Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1964-01-27 32 Copy of operating expenses of Shasta County Civil Defense for the �`�� first half of 1963=64 fiscal year. - ICCCNC - Report of next meeting to be held in Cottonwood Tuesday, J 7� January 21 st - . � � _ �3 ..� J. W. Allenis letter to Recard-Searchlight regardinj Chamber Music There being no further business, on nnotiori of Courieilrrian Moty, secon�ed :by Councilman Denny the meeting was adjourne� until Monday, January 27th, 19�4 at ?:00 P. M. "� � • APPRO ED: ` - ^ ( � - � '� .. ' , iJ� LI.-` � � � L'` . _ ay o r �`�_,_.__--' _ , � . Atte s t: ' % ��e � � . �, Lr�-�� C�ty Clerk � City Council,. Adjourned Meeting. Police Dept. & Councii Chambers Bldg, Redding, California � Jarivary 27, 1964 7:00 P. M. ThE meeting was called to order by Mayor Martin with the following councilmen present: Chatfield, Denny; Kriegsman, Moty and Martin. � A1so present were .�ssis.tant -City Manager and' Director of Finance Courtney, City-Attorney Murphy, and Director of Public Works Arness. RESOLIJTION - Overruling Protests (South .City Rark, Tiger Field) MOTION: Made by Council�man Kriegsman, seconded by- Councilman Moty that Resolution No. 3226 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of ��� Redding overruling protests against the proposed aba.nclonmer�t and discon_tin- uance of the use of South Redding City Park and Tiger Field as a public park, and the Mayor be� authorized to�.sign said resolution. , . . . ' Voting was as follows: , � ' ' Ayes: Cou'ncilmen - Chatfield, Denny; Ksiegsman, Moty and Martin Noe s: Couricilmen - None � � Absent: Councilmen - None ' ' Resolution No. 3226 on,file. in the office of the _City Clerk , � RESOLUTION - Easement Water Pipe Line .(D. C. Brown property) < MOTION: Made by,Councilman Chatfield, seconded by Councilman Denny that Res.ol,ution No. 322.7 .be adopted, a re;solution of the City Council of the. City of y�� Redding finding that the: public interest and necessity require the acquisibion of an easement in certain real prope.rty for publie�improvement,. to wit, water pipe line, ar�d authorizina emirie.n� domain proceedings ther.efor. Voting was as follows; , � _. .. Ayes: Councilmen,- Chatfield, ..Denny, Kriegsman, Moty and IVlartin Noes: Councilmen.- None . . _ , , , _ Absent: Councilmen - None . , _ Resolution No. 3227 on file in the office of the City .Clerk , (Harrison Tract) 33 RESOLUTION - Calling Special Election for Annexation � MOTION: Made by Councilman Kriegsman, sec�nded by.Councilman Denny that Resolution No. 3228 be adopted, a resolution,of the City Council of the City of , _ _ Redding declaring its intention to call a special annexation election and fixing ��,.� a time and place for protest by property owners, and the Mayor be authorized to, sign said resolution.. .. , , , � _., ,� `; . , � Voting was as follows: � Ayes: . Councilmen_-,,Chatfield, Denny.,. Krie.gs.man, Moty .and.Martin . Noes�: Councilme.n -. None� � , , . � ,. . . _ � . ,. . . _ _ . _ .. Absent; Councilmen - None. . _ , Resolution No. 3228 on file in the office of the City Clerk Public Hearing February 24, . 1964,.7:3.0 P. M. ORDINANCE - Calling Sp�cial Municipal Election Re South City Park and Tiger F'ieId City Attorriey,lVlurphy submitted Ordinance No. 755, an ordinance of the City ;L.j�; Council of the City of Redding calling for a special municipal election to be held �y�f on the 14th day of April, 1964, submitting the proposition as to whether or not the use of.South Redding City Park and Tiger Field as a park should be discon- tinued and abandoned, to the voters of the City of Redding, setting forth the form of the ballot for this measure and the text of said measure, the manner of holding such election, providing for notice thereof and consolidating ,said s_pecial municipal election with the general municipal election to be held on the 14th day of April, 1964. Councilman Chatfield offered Ordinance No. 755 for first reading. RESOLUTIOlV - .Re Disposition South City Park and Tiger Field MOTION: Made. by Councilman Denny, seconded by Dr. Martin that resolution No. 322.9 be adopted, a resoTution `of the City Council of the City of Redding �;� G% , declaring its intention in .relation.to the disposition of South Redding City Paric and Tiger,Field in the event a ma,jority of the qualified electors of the City vote in favor of discontinuing and abandoning the use of said land for park purposes. Councilman Kriegsman offer.ed the following amendment �to,.Resolution No. 3229: . . __ � _ (e) That if this Council determines that the best means of disposition of � this property is to s.ell it, that it shall sell it at a,.price ,consistent with the appraised fai�r market value of the prope.rty subject to allowance fo.r the requirement that the successful buyer must use the property in a planned development of the entire. site .which has ;been_ approved .by-the City Council prior to the sale and is made a material condition.qf the sa1e. Seconded by Dr. Martin: Mr. Wm. W. Coshow.stated he would limit his coriversation at this time �� � protesting the amendment. That if such an amendme.nt is added and if "F" is not amended to be consistent with the language of_"E!', "G'.'�:should be , deleted, as it was obvious to him the intention suggested in "G" is inconsist- ent with the language of "E" and "F" unless ther:e were• specifications for planned development. The amendment and "F" relates specifically to planned development; that unde�r.both '.'E'.' of the amendment and "F'! you ar.e `not talking about competiti;ve bidding, but rather the establishment of a fair market value for the. propexty. - Asked by Councilman Chatfield:if City .should.not plan .this ar.ea,. 1VIr: Coshow answered yes, but within�th_e zoning laws; he did not tliink you �should be selective.�_ It had been:the intention_.of past councils= this land�be u'sed for park purposes.. If y.ou:wanted'.any:.legal, biriding restrictions, yo:u must-put it in the ballot. The next council could, if they desires, pass a new resoiution and compl'etely abrog�.te this.. The_counckl in: office -can legally do anything they want, but this resolution of intention in its entirety.is not�binding on any future councils. - � . . 34 City Attorney Murphy stated. in the event the election was favorable to the ballot._proposition, �we .would;rriost likely sell or lease the property, and as a part of any such action.it would be necessary the Title Company insure " title which we convey ,if.we s.ell, or the leasehold if we lease, }�efore any loan is granted in order .to construct any proposed improvements. It,was therefor necessary to follow the precise language of the par�cs abandonment section of the general law. The section of the government code we are following. in our election proceedings provides only.tliat,tl2e council ma.y submit to tlie electorate the� propositiori as.:it� now 'reads in;tl�e ordinance.. It makes no�:provis'ions. for spelling:out alternate propositions such as;abandon- ment and s.elling,- aband'onment and �leasing; or,both.� � : That two members of - the`�council had made-suggestions�, .and�this. resolution.had been prepared in , accordance�witli these� recomm'endations. ., , _ � _ � The question now was,. is .this b�nding_.on council, o:r not. He. had previously ruled on the Benton Airpark proposition of some two years ago when the voters had . c: �oted in fav.or of :retaining .Benton,Airpark and_approved the expenditure of some. $80, 000 for impr.ovemerits to the:airpark.� The,.propositior�:itself had - not spelled�out in detail each one of the proposed improvements,. The issue .arose whether. mbney could be. taken that was detailed in.the material submitted in relation to the bal�ot = specifically the Airports Commission had as,ked if the sum of $12, 000 could� be: spent on something.other than the�administration .,� 3.1 building. He had ruled this .could not,b� used for anything but an administration building; even though it had not been in the propos.ition itself, but _only,in the material released to the public. He thought this ruling would hold on the present questioxi: This council could not,�having expressed its intention in relation to thi's -ballot proposition, act in:any �way!other �than� the-'way�.the ele.etorate ' voted. on the proposition as it appeared:in the ordinance. That Mr. Goshowts�comments 'were well,:taken insofar,.as: futur-e.:counci,l,s are � concerned; if this counFil takes no action iri re�ation to parks after this election, three or four years from now, other councils having been elected, he was not sure if these councils-would be.•bound b3r the-term�s ;of thi•s r:e:solution._ Although he had not researched this, it would appear they would not be so bound. Councilrrian ChatfieYd replied this was anly right,r.a.councils should not be bound and shackled by resolutions �adop,ted in the 20's. Mrs. Helen Faye Generes asked the meaning of "park purposes". Did this mean the,larid could not be used for civic,purposes such as an auditorium, and - �should this not.be put .on .the ballot._ In her op�nion the property should be u,tilized�to its best .purpose - either'by .the City or someone else. Councilman Kriegsrrian stated if the people voted to abandon the,park for park purposes and future city councils did not wish to sell or lease the property, un�er this resolution they would not have to, but could use it for public pur- poses such as an_auditorium... Howeve_r, -if land_ was -abandoned for park use it would not be necessarily�.public use. - Mayor Martin explained that South City park h.as been designated as a park, and it •was a legal and wis,e-pr.ovision of State government that a council can not lightly abandon.a park,:.;_;b.ut that. it must be acquiesced to by a plurality of voters. It was possible even;.if this was released as a park that City might continue to use it as •a�park for rnany years, o.r might determirie that some other use was more €avorable. " " � .... , - . City Attor.ney Murphy,.stated he had investigated two cases decided on in this State, and both held that a substantial>portion of exis.ting park land couid be used for purposes not incons.istent with park purposes. It�is possible you couid use up to 40 or 50°jo ;af park land for auditorium purposes without going through.an election. An election was necessary pr'erequisite to the disposition of the larid by sale or lease. 35 That in reply to Mrs.�,: Generes. who thought.this,should be on th:e ballot; it would then be necessary to have Proposition "B" sega�ding. the use. of South City Park as a sit� for the auditarium, and further.to have a.bond issue on the ballot. �He thought th'is would be ver� confusing, particular.ly because the people had voted down a bond issue for the construction..of an auditorium not too long ago. , . , _ . . Councilman-Chatfield then spoke of one othe.r. reason.for the abandonment of the park - ;the park i.s located in ari ar.ea �.where .,traffic is .dangerous to - children and this was the prime consideration of_the "Recreation and Parks Commission for thei�r�recommendation the park 'oe abandoned. The ballot does one of two things_; .�it is ei.ther retained.as a park, or by,virtue of majority vote would have the exact s.tatus. of any other city_ owned land, which may be used for any other purposes. This is all we are doing. He then asked, if City , had no reasonable offer�fox'the property; wlia� tlie�:? City Attorney Murphy stated park land,� b.y law..•of:the State of Californ-ia, has a special sanctity to it, and requires special pr.ocedures.. An election would remove th=is and tHe property would_be put on equaY ,status.:with .other. unim- proved land once the voters have authorized its .d�scontinuance as a park. After tfie voters make their decision not to continue its�use�as public land,it is then an administrative� deci�sion for council ;to decide. , Councilman Moty said in his opinion the resolution and the amendment to the � L resolution show the 'intention of the council, this is all. :This. is a reasonable Z' action and this�is a right�the voters expect of us. � -.. -Councilman Denny�s.tated the wording of the pro,position makes it. clear the -election me�rely has- to do with the discontinuance of the use_ of the land as a City park, it does not commit City to� sell the.proper.ty nor use the. property for commercial purposes. It was now established property could be used for a civic auditorium or any other use. If.voters`.app'rove the discontinuance � of the'property as a park, with no time.spe.c,ified, :what is.:"reasonable time". � , � � City Attorney Murphy explained the �basic laws regar:ding disposition of.park lands, 5tating to date we. ha,ve follo•we'd� pre:ci�ely,the language.,of,each �section of the code ; if someone complained that City was taking too long to decide on the park question, i.t.iwas�p.os's�ib:le:i, the subject could come to court; it was his opinion most courts would interpre.t .two, ��three;or :even four•ye;ars-or longer would be a "reasonable length of time. " � Couneilman Kriegsman stated,the code made a def�ini,te distinction between parks and playgrounds. That orie' of the. thir�gs,that. s.tarted all th•is was the,._recom- , , : mendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission that Council`inves:tigate the possibility of discontinuance of this area as a park; by interposing as fei�v restrictions as possible, City could continue with the playground for some time. � , .: . . . . . � Councilman Moty, asked this,;que�stion: A.ssuming the �people,.v;oted favorably on the proposition, but City was unable to-negotiate a� satisfacto:ry sale �or. .lease, ancl three or four years have transpired,. what eourse of action is open? _ - _ . , - . _ � �' City Attor�ey �Viurphy stated if City wae .not.successful �in.leasing;/�se-}.ling 'th'e ar:ea could be- left uniinproved and a study� ma�ie by�.either an�appr`opriate `committee-of tlie City-''Gouncil;� or"lay groups `and �sug.g•e.stions.�°or .r.ecornmendati could �be given-of .alte'rriat"e' path's "to;follow. Any;long 'r_ange�publie�;dev.elopment would require another expression of publrc -opinion, Ybu have 'commi�tted yourself to commercial development; planned development, either by sale ' or lease would require a•1'engthy time. to- -ar-rang�e. .-�Nothing �compels��+y:ou to give away the land, an appra'rsal would=set the-fair market value'�aald:this would be the criteria. However, if "a'm�:ri carrie -in with an appraised value offer, with planned development, the courts might step i•n:and 'force �council, to:act. - . . . .. , . � � �� ._ . , . Harry, Hazeltine, member of the Recreatior� and Parks Commission_stated he would like the records to show the recommendation the commission made sometime ago on the acquisition of the Turtle Bay property had nothing to do , 36 with South City Park. The motion made, seconded and .voted on unanimously by the.;Commission two weeks ago had nothing to do with.the:dis,position of.the property; only that because of the regenerated traffic on Highway 99 and High- ' way 44 this was no longer an ideal site for a playground or. park and they rec:ommended the facilities be replaced in like kind at another location - but this:location was not specified,, The._safety.hazard_as a park was ,th.eir only consideration. Voting on the�Arnendment:was as. fol�ows: . ` , �, ,_ . . . . ,. . � � _ .... �. . .. ,. . .. Aye_s: : " `Coun._c.ilmen,� Gliatfield,:Denny, Krre.gsman, Moty,and Martin.,.. _, Noe s;: ;� ; .Councilxn�en:- None �� - - � , . . . . , _. . e ,. ._ .. .:. .. .. _- . .. .. . _. , Abs.ent: Councilmen - None 'Regarding;.Re:�olution No:',: 3�22:9, M-r, Coshow stated he found par.agraph !'F" inco,nsis:terit,with-the��unction of City,Governmen-t: „This would,be�socialized . real �e�s.tate�development4- there are men in this area earning,a liying in this field. When the City decides it is a lessor of properties for commercial. pur- poses, it is going far afield. That further, it is obvious City has eliminated . the compe.titive-bidding sy.stem. � It indicates City is not interested in com- petitive bidding on the sale or lease basis. That they intend to select who the,y chose,:tlie most:desirable, to provide those individual,s ,or. corporations with an advantageous lease. "E" as it was, provided competiti.v,e bidding, but still requires planned development be submitted to meet the conditions and res.er;va:ti'ons -s�et"forth'inthi,s..resolution, and Council retains.control of the planned_de�zelopmen�. .::.Consequently he was ;unalterably,opposed to.this resolution, as are al�l h�i-,s,clients, and we shall .make this language as adopted - by the City:Council clear to the electorate prior to the election, he c_oncluded, Councilman Moty stated he was very pleased with the language in the reso,lution; ; ,it •was rnade� very,.c�lear:to.the�electorate City�wanted,to get. the fair market ��� „value of;the pxope�rty, either on a sale or on 'a .lease basis. . . : . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . ' � Councilman Chatfield stated that Mr. Coshow�s statement this eliminates . .corr�petitive�bidding is,untr:ue. The..res:olution of,intention does what we . feel we.:,.shou•ld,do ;lr/4,.qf .this.,block is being leased by the City and he .can't think .this is. ineonsistent.with government., It is :�:proper that.._.City control the development, otherwise there would not be�the .to.ols of zoning control. It was true that Council wante�l to see some control over the quality of the enterprises that might-be intere.sted in this area. , . . . .. �•, .. It was his further opinion that all City owned land should be evaluated and if not used for public purposes the better use of the property should be con- sidered and property should be disposed of. . ..... . .. .. � .�,_ .. .. , ., . _ . , . . ; . . . Councilman Kriegsman made the following statement: That his position in this matter is known and often publicized erroneously; the idea is attribizted to him as primarily the idea of one person. The position he has expressed in the past has not changed,.-.�he felt we are being consistent with keeping our faith with the public in describing what we intend to do, not limiting future councils in .what it may do, providing, the end result is consistent with the over-all developmentqof downtown Redding and the over-all development of all Redding. Further, if no lease was available favorable to the City, nor any saTe, 'li.�e_� � would favor retention of the property for public use. It was .fairly well known a discount house had made an offer and many protests had.been received from people. That competitive bidding might not work and it was true it would be very difficult for council to overrule a bid if it did not appear in the best interests of the City. This would keep council clear with_the people - gives the council the right to dispose of the property. That what Mr. Coshow wanted council to do would be completely restrictive. There was discussion on in lieu taxes, City Attorney Murphy said the tenants would not pay taxes on real property, but would pay taxes only on the improve- ments. Couneilman Kriegsman then advised it had been his intention if.the property was leased there would be compensation for taxes included in the lease. 37 Voting was 'as follows ori Resolution�No. 3229 as amended: � .- Ayes: � `C'ouricil'men� -�Chatfield, Denny, Kriegsman, Moty,and Mar.tin .. - - Noe s:' Couricilme�n -�Norie - - � Ab�sent:` Counci�lmen. - None - " � Resolution No. 3229 on file in the office of the City Clerk REZONING REQUEST - Har ry Hazeltine The City Clerk requested council approval that rezoning request of Harry._ Hazeltine �for a �C�l 1Veighborhood Cornmercia� District on a portion-of Court Street be rescheduled for February 17, 1964 7:30 P. M. due to publication oversight. � � - - � ��� There was considerable discussion on the possibi].ity of -the creation of.a CO Comrriercial Office"District Yi-owever the City Atto�rney. stated a hearing would have to be `held on the rezoning application unless-Mr. Hazeltine-withdrew his request' for rezoriing:' � � � ' �• - � • - � � : ...:.. . . . , ..., ., , . _ . . � The -creatio�n'of 'a GO��District wa�s'�to be eon•s'idered by the Planning.Commission. Mr: Hazeltirie '`asked tlie- $50. 00 �filing fee for rezoning be waived, -and this was deferred pending further consideration. � - � � � . .. . . � ' � . . _ . , ' ' . .... . .E.. ' ._.. .. MOTION: 'Made by'Councilman Moty,- seconded by;Couric`ilman. Chatfield that rezoning app'Tication of`Har`ry Hazeltine originally�scheduled for Februar.y 3rd �'7:30 P. M. be rescheduled for February 1.7th, 1964, 7,;30 P. M. < The Vote: Unanimous 'Ayes: ` " • � - AGRE�EMEIVT �- Shasta County� (Bechelli Lane) _ � Councilmen were advised that Agreeinent between�the Gounty of Shasta and the City for the wideriirig of �Bechelli Lane had been approved by Don��Chamberlin /1�� and`Jere Hurley, and was now in final form for approval by council. _/ .. ; _ � ._. � MOTION: Made by Councilman Kriegsman, seconded'b.y Gouncilma�m Chatfield .that Agreement betwe�en��the County of SHas�ta and the City-for the �widening of Beclielli 'Larie be appr'oved and the Mayor be authorized to sign said agreement. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes. ' � ,_ : r; � . . ., .. � - The following persons signed the Register: Ernest Rothe , H. Vickrey - . , . ,. , _ .. . . . . .Wxn. Coshow . ., There being no further business, on motion of Councilrnan Moty the meeting was adjourned. - __ �; .. � .. . . _ . . , . . � . ., . , ... . . APP�ED.� !�I � / ---� . . . . � . , . . `'� , . �/1 �,�,��,,-, � 1Vlayor Attest: ,� ,. .- - - - . � , � . . _ i l �...¢�� ,/'t��--��_ . . . Cit ' Cle rk � . . _, -_ _ . -. . . _ . _ : , - -�� . . _ . . _