislative bodies or if there were not, to determine the areas of disagreement. He reminded the Council members and the Supervisors that they were under no obligation to adopt the same plan for each agency. Planning Director Hunter described administrative adjustments as parts of the text on policies and land use which were referred back to the Shasta County Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors. He noted that the Commission' s review and responses covered almost everything that was on the agenda. According to Planning Director Perry, unless a new issue was raised that was not previously discussed, neither the Councils nor the Board of Super- visors needed to refer back to their respective Planning Commission. Councilwoman Gard clarified that the joint vote of the Planning Commis- sions, which was 17 to 1 , was for the Plan as presented with the exception that each agency had the right to make their own decision on the Bypass. She also verified that the Planning Commissions of the City of Redding and Shasta County were recommending approval of the Plan with the inclusion of the Bypass, while the City of Anderson was recommending approval of the Plan without the Bypass. The Chairman commented on the feasibility of the Council Members and Super- visors, at the conclusion of the joint meeting, reconvening as separate entities to make a final decision. Because the necessary papers had not been prepared, Planning Director Perry recommended that the Redding City Council defer action until they met again at their own regularly scheduled meeting. Supervisor Swendiman suggested arriving at a decision but post- poning the formalities of a final recommendation until each entity assembled again in its own chambers. The Chairman responded that the Council Members and Supervisors could make a recommendation of intent. Planning Director Hunter noted that the County had prepared drafts of the necessary resolutions. (Councilman Pugh arrived at this point. ) According to Councilman Bennett, the Anderson City Council had already reached a decision. Pointing out that any conclusions made at this joint meeting might differ from what Anderson had decided, he asked what the voting procedure would be. Planning Director Perry explained that each agency would be acting separately on the Plan; thus, each agency would be adopting it own resolution. Councilman Bennett clarified that the three entities would not be voting jointly. Planning Director Hunter explained that the purpose of the meeting was to reach a consensus of opinion and if there were differences, to point them out. He noted that this was the procedure staff had used with the joint Planning Commission and except for the Bypass, the Plan was acceptable to the three Planning Commissions as presented. li Councilman Baugh requested each body to present its opinion on the Bypass. According to the Chairman, the County had not taken a formal position. Planning Director Perry pointed out that in regard to the Bypass, Staff had prepared a summary of pros and cons. He noted that the summary was attached to the staff report. Councilman Kirkpatrick concurred with the proposed Plan as presented. Councilman Demsher recognized the Bypass as being the most serious conflict between the three entities. He opined that the Bypass would have the most long-range and short-range impact on the Airport area. It was the opinion of Councilwoman Gard that the three boards were drawing the same conclusion 9/29/82 271 as the Planning Commissions had, with the Bypass being the area of dis- agreement. Supervisor Swendiman noted that there should be some language corrections made such as changing "may" to "shall . " He added that he was in favor of the Plan as staff had recommended and was ready to pursue the question of the Bypass. Stating that he opposed the bypass, the Chairman said if the figures presented indicated the necessity ten years from now for an approach other than Airport Road, the present impact on the people in the area was too great for him to support the Bypass at this time. The Chairman also noted that he would like to discuss the area south of the runway, which he felt should be carefully considered with its relationship to traffic. He inquired about changing the designation from what was being recommended to large residential acreage. Supervisor Strange concurred that due to the effect the Bypass would have on the people and habitat in the area, it should not be permitted. Councilman Dorsey said he wished to respond to previous comments made by the Planning Commissions of Redding and Shasta County. He reported that the statement had been made that further on down the road, the City of Anderson would change its mind about the Bypass. Councilman Dorsey asserted that he personally felt that this would never happen. He con- tinued that he also did not feel that Anderson was being unrealistic nor did he agree that people should live in an area with the threat of the Bypass hanging over their heads. It was the opinion of Councilman Dorsey that there were other alternatives available besides the proposed Bypass. Supervisor Caton moved for an intent among the Board of Supervisors of Shasta County to delete the Bypass from the Airport Specific Plan. Super- visor Strange seconded the motion, which was carried by unanimous vote. Supervisor Swendiman expressed his concerns with the designation of "Resi- dential" verses "Industrial" south and north of the Airport. He requested input from the two Councils in regard to this matter as well as the desig- nation of Tucker Oaks. Planning Director Hunter depicted on the map the areas being referred to, which were located within the outer approach zones at the north and south ends of the Airport. In response to the Chairman's inquiry about the City of Redding's position on the Bypass, Councilwoman Gard asked if the City of Anderson felt that widening Airport Road would sufficiently address their needs in respect to traffic. Councilman Baugh stated that as a formal body, the City of Anderson had not made a final decision. He continued that Anderson had found out how the County of Shasta stood in regard to the Bypass; he would now like to know how the City of Redding stood. Stating that from the very beginning the object was to adopt a similar plan, Councilman Baugh said he would like the City of Redding to consider the alternatives so that Redding might find something that they could all agree upon. Councilwoman Gard replied that it was pointless for the City of Redding to plan something up to Anderson's City limits that might not go anywhere. Councilman Pugh stated that Redding had studied very carefully all the alternatives and he felt that the Bypass was the best option. He contended that if it were ten years before a determination was made that the Bypass was needed, there would be no place to put it. According to Councilman Pugh, with the deletion of the Bypass, the only alternative that would exist was to make Airport Road six lanes down into Anderson. Terming Hilltop and Cypress as areas being affected by underestimated traffic, he pointed out what could happen with too many vehicles filtering into one designated area. Councilman Pugh reported that too much traffic caused businesses to suffer because people could not get on and off the street. 9/2.9/82 272 According to Councilwoman Gard, the City of Redding was asking Anderson, since they had rejected the Bypass , to make finding an alternative for what they were going to do with all that traffic a high priority. She reported that in order for the City of Redding to respond to the question of traf- fic, they would need to hear from Anderson on an alternative. Concurring with Councilman Pugh, Councilman Fulton stated that there were, however, other alternatives beside Airport Road--one being widening and extending Knighton Road. He opined that the Knighton Road extension was economically feasible and less disruptive of any of the other alternatives. Councilman Kirkpatrick responded that even with the Knighton Road exten- sion, it would still be necessary to widen Airport Road to six lanes. Stating that the issue of traffic circulation had been continually dis- cussed, Councilman Demsher said the facility that had broad regional use in this area was the Airport. He cautioned the Council Members and Super- visors that poor planning could cause a situation similar to what happened in the 1940' s to the Sacramento Airport. According to Councilman Demsher, the Sacramento Airport was forced to move at a cost of millions of dollars and displaced valuable farmland. He asserted that the forced move was caused by the freeways and the roads not being able to support the traffic, with the final blow being the crashing of an airplane into a ice cream parlor. Councilman Demsher reported that unfortunately people would be affected by any of the alternatives, but that it was necessary to make the best possible planning decision now in order to preserve the Airport. He also remarked that there was no other area that was more logical , conven- ient or economically feasible for the Airport. It was Councilman Demsher' s opinion that now was the time to make the best planning decision possible and the Bypass was part of that decision. He advised that the Bypass was going to be an important entity in the support of the Airport. Supervisor Caton maintained that the three entities would not be faced today with the question of the Bypass if in the 1960' s the freeway had been placed where it belonged, which was next to the Airport. Concurring with this, Councilman Demsher responded that he rested his case on the need for good planning. Councilman Baugh remarked that what he was hearing was that the Bypass wasn't going to be and now the communities needed to look toward different traffic alternatives. He informed the Council Members and Supervisors that Anderson did not plan to take on the entire burden of the circulation problem of the Airport--that it was a joint function not just a concern for the City of Anderson. The Chairman assured Councilman Baugh that from the beginning the communities had entered into this as a three-legged stool and that was the way the process was to continue. Councilman Swendiman expressed his enthusiasm over the fact that there was only one major issue that developed between the three entities. He stated that he hoped this kind of joint planning would continue. The Chairman reiterated that the question of traffic was not Anderson's alone, that the three entities needed to work together on alternative routes. In regard to "Planned Industrial ," Supervisor Swendiman repeated his concern for the areas within the outer approach zones north and south of the Airport. He stated that "Planned Industrial" was not appropriate and that he would like to see large-lot "Residential ." It was noted that the Shasta County Planning Commission was still recommending that these areas remain as "Planned Industrial ." Planning Director Hunter depicted the two areas of concern--one being the area within the outer approach zone south of Fig Tree Lane; the other being property in the outer approach zone north of Rancho Road. He explained that the Board had sent the Specific Plan back to the Planning Commission with the question of whether or not large-lot 9/29/82 273 residential would be acceptable for these areas. According to Planning • Director Hunter, the Planning Commission, after restudying the questioned areas, recommended that the classification remain as "Planned Industrial ." He noted that the reasons given for this recommendation were concern for long-term compatibility and the fact that some of the areas were within the 65 CNEL zone. Planning Director Hunter pointed out that the Tucker Oaks project was in the area south of the Airport and that there were some residential units developed in the area north of Rancho Road on the west side of Old Oregon Trail . The Chairman asked if creating larger residential lots would reduce the traffic projection. Supervisor Caton expressed his concern that going to larger lots would create a nonconforming problem for the area. It was the opinion of the Chairman that if the designation of "Planned Industrial " were adopted, there would be the same phasing-out problem as with going from small to larger residential lots. Supervisor Caton asked if the "Planned Industrial" being discussed would allow commercial , light indus- trial or just industrial . Planning Director Hunter responded that the "Planned Industrial ," as described in the text of the Plan, did include other uses that were considered part of the industrial process. He re- ported that the Plan contained a list of permitted uses, as well as other uses , that would be considered compatible with the planned industrial designation. According to Planning Director Hunter, the issue of per- mitted uses had been discussed by the Planning Commission as to the kinds of activities that should be allowed within the Planned Industrial Dis- trict; and with that in mind, the Board could indicate what type of uses they felt would be appropriate for the planned industrial area. Mr. Harris stated that Anderson' s concern was not the concept of "Indus- trial" versus "Residential" but the amount of "Planned Industrial " that was being proposed. He also noted that the City of Anderson was concerned with the area south of the Airport not north. Expressing the Redding Planning Commission's point of view in regard to the 75 acres on the west side of Airport Road and south of Rancho Road, Planning Director Perry said that the Commission had requested an industrial classification for that area with five acres at the north end being designated "Commercial ." He re- ported that at a later date the City of Anderson's and Shasta County' s Planning Commissions concurred with this recommendation. Stating that Redding recognized that there was a certain amount of residential develop • - ment in the area, Planning Director Perry said one of the basic assumptions made was that the Plan would be an urban plan not a rural plan. Planning Director Perry referred to a letter from the State Division of Aeronautics which stated that residential developments should be dis- couraged because they would inevitably lead to attempts to curtail or stop operations at the Airport. He reported that the letter also stated that existing residences should not be a precedent for future residential development. According to Planning Director Perry, the Plan was not to penalize the people any more than necessary in order to protect the Air- port. In regard to the issue of noise, as well as the approach zone, in terms of the residential living environment, Planning Director Perry said the Commission felt very strongly that residential uses and noise were not compatible; and in order to minimize problems, incompatible uses should not be allowed. He stated that the Airport was its own worst enemy; it at- tracted development to occur around its boundaries. Planning Director Perry maintained that the Redding Planning Commission through its recom- mendation had attempted to anticipate what would be happening in the future. 9/29/82 274 Stating that the industrial designation allowed offices as a permitted use, Planning Director Perry said professional offices, real-estate offices, and headquarters-type offices would be allowed along Airport Road. He also noted that the Commission felt the south end to be suitable for creating smaller-type industries. In conclusion, Planning Director Perry reported that this summarized the attitude that the Redding Planning Commission had taken. Councilwoman Gard reiterated that the purpose of this Plan was to protect the Airport. She pointed out that this stated goal was well defined in Staff' s responses to "Planned Industrial" versus "Residential ." It was the concern of Councilman Dorsey that adoption of the Plan could mean that the affected homeowners would be immediately phased out. Planning Director Perry explained that although the intent of the industrial designation was not to allow any more residential units in the "Planned Industrial" areas, it did not mean that existing residences would be taken out. He stated that the Plan was not a two-party plan; it was a three-party plan, a roll back that had occurred with the Airport Planning Committee. Planning Director Perry also noted that the Plan contained less "Industrial " than originally recommended by the Consultants. Stating that he did not see any other significant difference beside the "Residential" versus "Industrial ," Supervisor Swendiman said his only other concern was cleaning up the language in the Plan. The Chairman asked if the proposals to change and/or add to the language of the text had been looked at by the three staffs. Planning Director Perry responded that he had had a brief opportunity to review the changes and that he had some of his own that staff would be discussing. He reported that there were some minor differences; however, there were no substantial differences that he was aware of. The Chairman verified that these adjustments could be made by staff and presented back to each entity. Councilman Bennett inquired about the Tucker Oaks Project. The Chairman reported that there was a lot of concern on the part of the Board of Super- visors. He stated that the project was granted approval by the Board of Supervisors in 1977. According to the Chairman, the Board felt that they were committed to the project and were reluctant to pull back at this point in time. He opined that the previously approved zoning of Tucker Oaks should be recognized. Concurring with the Chairman, Supervisor Swendiman maintained that the Tucker Oaks Project had been discussed by the Board at great length. Stating that he was not sure that this would be his decision if made today, Councilman Maddox concurred that the Board had to stand by what was previously approved. In regard to the area north of the intersection of Rancho Road and Airport Road, Supervisor Caton stated that he felt the area should be considered "Commercial" along with the proposed "Industrial" designation. He reported that with the "Planned Industrial" classification, there would be many uses in the area that would have to be recognized now and in the future as nonconforming uses. Supervisor Caton stated that he was also concerned with the two areas to the right and to the north of the Airport, which were designated as "Greenbelt." Questioning the purpose of the "Greenbelt" designation, he asked if it were to enable future expansion of the Airport. Supervisor Caton reported that he only saw "Industrial" up to a point, preceded by a greenbelt area and a flood-plain area. Planning Director Perry depicted the areas that Supervisor Caton was questioning. He pointed out the area along Stillwater Creek and the recreational area along the Airport, which was owned by the City of Redding. Planning Director Perry also explained that the piece of property to the right and to the north represented the 100-year flood plain of Stillwater Creek and areas in excess of 20 percent 9/29/82 275 slope. He reported that this area could be defined as a possible erosion or flood-plain problem. Supervisor Caton stated that he was concerned with the area north of the Airport because he felt that it should be extended to a more liberal useage. Supervisor Maddox stated that he believed that they had already recognized that the use permit process would be the one method to control occupancy activities around the Airport. Supervisor Swendiman maintained that the language in the Plan allowed for some commercial and retail uses. The Chairman clarified that the discussion pertained to whether or not commercial and/or retail businesses should be allowed without a use permit. Supervisor Maddox remarked that he wanted to be sure that he understood correctly that the three entities were in agreement with changing the area west of Rancho Road to "Planned Industrial . " The Chairman explained that the County was now stating that it agreed with the City of Redding and Anderson. Councilman Bennett stated that he would like to see some specific uses and guidelines that would eliminate the possibility of future land hassles. Councilman Pugh said he did not want to see the City of Redding going to small - claims court everyday. It was his opinion that everytime a transi- tion was made today, it could lead to another change tomorrow; and every- time that was done they would be jeopardizing the Airport. He advised that the entities should make sure they were not leaving too many doors open that in the future could imperil the Airport. It was the opinion of Councilman Bennett that the area needed some retail uses such as cabinet shops, etc. Supervisor Swendiman reported that, in fact, was what the Plan stated. Referring to pages 27 and 28 of the Plan, he said the language clearly spelled out that those types of uses would be allowed. In response to a facetious comment made earlier in the meeting regarding the lack of protection for the Airport possibly causing it to be moved to Fall River Mills, Supervisor Maddox stated that he felt it would not go in that direction, but that it could go to Red Bluff at the great expense to Shasta County of several million dollars. 1 Pointing out that their main goal was the viability and protection of the Airport, the Chairman opined that the discussion process had been exhausted and the joint members needed to return to their respective Board and Councils to make a final decision. Supervisor Strange reported that he still had some concern with the green- belt area, and whether or not the amount of land designated as "Greenbelt" was excessive. Referring to the definition of "Greenbelt," Planning Director Perry explained that the areas designated as such would be con- tinually updated as more current information was made available either by qualified agencies or the property owners. In regard to the particular area that Supervisor Strange was concerned with, Planning Director Hunter reported that there were flooding problems in the middle of the property. He explained that the Airport Plan contained a escape clause which allowed for the release of land when it was clearly shown that the property or a portion thereof was not affected by the greenway criteria. According to Planning Director Hunter, the release parcel would then be classified with the adjoining land-use designation. He noted that in the case of the subject area, the adjoining parcel could be the land to the east or the property to the west. Councilwoman Gard stated the intent of the Council Members representing the City of Redding was not to take any action at the joint meeting, but to return to their own chambers and make a final decision. The Chairman reported that it was the Board of Supervisors' intention to reassemble 9/29/82 276 after the meeting to see if they were ready to render a decision. Accord- ing to Councilman Baugh, the Anderson City Council did not intend to make any decision until they met in their chambers at a regularly scheduled meeting. The Chairman explained that due to the moratorium on development, the Board could not wait for the completion of a study on the alternatives to the Bypass. It was the opinion of Supervisor Swendiman that if neces- sary, the Plan could be amended at a future date. Councilman Kirkpatrick verified that upon making their recommendation to the legislative bodies, the joint Planning Committee had dissolved. The Chairman stated that the Board was in a position to clear the air for the people who were living in the area under the moratorium. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the joint Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8.40 p.m. ETHEL A. NICHOLS BARBARA ALLEN GARD 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 9/29/82