Feb 18, 2025 6:00 PM - Redding City Council - Regular Meeting

ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. IF ANYONE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY ITEM CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING BEFORE OR DURING COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF THAT ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT A BLUE SPEAKER REQUEST FORM LOCATED IN THE LIGHTED OUTCOVES AT THE BACK OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALLOCATE A PUBLIC VIEW BINDER LOCATED ON THE PODIUM AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CHAMBERS. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND WE'LL DO THE INVOCATION BY PASTOR GLENN GIBSON AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. SHALL WE PRAY? GOD OF ALL CREATION, GRANT EACH OF US THIS EVENING THE WISDOM AND COURAGE TO KNOW AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND GOOD AND TRUE. AND MAY EACH GATHERED HERE SPEAK WHEN IT IS TIME TO SPEAK, LISTEN PATIENTLY AND RECEPTIVELY WHEN IT IS TIME TO LISTEN. AND MAY WE ALWAYS BE GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY, BY THE SPIRIT OF JUSTICE AND OF LOVE. THIS EVENING, LORD, I ASK FOR WISDOM AND STRENGTH AND COURAGE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND GOOD FOR EVERY PERSON. MAY WE PUT THE INTERESTS OF OTHERS ABOVE OUR OWN AND MAY WE ACT WITH LOVE FOR THE COMMON GOOD. MAY WE BE KIND NEIGHBORS, RECOGNIZING YOUR IMAGE IN EVERY PERSON. I PRAY THESE THINGS IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AMEN. MS. SCHAR? COUNCIL MEMBER AUDET IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER DANUKA? PRESENT. MAYOR PRO TEM REZNOR? PRESENT. VICE MAYOR LATOFFE? HERE. AND MAYOR MUNZ? HERE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALLOCATE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER FOR 30 MINUTES TOTAL AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON-AGENDIZED MATTERS WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION. THE MAYOR WILL DETERMINE THE ORDER OF THE SPEAKERS, AND IF 30 MINUTES IS NOT ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A SPEAKER REQUEST FORM TO THE CITY CLERK, THE COUNCIL WILL TRAIL THIS ITEM TO THE END OF THE OPEN SESSION AGENDA. THE REMAINING SPEAKERS WILL ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE DOLORES AND ALEX. SO ALEX, YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? AND THEN DOLORES, YOU'LL BE SECOND. GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WHAT I'M HERE ABOUT IS WATER. A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM, HAVING A LITTLE TOO MUCH HERE AND A LITTLE NOT ENOUGH SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DOESN'T SHOW THE PROPER RESPONSIBILITY OF TAKING CARE OF WATER OR TAKING CARE OF LAND, LAND MANAGEMENT, OVERGROWTH, LIKE PACKING A BUNCH OF RATS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, ANTS, AND THEN THEY HAVE A FIRE. NOW THEY WANT US TO GIVE UP ALL OUR WATER. IT'S CALIFORNIA. BUT WHEN WE NEEDED HELP, THE FIRE WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, DONE BY A COMPANY, AND OTHER PROBLEMS. BUT THE FACT WAS, THEY WEREN'T THERE FOR US, AND WE HAVE TO BE THERE FOR THEM, AND THEY'RE STILL NOT DOING THE RIGHT THINGS. THEY BELIEVE THAT MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. MORE LEAVES THE LESS FOR THE LESS. IT'S REAL SIMPLE. WHEN PEOPLE USE THE GOVERNMENT OR THE LAW TO PROMOTE BAD THINGS FOR OTHER PEOPLE AND GOOD THINGS FOR ONLY A FEW, IT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR. BUT WATER IS PRECIOUS, AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DOESN'T DESERVE A DROP AT THIS TIME. BUT I'M SURE THAT IF THEY LOOK INTO A FEW PROBLEMS THAT THEY CAN DEAL WITH, THEY COULD BRING IT BACK, ALL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, IF THEY WANTED. BUT THE FACT IS, THE WAY THEY BUILD, AND THE GREED, IT'S NOT TOO BAD. EVERYBODY WANTS TO MAKE A LITTLE MONEY, TAKE CARE OF THEIR FAMILY, AND UNFORTUNATELY, OUR RIVER, THE SACRAMENTO, HAS BEEN GETTING DIRTY. WE KNOW WHY. WHY WON'T WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, IN SACRAMENTO, THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT COULD HELP. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS I NEED TO EXPRESS TO YOU IN SOME CONCERNS. I'M SORRY. I HAVE TO PUT MY STUFF UP THERE. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING MR. DR. DANUKA. I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN REGARDING YOU STEERING TO TRY TO BUILD THIS PROJECT REGARDING, I GUESS IT'S A MEDICAL SCHOOL. YOU HAVE A CONFLICT. YOU ARE A DOCTOR. FOR YOU TO BE INVOLVED AND TO PROMOTE THAT, AND ALSO PROVIDING, ATTENDING MEETINGS, PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH KEVIN KREY AND CORKY HARMON, AND NOT ALLOWING THE PUBLIC, AND YOU ARE TRYING TO BUILD A SCHOOL FOR NURSES AND EVERYTHING, THAT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. YOU CANNOT BE INVOLVED. IF YOU GET INVOLVED AND MOVE FORWARD, YOU WILL BE ONE OF MY LIST OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY IS UNDER INVESTIGATION, LIKE KEVIN KREY. I HAVE HIM UNDER INVESTIGATION WITH THE FBPC. HERE'S MY LIST OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVESTIGATING RIGHT NOW, INCLUDING A COUPLE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHO ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU BE CAUTIOUS, BECAUSE IF YOU MOVE FORWARD, I WILL FILE WHATEVER I HAVE TO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE FBI. YOU CANNOT DOUBLE DIP AND THINK IT'S OKAY FOR YOU, IN THE END, TO TRY TO PROMOTE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM IT. I ATTENDED QUITE A FEW MEETINGS IN THE PAST WITH YOU WITH CIVIL RIGHTS AND EVERYTHING, AND I TOLD YOU ABOUT KEVIN KREY, HOW HE IS. HE'S A CROOK. HE'S A LIAR. AND HE'S ALSO DOUBLE DIPPING, MAKING MONEY WITH ALL THE OTHER SCHOOLS WHILE HE'S IN OFFICE, WHICH IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PROHIBIT LAWS. IT'S CRIMINAL FOR ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO USE HIS POSITION FOR PERSONAL GAIN. SO I'M LETTING YOU KNOW, AND I'M WARNING YOU, IF YOU MOVE FORWARD, YOU WILL BE PART OF MY LIST, AND I WILL FILE MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU. AND I'VE BEEN KEEPING TRACK, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T ATTEND THESE MEETINGS, BELIEVE ME, THAT MY FULL-TIME JOB AT HOME IS FILING COMPLAINTS AGAINST THOSE WHO THINK THEY'RE ABOVE THE LAW, THOSE WHO THINK THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE AND MAKING MONEY OFF OF THE PEOPLE. AND IF YOU CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THAT WITH KEVIN KREY AND CORKY, AND THEN USING WHAT'S HIS NAME, CHRIS STREET, TRYING TO GET HIM TO STEER PEOPLE TO ATTEND THESE MEETINGS AND TRYING TO GET YOUR BUSINESS GOING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO. IT'S GOING TO BE YOUR BUSINESS. SO I'M JUST WARNING YOU THAT YOU ARE GOING INTO THAT, WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE VIOLATING MULTIPLE LAWS, WHICH YOU ALREADY ARE. AND SO, IF I WAS YOU, I'D BE VERY CAREFUL, VERY, AND YOU THINK IT'S FUNNY? YOU THINK IT'S FUNNY FOR YOU TO SMILE? I DON'T THINK SO. THANK YOU. THE CONSENT CALENDAR. YOU MAY. I MIGHT CONSIDER IT TO BE BRIEF. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING YOUR CONCERN. I WILL ABSOLUTELY BE MINDFUL OF THAT. I JUST WANT TO ASSURE THAT I HAVE ZERO DESIRE OF OWNING THIS OR RUNNING THIS FOR PROFIT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS ITEMS CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND OR WHICH HAVE BEEN INDIVIDUALLY SCRUTINIZED BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ARE ANTICIPATED TO REQUIRE NO FURTHER DELIBERATION. IF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHES TO ADDRESS AN ITEM ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, PLEASE FILE A SPEAKER REQUEST FORM AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY CLERK BEFORE THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS CONSIDERED. IT SHALL BE THE PREROGATIVE OF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER BEFORE THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS ACTIVE ON TO, ONE, COMMENT ON AN ITEM, TWO, RESPOND TO ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON AN ITEM, THREE, REQUEST A RECORD REFLECT AN ABSTENTION OR A NAY VOTE ON AN ITEM, FOUR, REMOVE AN ITEM OR PLACE IT ON THE REGULAR PORTION OF THE AGENDA FOR DELIVERY TO A STAFF REPORT AND OUR EXTENDED DISCUSSION OR DELIBERATION. WE ARE GOING TO REMOVE 4.1A AND BRING IT BACK AS 9.1A. WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REST OF THE CALENDAR. MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL? WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. MS. COUNCIL MEMBER RESSNER. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER DANUKA. AYE. VICE MAYOR LATAU. AYE. AND MAYOR MUNZ. YES. AND ODETTE IS ABSENT. MR. MAYOR. YES. MAY I? YES. SO JUST FOR THE AUDIENCE'S BENEFIT, WHAT THAT MEANS, REMOVING FROM CONSENT, JUST MEANS THAT IT GOES ON THE OPEN CALENDAR FOR A FULL DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL. SO IT HAPPENS TONIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE MOVING RIGHT ALONG. WE'LL START WITH 5.1A. CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENT TO THE SCHATZ PUBLIC LIBRARY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I RECOMMENDED JENNIFER POWELL TO TAKE HER SEAT AGAIN. AND I CONSULTED WITH TRAVIS MINNEY. AND I CONSULTED WITH ERICA JONES. AND SHE CAME WITH VERY HIGH REGARDS. SO I RECOMMENDED HER AGAIN. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. ROLL CALL. COUNCIL MEMBER ODETTE IS ABSENT. DANUKA. AYE. REZNOR. AYE. LATAU. AYE. AND MAYOR MUNZ. YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO 9.1A. THE THING THAT WE'RE ALL HERE ABOUT. MR. TIPPIN. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO THIS ITEM IS REGARDING AN ISSUE THAT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH. AFTER THE CAR FIRE, THERE WAS GRANT MONEY AVAILABLE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CALLED CDBG DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING, WHICH WE, WITH COUNCIL'S CONSENT, APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED JUST OVER $22 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING CONSTRUCTION OF A SUBDIVISION OFF OF COURTS HILL DRIVE. SO AS THE COUNCIL IS AWARE, WE'VE HELD TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS TO DATE REGARDING THIS PROJECT. AND AS THE WORK IS PROGRESSING ON DEVELOPING THE PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL INFORMATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP, WE HAVE A NEED TO SUBMIT THAT TO PLANNING. WE FELT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL BE ABLE TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS ITEM IS SEEKING TONIGHT. AFTER THAT SUBMITTAL, THEN THE FULL PUBLIC PROCESS THAT IS COMMON WITH EVERY SUBDIVISION MAP THE CITY OF READING CONSIDERS WILL BEGIN ITS DUE PROCESS. AND SO THAT ENTAILS STAFF'S REVIEW OF ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, REVIEW OF NECESSARY PERMITS, SUBMITTAL TO THE COMMUNITY FOR FULL REVIEW AND COMMENT, ULTIMATELY ARRIVING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL OR OTHER DIRECTION AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD SEE FIT. SO THE ITEM TONIGHT IS NOT AN APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. IT'S SIMPLY AUTHORIZING ME TO SUBMIT THAT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LANDOWNER, WHICH IS YOU, FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEWING THE TENTATIVE MAP TO SEE IF IT'S SUFFICIENT TO FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION ONCE PUBLIC REVIEW IS COMPLETE. WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. WELL, WE HAVE SOME REQUEST FORMS. WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL LET THEM SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU IF WE NEED IT AND WE'LL MOVE FROM THERE. CHERYL BULLOCK, YOU'RE UP. NICK GASEK ON DECK. STEPHANIE GASEK AFTER THAT. GOOD EVENING, CITY MANAGER, PLANNERS, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CHERYL BULLOCK. TONIGHT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CARR FIRE AND THE LESSONS THAT WE LEARNED FOLLOWING THE CARR FIRE. THE REALITY IS AND STILL IS TO THIS DAY THAT PEOPLE ON QUARTZ HILL ARE IN DANGER. WE LIVE IN A HIGH FIRE ZONE AND IT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP KEEP US SAFE. WE NEED TO BE DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE SO THAT THE TYPES OF SERIOUS EVACUATIONS, INJURIES AND FATALITIES THAT HAPPENED DURING THE CARR FIRE DO NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS, SINCE THE CARR FIRE, NOTHING'S REALLY CHANGED. WE'VE SEEN NO ATTEMPT ON THE CITY'S PART TO MAKE ANYTHING SAFER. FOR CURRENT RESIDENTS AND ADDING ANOTHER SUBDIVISION WITHOUT ADDING INFRASTRUCTURE MEANS THAT FUTURE RESIDENTS WILL ALSO SHARE IN THAT DANGER WITH US. BOTH CAL FIRE AND THE CHP WROTE REPORTS LAST SUMMER ADVISING THAT NO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES BE ADDED UNTIL THE DEFICIENCIES IN EVACUATION ROUTES ON QUARTZ HILL ARE CORRECTED. AT THIS POINT, IT APPEARS THAT THE CITY IS IGNORING THOSE REPORTS. THE OTHER NIGHT I READ CAL FIRE'S GREEN REPORT WHICH TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED AT THE TOP OF QUARTZ HILL, ALL THE DIFFERENT FIRE PERSONNEL THAT WERE INJURED, HOW THAT TOOK PLACE AND OF COURSE ABOUT JEREMY STOKES' DEATH. IT'S A VERY SERIOUS SITUATION. WE'RE AWARE THE CITY NEEDS MONEY, BUT MONEY DOES NOT TAKE PRIORITY OVER CITIZENS' SAFETY. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING. WE NEED THE CITY COUNCIL TO MEET WITH US. WE NEED YOU TO COME OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT WE CAN TAKE YOU ON SOME TOURS. WE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. MANY PEOPLE WHO WERE EVACUATED AND PEOPLE IN THE CITY DON'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE SEVERITY OF THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE THERE. WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT. FIREPROOFING OF THESE HOMES, WE KNOW THAT'S A BIG THING THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. WELL, THE CAR FIRE WAS IN EXCESS OF 2,600 DEGREES, WINDS 135 TO 170 MILES PER HOUR. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DELAY THIS VOTE, TO VOTE NO TONIGHT SO THAT YOU CAN SPEND MORE TIME STUDYING THIS PROJECT WITH US. THANK YOU. NICK? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS NICK GASSICK. I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS, SO I'LL TRY TO SPEAK CLEAR AND CONCISE AND NOT TOO FAST. I JUST WANT TO FIRST TOUCH ON MR. TIPPIN, HOW WHEN HE DISCUSSED THE TENTATIVE PLAN, IT'S NOT APPROVED FOR THE FINAL PLAN. MY DAY JOB, I WORK FOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT. I'M AN ENGINEER. I DO THIS ON A SIMILAR ACTIVITIES ON A MASS SCALE, SO I'M INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS AND ALL THE RED TAPE GOING THROUGH. EACH STEP IS A STEP CLOSER TO APPROVAL. JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT A FINAL PLAN, THAT IS ONE MORE STEP TO THE NEXT STEP. I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN YOUR HEAD, IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW. IT'S NOT SO TENTATIVE AS, OH, HEY, IT'S NO BIG DEAL. EACH STEP IS A STEP CLOSER TO THE END GOAL. THAT BEING SAID, OUR MAIN CONCERN, AS CHERYL DISCUSSED, IS THE EVACUATION ROUTES. THE CURRENT PLAN HAS THE MAIN ENTRANCE ON BOYD VENTURA NORTH, JUST SOUTH OF KESWICK DAM ROAD, AND IT DEPOSITS THE TRAFFIC ONTO COUNTY PROPERTY. WHEN I ASKED IN ONE OF THE MEETINGS, ACTUALLY THE ONLY MEETING WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS OR WITH MR. TIPPIN, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THEY COULD DO ABOUT THE TRAFFIC COMING INTO UNSAFE INTERSECTIONS AND ANY KIND OF FLOWS ONTO COUNTY PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF THEIR RIGHT OF WAY. ALL THIS TRAFFIC THAT'S COMING THROUGH IS BEING DEPOSITED TO OR COMING FROM COUNTY PROPERTY THAT IS CONTROLLED THROUGH UNSAFE INTERSECTIONS THAT HAVE CONCENTRATIONS OF ACCIDENTS. THAT TRAFFIC THAT YOU'RE SEEING COMING THROUGH KESWICK DAM ROAD IS NOT GOING TO GO WHERE THEY'RE SAYING IT'S GOING TO GO. IT'S GOING TO COME THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHOKE DOWN THERE, AND THEN WE HAVE 128 POSSIBLE HOMES WITH 256 CARS, POTENTIALLY TWO CARS PER HOME, ADDITIONAL CHOKING AT THAT POINT WITH NO PLAN FOR INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOWS. THAT IS OUR MAIN CONCERN. THERE IS JUST A HUGE SAFETY PROBLEM. NOT TOO LONG AGO, THE CAMP FIRE, ALL THOSE PEOPLE, UNFORTUNATELY, WERE BURNED UP BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET OUT. I CAME FROM LAKE CALIFORNIA IN COTTONWOOD. I'VE LIVED THERE MOST OF MY LIFE, AND THAT WAS A REAL ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT, AND WE MOVED AWAY FROM THERE BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF FIRES. ACTUALLY, THE DAY WE'RE MOVING OUT, WE HAD A FIRE ON OUR ROAD, AND THEN NOW WE'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY BE BACK IN THE SAME SPOT. WE'RE NOT ASKING TO SHUT THIS PROJECT DOWN. WE JUST WOULD LIKE YOU GUYS TO COME OUT AND REALLY SEE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN HERE BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE EVERYTHING'S BEEN FAST-TRACKED. WE HAD ONE MEETING THAT WE WERE ABLE TO COMMENT ON. THE SECOND MEETING WAS AN OPEN HOUSE. IT WAS GREAT. I DO PLENTY OF OPEN HOUSES WORKING FOR THE STATE, BUT IT WASN'T AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AND HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH OUR COMMENTS, SO WE JUST ASK THAT YOU GUYS VOTE NO TODAY. NOT VOTE NO FOREVER. JUST VOTE NO TODAY AND TAKE SOME MORE TIME TO SEE WHAT EVERYONE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS FEARING. THANK YOU. WE HAVE STEPHANIE GASEK, SARAH THOMAS, AND MIKE WALLACE. ALL RIGHT. I'M ALSO A LITTLE NERVOUS, SO I'LL TRY NOT TO STUTTER. I'M GOING TO KEEP MINE SHORT AND SWEET, BUT MY NAME IS STEPHANIE GASEK, AND I AM A CITY OF READING RESIDENT WHO ALSO LIVES NEAR THIS NEW SUBDIVISION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE POPPING UP. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO EXPLAIN MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND HOW THE FIRE EVACUATION SAFETY OF BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS WILL BE AFFECTED. THIS NEW PEAK DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE LOCATED DIRECTLY WHERE THE PATH OF THE DEADLY 2018 CAR FIRE WAS, WHICH, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, IT'S A DAILY REMINDER WHEN WE DRIVE THROUGH ON COURTS HILL, THERE'S MEMORIALS FOR TWO LITTLE DEAD CHILDREN AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER AND ALSO FIREFIGHTERS. SO THAT'S A DAILY REMINDER THAT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS GOING ON THAT NEEDS CONSTRUCTED. SO SINCE THE CAR FIRE, THERE HAS BEEN NO FIRE EVACUATION IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE COURTS HILL AREA AT ALL IN THAT ROAD. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY OF READING PAUSES ALL ACTIVITY ON THIS PEAK SUBDIVISION UNTIL ADDITIONAL FIRE EVACUATION ROUTES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THANK YOU. SARAH THOMAS, MIKE WALLACE, AND DIANA HARTMAN. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SARAH THOMAS. I LIVE IN THE CITY OF READING, ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PEAK SUBDIVISION OFF OF COURTS HILL ROAD. THE COURTS HILL AREA, INCLUDING THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE THE PEAK'S SUBDIVISION IS NOW PROPOSED, WAS IN THE DIRECT PATH OF THE 2018 CAR FIRE AND FIRE TORNADO THAT CLAIMED FOUR LIVES. EIGHT LIVES WERE LOST IN THE CAR FIRE. HALF OF THOSE, JEREMY STOKES, MELODY BLEDSOE, JAMES ROBERTS, AND EMILY ROBERTS, WERE WITHIN 600 FEET OF THE PROPOSED PEAK'S SUBDIVISION. AT THIS TIME, AT THE TIME OF THE CAR FIRE, COURTS HILL ROAD WAS THE ONLY EVACUATION ROUTE. AND SINCE THEN, NOT ONE ADDITIONAL FIRE EVACUATION ROUTE HAS BEEN ADDED. NOT ONE. LAST YEAR, THE 2024 CAL FIRE SUBDIVISION SURVEY REPORTS FOR THE COURTS HILL ROAD AREA RECOMMENDED TO CREATE A SECONDARY ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISIONS FOR EVACUATION AND ACCESS. CITY STAFF HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION PLANS FOR THE COURTS HILL AREA INCLUDED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AS EVIDENCED BY THE K-RAIL AT KEELE COURT AND STEAMBOAT STREETS. BUT THOSE PLANS ARE OVER 30 YEARS OLD AND OUT OF DATE. WHEN THOSE PLANS WERE MADE, NEITHER THE CITY NOR THE DEVELOPERS COULD HAVE FORESEEN A FIRE TORNADO CUTTING DIRECTLY THROUGH THE VERY AREA WHERE THE PEAK SUBDIVISION IS NOW PROPOSED. CONSTRUCTING THE PEAK SUBDIVISION WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FIRE EVACUATION ROUTES PUTS THE LIVES OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS AT RISK. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT ALL ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE PEAK'S DEVELOPMENT BE PAUSED UNTIL THE FIRE EVACUATION ISSUE IS PROPERLY ADDRESSED. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU, SARAH. NEXT UP, MIKE WALLACE, DIANA HARTMAN, AND NANCY COSTA. HELLO, MY NAME IS MIKE WALLACE. I LIVE IN THE SUBDIVISION ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PEAK SUBDIVISION. I'VE BEEN THERE OVER FIVE YEARS. I DRIVE IN AND OUT THE VARIOUS ROADS IN AND OUT OF TOWN, IF NOT DAILY, MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY. I RECREATE, WALK, RIDE MY BIKE. I PAY ATTENTION TO TRAFFIC FLOW. NO CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED WHATSOEVER THAT I CAN FIND INFRASTRUCTURE-WISE TO MAKE IT A SAFER COMMUNITY FOR THE HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. I BOUGHT A HOME THAT WAS REBUILT AFTER THE HOME THAT WAS THERE BURNT DOWN, LIKE MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS. TWENTY-FOUR OF MY 30-YEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT CAREER WAS RIGHT HERE IN SHASTA COUNTY. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED THROUGHOUT MY CAREER WITH EVACUATING COMMUNITIES DUE TO NATURAL EVENTS AND FIRES, AS WELL AS TRAFFIC CONTROL, ACCIDENTS, AND IT WOULD BE ANOTHER NIGHTMARE JUST LIKE THE CAR FIRE ONLY EXTIRPATED BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPOSED ON THAT NARROW ROADWAYS THAT GO IN AND OUT OF THAT COMMUNITY. I JUST URGE YOU TO CONSIDER NOT JUMPING IN RIGHT AWAY, BUT TAKING THE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY IS SAFE, NOT JUST FOR MYSELF AND MY FAMILY, BUT FOR MY NEIGHBORS AND ANYONE WHO MIGHT MOVE INTO THE PEAK SUBDIVISION IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MIKE, DIANA HARTMAN, NANCY COSTA, AND JERRY OR JENNY MIDDLETON. GOOD EVENING. I'M DIANA HARTMAN. I AM A RESIDENT IN THE DIRECT VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PEAKS PROJECT. I'M OBVIOUSLY HERE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY ISSUE AND FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. OUR FAMILY HAS LOST THREE HOMES IN THE CAR FIRE. MY HUSBAND AND I WERE ONE OF THE LAST PEOPLE OUT ALIVE THE DAY OF THE CAR FIRE. MY HUSBAND SUSTAINED BURNS ON THE BACK OF HIS ARMS FROM RUNNING FROM THE FIRE. WE EXPERIENCED THE GRIDLOCK AT THE TOP OF QUARTZ HILL ROAD, AND MY SISTER-IN-LAW TOOK AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE. SHE WENT KESWICK DAM ROAD, AND SHE EXPERIENCED THE SAME GRIDLOCK. THANKFULLY, THE FIRE STOPPED AND DIDN'T BURN US ALL UP. BUT SINCE THE CAR FIRE, THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER REMEDIES IN THE EVACUATION ROUTES. I BELIEVE THAT THE CLIMATE IN OUR COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT IS CHANGING, AND I BELIEVE THAT AN OVERARCHING THEME OF ACCOUNTABILITY IS QUICKLY FORMING IN OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I DO THINK THAT IT WILL TRICKLE DOWN TO OUR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALSO. THE CITY OFFICIALS ARE CHARGED WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF REDDING CITIZENS. NOW I DON'T BELIEVE YOU SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR SAFETY RISKS THAT YOU'RE UNAWARE OF, BUT I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND LIABLE FOR SAFETY RISKS THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF, AND OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE, AND INTENTIONALLY EXACERBATE. THE CAR FIRE WAS AN ANOMALY AT THE TIME. THERE WERE NO FIRES LIKE THAT, BUT NOW THOSE FIRES ARE COMMONPLACE, AND WE HAVE TO PREPARE FOR THEM, AND THAT LENDS A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR GOVERNMENT AND A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY OF REDDING IS A BUSINESS, AND IN BUSINESS SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT GENERATES REVENUE, AND WHAT'S RIGHT ALWAYS WINS. IT'S ALWAYS THE RIGHT DECISION. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU HOLD OFF UNTIL WE HAVE THE CORRECT INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NANCY COSTA AND JENNY MIDDLETON. HELLO, MY NAME IS NANCY COSTA, AND I LIVE IN RIVER RIDGE TERRACE. HOW IMPORTANT IS FIRE EVACUATION SAFETY? MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED TO REDDING IN 2020 AFTER LIVING FOR 25 YEARS IN SANTA ROSA. WE SURVIVED THE DEVASTATING TUBBS FIRE IN 2017, AND MANY DID NOT. WHEN BUYING OUR HOUSE ON KEEL COURT, IT WAS ALREADY A LITTLE CONCERNING TO US THAT THERE WAS ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SMALL, AND MOST OF THE HOMES ON SPINNAKER HAD NOT YET BEEN REBUILT AFTER THE FIRE. TRAFFIC WAS MINIMAL. IN 2021, A NEW DEVELOPMENT WAS BUILT ON AMERICANA WAY, ADDING 25 NEW HOMES. MORE CARS, MORE TRAFFIC. ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT. CITING THE CITY OF REDDING COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, RELEASED ON 10-8-24, THERE WERE THREE MAJOR WILDFIRES MENTIONED. 2017 TUBBS FIRE, THERE WERE 22 DEATHS. THE 2018 CARR FIRE, 8 DEATHS. THE 2018 CAMP FIRE, 85 DEATHS. THESE THREE FIRES HAD A FEW THINGS IN COMMON. WIND-DRIVEN, THEY ALL HAD FIRE TORNADOES. ONE MAIN EVACUATION ROUTE. PEOPLE WERE TRAPPED DUE TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AND DEATHS OCCURRED. THE CONCERNS IN 2018 ARE THE SAME TODAY. THERE'S STILL ONLY ONE WAY OFF THE HILL, AND IT'S DOWN QUARTZ HILL ROAD, WHICH WAS A PARKING LOT ON JULY 26, 2018. THE CITY WANTS TO ADD 120 NEW HOMES BEHIND SPINNAKER, WHICH WILL ADD MORE THAN 300 VEHICLES. MAYBE AS MANY AS 500 TO 600. WHERE WILL ALL THE CARS GO? STANFORD HILL AND LAND PARK WILL ALSO USE QUARTZ HILL FOR EVACUATION. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE SORTS OF TRAGEDIES THAT WILL OCCUR IF ANOTHER FIRE TORNADO HAPPENS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CITY HAS TOLD US THAT THEY ARE STUDYING ANOTHER EXIT POINT, WHICH WILL ALSO LEAD DRIVERS DIRECTLY ONTO QUARTZ HILL ROAD. ON PAGE 40 OF THE REDDING CWPP, IT IS NOTED THAT, QUOTE, AS REDDING GROWS BY DEVELOPING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS AND UNDERTAKING NEW EXPANSION, THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH WILDFIRES IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE, END QUOTE. WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF REDDING? HOW CAN THE CITY, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, ADD 120 NEW HOMES AND POTENTIALLY 600 MORE CARS WITHOUT FIRST CONSIDERING AN ALTERNATE ESCAPE ROUTE BEYOND QUARTZ HILL ROAD? CAN WE PLEASE LOOK FOR A GRANT TO BUILD AN EXTENSION TO THE BUENA VENTURA ROAD? UNTIL WE HAVE A SAFETY PLAN IN PLACE FOR FIRE EVACUATION, I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO ADD THESE HOMES TO THE AREA. THANK YOU. JENNY? I'M HERE. I'M PROBABLY REALLY GOING TO REGRET NOT BRINGING UP A SCRIPT, BUT MY HEAD IS JUST PING-PONGING AROUND BECAUSE I HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS RESEARCHING YOUR PROPOSAL TO PUT IN A NEW SUBDIVISION ON QUARTZ HILL. WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS ADDING MORE HOMES TO THAT AREA IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THE SPIRIT AND THE DIRECTION OF THAT FUNDING, WHICH IS INTENDED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. INFRASTRUCTURE IS WHAT WE NEED ON QUARTZ HILL. WE NEED A SECOND EXIT. WE NEED MAYBE FUEL REDUCTION. WE NEED A LOT OF THINGS IN THAT AREA, BUT WHAT WE DON'T NEED IS 120 MORE HOMES, 250 MORE CARS TRYING TO EXIT THE SAME ROAD THAT DIDN'T WORK IN 2018. I HAVE BEEN WAITING AND WAITING AND WAITING FOR WHEN THE CITY OF REDDING IS GOING TO HOLD THE HEARING WHERE THE CITY RESIDENTS GET TO SPEAK WITH THE COUNCIL ABOUT HOW WE COULD USE THAT $122 MILLION, $22 MILLION. I'VE BEEN WAITING BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF IDEAS AND WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD IDEAS HOW TO USE THAT FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT BENEFITS EVERYONE IN THIS COMMUNITY. THAT HEARING HASN'T HAPPENED. INSTEAD, WE'VE JUST HAD A DOG AND PONY SHOW ABOUT A NEW SUBDIVISION, WHICH GRANTED, IT LOOKS GREAT, IT'S HARDSCAPED TO KEEP THE HOUSES SAFE, BUT THE PRIORITY OVER THE HOUSES SHOULD BE LIFE, LIFE, OUR OWN SAFETY. WE LOST TOO MANY LIVES IN THAT AREA TRYING TO EVACUATE IN 2018, AND SINCE 2018, OUR EVACUATION ROUTES HAVE ONLY BEEN DECREASED, NOT INCREASED, AND YET YOU WANT TO ADD MORE HOMES. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. WE NEED A MEETING WHERE WE CAN SIT DOWN WITH ALL THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH OF THE QUARTZ HILL AREA AND TALK ABOUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET US OUT OF THERE SAFELY WHEN ANOTHER FIRE, PARTICULARLY A NORTH WIND FIRE, OCCURS. DON'T VOTE ON THIS SUBDIVISION TONIGHT. TAKE A STEP BACK. THE GRANT IS SUPPOSED TO ALLOW FOR COMMUNITY INPUT INTO HOW THAT FUNDING IS SPENT. PLEASE LISTEN TO US. PLEASE GIVE US A VENUE TO TELL YOU THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE THERE. THANK YOU. ONE MORE. DOLORES, I APOLOGIZE. I CAN'T READ YOUR LAST NAME. SO, DOLORES, YOU'RE UP. JUST LISTENING TO THESE PEOPLE COME UP HERE. ASKING, PLEADING WITH YOU TO LISTEN TO THEM. I FEEL THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. YOU SHOULD CONSIDER WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU BECAUSE FROM WHAT I HEAR AND WHAT I SEE, THEY WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A POTENTIAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO BECAUSE YOU WILL BE JEOPARDIZING LIVES. IF YOU THINK MAKING MONEY AND BUILDING MORE HOUSES AND ALL THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LOOKING INTO WHAT THESE CITIZENS ARE SAYING TO YOU, I TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, IF THEY GET ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO OVERTURN WHAT YOU DECIDE TONIGHT, THEY ACTUALLY COULD PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT JUST IN THAT AREA, WHATEVER PERTAINS TO THE CITIZEN, BUT THE CITIZEN SHOULD NOT BE COMING HERE AND ASKING AND PLEADING FOR THEIR LIVES TO BE MADE SURE THEY'RE IN A SAFE LIVING AREA. THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE NOT IN DANGER. SO IF YOU DO DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND YOURSELF IN THE MIDDLE OF A LITIGATION. SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE FILING A LAWSUIT. SO I MEAN, I REALLY WOULD CONSIDER TO TABLE THIS AND GET THE CITIZENS ENGAGED BECAUSE IF YOU GUYS DECIDE TO DO THIS, YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO PUT THE CITY IN JEOPARDY AND I KNOW IN FINANCIAL, YOU GUYS CANNOT AFFORD THAT. SO I FEEL FOR THE CITIZENS, I DO, AND IT REALLY BOTHERS ME THAT THEY HAVE TO COME UP HERE AND ASK AND ASK, AND SO IT'S JUST FRUSTRATING. IT'S NOT JUST HERE IN REDDING, IT'S EVERYWHERE. ALL THE CITIZENS ALWAYS HAVE TO ASK THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT. IT'S LIKE PULLING TEETH TO GET YOU GUYS TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT. DON'T YOU SEE THESE CITIZENS? THEY LIVE HERE. THEY PAY YOUR SALARY. THEY'RE YOUR BOSS. YOUR BOSS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PLEAD TO ASK YOU TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT. YOU WORK FOR THEM. IT'S NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IT'S JUST THAT MAYBE BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE SO USED TO HAVING IT YOUR WAY AND NOBODY MAKES YOU ACCOUNTABLE AND HOLD YOUR FEET TO THE DAMN FIRE. THAT'S WHAT THESE CITIZENS NEED TO DO, START HOLDING YOU PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO WE'VE HAD ONE WORKSHOP ALREADY, OR I DID ATTEND THAT WORKSHOP WHEN THE COMMITTEE WAS THERE. WE HAD TWO. WE HAD ONE IN DECEMBER THAT WAS WITH A SMALLER GROUP, THOSE WHO ARE ON SPINNAKER. SO THOSE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. AND THEN WE HAD A SECOND ONE WHICH WE PUT OUT FLYERS TO ABOUT 800 FEET RADIUS FROM THE PROJECT LOCATION, AND THAT WAS MORE OF AN OPEN HOUSE FORMAT WHERE PEOPLE COULD COME AND MEET, AND THAT'S THE ONE YOU ATTENDED. NEITHER OF THOSE WERE PART OF THE TRUE BLUE PLANNING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BEGIN AFTER WE SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. THAT WAS VERY WELL ATTENDED FROM WHEN I WAS THERE. SO FOR A COUPLE HOURS AND A COUPLE COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT, LIKE IT'S INTRIGUING TO ME JUST FOR THE FACT OF WHEN WE BUILD, WE TAKE AWAY THE FUEL, WE TAKE AWAY SOME RISK OF WILDFIRE. EVERY TIME WE CAN BUILD MORE ROADS, IT CREATES CONNECTING ROADS FOR THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS AROUND THERE. SO THAT WAS AT LEAST MY FEEDBACK OR MY THOUGHT PROCESS WHEN I SAW THE PROJECT. I LIKED THE FACT THAT WE HAD MORE CONNECTING ROADS TO THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS. WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SCREAMING ABOUT IN THE INSURANCE WORLD IS THEY JUST WANT BETTER RATES. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE SUGGESTING IS THEY WANT MORE ACCESS POINTS. THEY WANT MORE ROADS. THEY LOOK AT PARAMETERS OF IS THIS HOUSE WITHIN 600 FEET OF TWO ACCESS POINTS. AND A LOT OF THE HOMES IN SOME OF THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS DO NOT HAVE TWO-WAY ACCESS ROADS. BUT THIS SUBDIVISION DOES HELP THAT PUZZLE RIGHT THERE, BECAUSE IF THIS DOES GET BUILT, WE WILL HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT ROADS THAT GO OUT TO THE WEST WHERE THERE ARE SOME PLACES CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW THAT THEY'D HAVE TO TRAVEL 1,000 OR 2,000 FEET JUST TO GET OUT TO ONE MAIN ROAD. SO THAT PROJECT IS AT LEAST INTRIGUING TO ME FOR MORE ACCESS ROADS, TAKING AWAY FUEL, TAKING AWAY THE MITIGATION OF WILDFIRE RISK. I HEAR YOU ALL OUT THERE TODAY. YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY. YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RISK OF WHAT HAPPENS IF ANOTHER BIG FIRE HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE. AND I'D HOPE TO THINK THAT THAT WAS A ONE-IN-100-YEAR EVENT. HOPEFULLY WE NEVER SEE THAT EVER HAPPEN IN OUR LIFETIME. BUT YOU LIVED THROUGH IT. I DIDN'T LIVE IN THAT PART OF TOWN. BUT YOU WERE THE ONES THAT EXPERIENCED THAT FIRE, AND YOU WERE THE ONES THAT HAD TO EVACUATE AND GO THROUGH THE FEAR AND THE EMOTION OF, WERE YOU GOING TO GET OUT ALIVE? SO I DO HEAR THAT INDEED, BUT I DO SEE SOME BENEFITS TO IT AS WELL. PERHAPS THERE MIGHT BE A BENEFIT TO ANOTHER WORKSHOP TO SEE IF WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK. MAYBE YOU HAVE IDEAS ABOUT SOME MORE ADDITIONAL ROADS THAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE. THAT COMES TO MY MIND. I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD EVER GET THE BRIDGE BUILT ACROSS THE CONNECT TO BUENA VENTURA. I HEAR THAT MIGHT BE A $100 MILLION PROJECT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND IF ANYBODY HAS THAT MUCH MONEY, WE'LL TAKE IT. BUT THAT WOULD CERTAINLY, I'M SURE, WOULD HELP YOU ALL. YOU WOULD FEEL BETTER IF YOU HAD THAT BRIDGE TO BUENA VENTURA. THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A BIG ACCESS POINT ROAD, BUT THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM TO SOLVE. BUT THAT'S AT LEAST MY FEEDBACK, MY THOUGHTS. I SEE THE BENEFITS, AND I HEAR THE CONCERNS OF THE SAFETY. DOES MAYOR PRO TEM REZNOR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER THAN I'M ACTUALLY, I GUESS NOW THAT I'M GOING TO SPEAK, I MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. CITY MANAGER TIPPEN, THE NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS IS WHAT? SAY THAT THERE WAS APPROVAL THIS EVENING. WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP IN THE PLANNING APPLICATION PROCESS? AGAIN, THE ACTION TONIGHT IS SIMPLY TO AUTHORIZE ME TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO PLANNING, WHICH ACTUALLY BEGINS THE ENTIRE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT, REVIEW, SCRUTINIZATION, REVIEW OF FIRE RELATED CONCERNS, PUBLIC INPUT, ULTIMATELY CULMINATING IN A PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEY WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION AT THAT POINT. SO THAT WHOLE PROCESS, IF YOU PRESUME THAT THE INFORMATION THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED BY THE CONSULTANTS IS PERFECT, WILL STILL TAKE FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS. LIKELY TO GET THROUGH. COULD BE FASTER IF EVERYTHING WAS ABSOLUTELY STREAMLINED, BUT UNLIKELY. SO WE WOULD SEE, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND INPUT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. THANK YOU. ERIN, ANY FURTHER? THANK YOU. ERIN, ANY FURTHER? COULD WE PROPOSE SOMETHING IN APPROVING THIS PLAN, BUT SCHEDULING A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WALKTHROUGH SINCE THIS IS A CITY OWNED OR A, YOU KNOW, CITY RUN PROJECT? I WOULD DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT THAT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THEY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BOARD WHEN IT COMES TO APPEAL. YEAH. I THINK WE'D WANT TO REVIEW A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT THERE MAY BE A WAY TO DO ESSENTIALLY A SPECIAL MEETING AND A SITE VISIT AS PART OF THE PROCESS. WE WILL HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE A LITTLE BIT BETWEEN THE ROLE AS THE HEARING BODY AND THE DECIDER FACTS VERSUS BEING BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. OKAY. I WOULD, I WILL JUST SAY, SINCE I'M REMOTE, THAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING THAT WE MOVE INTO THE NEXT PROCESS THAT YOU SUBMIT AND A REQUEST FOR IN MY MOTION, A REQUEST FOR A SITE VISIT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE, I THINK THAT THAT'S JUST OUR DUTY. AND I WOULD LOVE TO WALK THROUGH THAT PERSONALLY. OKAY. THANK YOU, ERIC. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE THING WHICH I THINK JENNY MIDDLETON MENTIONED WAS THIS GRANT WAS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND COULD HAVE, COULD BE USED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT WAS ONE OF THE POINTS MADE. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FURTHER BECAUSE THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN PLANNED MUCH BEFORE WE CAME ON TO THE COUNCIL, AND I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, IS THAT CORRECT OR IS THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS SPECIFIC FOR HOUSING. SO THE GRANT IN ITS GENERIC FORM CAN BE USED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT EACH APPLICANT HAS TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ON WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING. SO WE REQUESTED TWO PROJECTS. ONE WAS THE BUENA VENTURA BRIDGE FOR ABOUT $125 MILLION, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS THIS SUBDIVISION. SO THE GRANT THAT WAS APPROVED WAS SPECIFIC TO THE SUBDIVISION, AND IT ONLY BUILDS THE INFRASTRUCTURE. IT DOES NOT BUILD THE HOUSES. SO THIS PROJECT WOULD ONLY GET TO THE ROADS AND THE SEWER LINES AND THE WATER LINES. THERE WOULD BE A SECONDARY PHASE THAT WOULD INVOLVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOMES. SO THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION, BECAUSE I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD BUILD THAT BRIDGE FOR $120 MILLION, BUT WE CANNOT, UNDER THIS GRANT AT LEAST. SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS, HOW MUCH IS THE TIME PRESSURE WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS? IS THERE ANY DEADLINE TO MEET, ANY DEADLINE FOR THE GRANTS, OR DO WE HAVE TIME TO ACTUALLY VISIT THE PLACE AND COMMUNICATE MORE WITH THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE? YEAH. SO THE TIME ELEMENT, THERE IS A TIME ELEMENT, HOWEVER, WE'VE REQUESTED A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION TO THAT, BECAUSE THE STATE WAS VERY TARDY IN PROVIDING US THE CONTRACTS TO MOVE FORWARD. SO I BELIEVE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT COMPLETE BY DECEMBER OF 26, WAS THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY DECEMBER OF 2026. WE'VE ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION TO HAVE IT BY 2028, SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION ULTIMATELY INTO CONSTRUCTION, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE LIMITED CONSTRUCTION SEASON. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED WORD FROM THE STATE WHETHER THEY APPROVED THAT EXTENSION AS OF YET. THE THIRD QUESTION I HAD WAS, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK IT IS TRUE ALREADY, BUT I'M JUST, IT'S KIND OF A RHETORICAL QUESTION, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BROUGHT THIS QUESTION WHETHER THE CITY IS GOING TO PROFIT FROM THIS IN TERMS OF MONEY. I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT, BUT JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, OKAY, WE ARE NOT REALLY LOOKING FOR PROFIT IN THIS, RIGHT? NO. OKAY. WE ARE NOT, THE CITY IS NOT DRIVEN BY THAT. THE NEXT THING IS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN INVOLVEMENT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND THEY HAVE LOOKED AT IT FROM VARIOUS ANGLES, AND WHATEVER CONCERNS THEY HAD ARE BEING ADDRESSED OR WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PLANNING PHASE, RIGHT? CORRECT. AS OF THIS POINT, THEY'VE BEEN MORE OF, LET'S SAY, A CONSULTING ENTITY AS WE MOVE THROUGH JUST THIS PRELIMINARY DESIGN AS GETTING READY TO SUBMIT. ONCE IT GETS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY BECOME AN OFFICIAL REVIEWER, AND SO THEIR COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED, ACCEPTED, DOCUMENTED, LOGGED, AND HAVE TO BE RESPONDED TO. AND JUST TO REITERATE THIS, THAT THIS WILL BE GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS AND ALL THE COMMENT PERIOD AS WELL AS PUBLIC COMMENTS DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AS WELL AS LATER ON AGAIN. SO THIS IS NOT THE FINAL THING AT ALL, AND FINAL APPROVAL WILL BE VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE ONLY QUESTION, LAST FINAL QUESTION I HAVE IS, IS THERE ANY HARM IN TABLING THIS FOR ANOTHER TWO TO FOUR WEEKS SO THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ANY PERSON WHO WANTS TO TALK WITH THE COUNCIL OR ANY CITY PERSON CAN DO THAT, AND WE CAN ALSO VISIT THE SITE INDIVIDUALLY OR AS AN ARRANGED VISIT? IS THERE ANY HARM IN DELAYING THIS VOTE FOR TWO TO FOUR WEEKS? IS THERE ANY DEADLINE TO DO THAT TODAY? WELL, I WOULD SUGGEST THE COUNCIL CAN DETERMINE TO THEIR OWN SATISFACTION WHETHER THERE'S HARM. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IF YOU WISH TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING, IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT INDIVIDUALLY, THAT YOU CAN DO THAT AND BOTH CAN OCCUR. THERE'S NO REASON WHY YOU COULDN'T HAVE THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED AND BEGIN THE PLANNING REVIEW AND THEN STILL HAVE THE MEETINGS AS THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE UNLESS YOUR INTENTION IS TO ACTUALLY DENY SUBMITTAL OF THE MAP FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THERE REALLY WOULD BE NO REASON TO DELAY THIS PARTICULAR ACTION IN MY OPINION. BUT WOULD THERE BE ANY HARM IN TERMS OF GRANT IF WE DELAY THIS BY TWO TO FOUR WEEKS? IF THE STATE DOES NOT APPROVE OUR EXTENSION REQUEST, YES, BECAUSE WE WILL MISS A CONSTRUCTION SEASON. RIGHT, BUT THIS DECISION TODAY? CORRECT, YES. IT WILL HAVE EFFECT ON THAT? YES. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE PLANNING PROCESS IS STILL GOING TO TAKE A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME. THE ONLY REASON THIS IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL NOW IS BECAUSE YOU ARE THE PROPERTY OWNER. IF WE WERE DEALING WITH A PRIVATE APPLICANT, EVERYTHING UP UNTIL NOW, INCLUDING THIS DECISION TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, WOULD BE ALL DONE PRIVATELY. THIS IS REALLY THE START OF THE PROCESS, WHICH IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME NOTICE. THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME FOR COMMENT AND THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RESPONSE AND THEN ADDRESSING BOTH THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND THEN ANY CHANGES IN THE PLANS THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE. THANK YOU. OTHER THOUGHTS I HAD, WE DON'T HAVE A FIRE STATION OUT IN THAT AREA. MAYBE THAT WOULD IMPROVE RESPONSE TIMES OUT THERE IF THE PROJECT IS SUPPOSED TO BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE ITSELF. PERHAPS COULD THAT BE A SUGGESTION OR RECOMMENDATION WE GIVE BACK TO SUGGEST BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO SEE IF THAT COULD BE EITHER A REQUIREMENT OR SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PROPOSED TO FILL SOME GAPS IN THE AREA WITH A FIRE STATION? THAT'S REALLY A CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION. THERE'S UNLIKELY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WENT TO THE ANALOGY OF A PRIVATE SECTOR SUBDIVISION, THERE'S NO WHAT'S CALLED NEXUS FOR REQUIREMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION. THEY DO PAY, AND THIS SUBDIVISION WOULD PAY, A FIRE IMPACT FEE, WHICH IS INTENDED TO DEAL WITH THE IMPACTS TO THE SERVICE LEVELS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ISSUES. THE COUNCIL, HOWEVER, IF YOU DECIDED YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD AND USE TAX MONIES TO ENHANCE OR CONSTRUCT FIRE STATIONS IN THAT AREA, YOU CERTAINLY WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND DO THAT ON WHATEVER BASIS YOU DETERMINED THE FUNDING WAS AVAILABLE. AND WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE DO THROUGH A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MOTION OR A FUTURE ITEM IN THE FUTURE? THAT REALLY OUGHT TO BE A FUTURE ITEM THAT'S CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE A BUDGET WORKSHOP ON THE 13TH, WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING FUNDING, SO IF YOU WANTED TO, THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO DISCUSS IT. UNDERSTOOD. AS I RECALL, WE WERE WHAT IS THE SUBDIVISION WE APPROVED UP BEYOND COUNTRY HEIGHTS? WESTRIDGE. I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF IT, BUT THEY HAD, WE MANDATED OR THAT THEY DID BASICALLY ALL THE THINGS THAT THESE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ARE THINKING ABOUT, ARGUING ABOUT, WERE APPROVED AND MANDATED TO BE USED IN THAT SUBDIVISION. I RECALL WE HAD ANOTHER TWO OR THREE, AT LEAST TWO THAT I REMEMBER, ACCESS ROADS. THOSE WERE PART OF THE TENTATIVE MAP THAT EXISTED. ALL WE DID WITH THE RECENT APPROVAL IS REDIRECTED THEIR PHASING. SO WE HAD A REQUIREMENT THAT IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE MAPS, WE WANTED THEM TO CHANGE THE PHASING ON CONSTRUCTION OR ROAD FROM COUNTRY HEIGHTS TO PLACER. RIGHT. BUT WE COULD MANDATE IT AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION. THIS SUBDIVISION ALREADY IS BUILDING ALL THAT IN THE FIRST PHASE. SO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACCESS FROM THE SUBDIVISION TO BUENA VENTURA IS A REQUIREMENT IN PHASE ONE. THERE IS ONLY ONE PHASE IN THIS PROJECT. OKAY. AND THEY WERE ALREADY STARTING THAT PROCESS. WELL, THAT'S PART OF THIS PROCESS, SUBMITTING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS, ALL THAT. I'M GOING TO SECOND AARON'S MOTION. SO WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. SO BEFORE WE VOTE, PERHAPS WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION TO BE IS THAT TO AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO BEGIN THE TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW PROCESS AND FOR STAFF TO IDENTIFY A TIME AND PLACE FOR A SPECIAL MEETING TO MEET ON SITE. CORRECT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER ODETTE IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER DINUKA. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS AND I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THE ON-SITE MEETING FIRST BEFORE ACTUALLY VOTING. SO I WILL ABSTAIN. SO YOU'RE NOT SAYING NO, YOU'RE JUST ABSTAINING. WHICH IS NO. MAYOR PRO TEM REZNOR. AYE. VICE MAYOR LATOFFE. YEAH, I'M HAPPY THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET A SITE MEETING WITH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD STEP TO DO AND THIS IS NOT THE FINAL PROCESS, THIS IS JUST A NEXT STEP, BUT I WILL VOTE YES. AND MAYOR MUNZ. YES. SO IT PASSES AND WE'LL HAVE MR. CURTIS FIND OUT WHEN WE CAN COME AND VISIT AND SEE YOUR SITE PROJECT AND MR. GASSICK CAN KIND OF WALK US THROUGH IT AS WELL WITH ALL OF HIS EXPERTISE AND SHOWS. OKAY. WE'LL HAVE THE ENGINEERS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPERS AND PLANNERS WHO ALL HAVE THE DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO DATE AVAILABLE AT THAT MEETING. THANK YOU, SIR. WE ARE MOVING ON, MOVING ON TO 9-1-B. CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO CONFIRM AND RATIFY THE CITY OF READING PROCLAMATION DECLARING A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO FLOODING. MR. TIPPIN. THANK YOU. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF ON THIS. AS THE COUNCIL IS AWARE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY THAT THE COUNCIL HAS GRANTED ME IN THE READING MUNICIPAL CODE, I DECLARED AN EMERGENCY LAST WEEK AS IT BECAME AWARE, WE BECAME VERY AWARE OF AFTER THE SACRAMENTO RIVER BEGAN TO RISE, WE HAD SOME SIGNIFICANT CULVERT FAILURES DOWN AT THE REGINADO BOAT RAMP. ALSO WE NOTICED THAT WE HAD SIGNIFICANT WATERS THAT WERE RISING IN AND AMONGST ALL OF OUR PARKS, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU SOME PHOTOS OF THAT IN A MOMENT, AND WE EXPECTED TO HAVE DAMAGE THERE, BUT WE CLEARLY NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO MOVE AND REPAIR, RESTORE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS PURPOSES. SO I DECLARED AN EMERGENCY THAT WAS JUST SIMPLY TO BE ABLE TO ACTIVATE AND CLEAR DEBRIS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. THIS ITEM TONIGHT FOR YOU WOULD BE TO RATIFY THAT ACTION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IS TO BYPASS SOME OF THE PUBLIC BIDDING REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE EMERGENCY. AND I'M LEAVING IT ON THIS PICTURE BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY WHERE IT LIKELY WILL OCCUR, BUT WE MAY HAVE SOME OTHER INSTANCES THAT WE NEED TO BYPASS THAT AS WELL, WHICH I'LL TOUCH ON IN A MOMENT. BUT THIS PARTICULAR CULVERT HAS COLLAPSED. THE WATER HASN'T FULLY RECEDED ENOUGH FOR US TO GET A REAL ASSESSMENT ON THAT, BUT PUBLIC WORKS DOES BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET IN THERE AND DO A FULL REPLACEMENT ON AT LEAST PORTIONS OF THIS CULVERT. AND IF WE WAIT FOR A REGULAR DESIGN AND BID PROCESS, THAT COULD TAKE MONTHS AND COULD ALSO PUT US INTO A NEXT RAINY SEASON, NEXT FALL. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS IS THE BOAT RAMP THAT HAS THE PUBLIC SAFETY ACCESS. SO THIS IS WHERE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND RPD TAKE ACCESS TO THE RIVER FOR RIVER RESCUE AND OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS. SO HAVING IT CLOSED IS NOT GOOD. WE HAVE PROVIDED SOME TEMPORARY ACCESS, WHICH COMES DIRECTLY OFF OF BONNEVUE, WHICH WOULD WORK IN THE SHORT TERM, BUT IT'S NOT AN IDEAL LOCATION FOR TRUCKS WITH BOATS HAVING TO SLOW DOWN, PULL INTO THIS AREA AND ACCESS THE BOAT RAMP. SO WE'D LIKE TO GET THAT REPAIRED QUICKLY. IF WE LOOK AT SOME OTHER PICTURES, THIS IS ANOTHER CULVERT OFF OF GEARY STREET, WHICH IS OFF BETWEEN 273 AND POLK, DOWN BY ABC SUPPLY, OLD, WHAT WAS THAT, DUDES DOWN THERE? NO, THAT'S NOT DUDES. THE DRIVE-THROUGH THAT WAS DOWN THERE. JEANS. NOT JEANS. SOUTH OF JEANS. ANYWAY, THERE'S A CULVERT DOWN THERE THAT THIS MAY BE ONE THAT WE COULD REPAIR WITH SOME OF OUR CREWS, BUT IT MAY BE ONE THAT WE NEED TO USE CONTRACTORS WITH. THIS IS JUST SOME OF THE FLOODING I THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY ARE WELL AWARE OF, BUT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE NOT SEEN SOME OF THIS, AND SO OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE HAVE THIS KIND OF FLOODING, DAMAGE IS ALWAYS POTENTIAL. WE HAVEN'T DONE A FULL ASSESSMENT SINCE THE WATER'S JUST NOW RECEDING. WE STILL EXPECT TO FIND SOME OTHER AREAS. THIS IS CAPRICORN WAY. THIS IS ACTUALLY OUT IN THE COUNTY CALLED SKYWAY STREET. THERE WAS SOME SIGNIFICANT FLOODING IN THIS AREA. THAT'S ALL IN THE COUNTY, BUT JUST FOR YOUR REFERENCE ON HOW MUCH WATER CAME DOWN. THIS IS CALDWELL PARK. YOU CAN SEE UNDER THE SIDEWALK THERE IN THE LEFT PICTURE WHERE IT'S UNDERMINING OUR SIDEWALK. THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE REPAIRED, AND THEN WE JUST HAVE SOME TREES AND OTHER DAMAGE ALONGSIDE. HERE'S KUMBAY SHIREEL, WHICH IS DOWN OFF OF KNIGHTON ROAD. THAT'S THE NEW TRAIL THAT GOT CONSTRUCTED. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE SOME TREES DOWN, DEBRIS REMOVAL, THAT SORT OF WORK. THIS IS NARPON OPEN SPACE. THAT BRIDGE ACTUALLY HAS BEEN KNOCKED OFF ITS FOUNDATIONS, AND IT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE RESET. THAT MAY REQUIRE CONTRACTOR WORK, IN FACT MOST LIKELY WILL, TO GET THAT RESET SO THAT WE CAN OPEN THAT BACK UP FOR PUBLIC USE. SUNDIAL BRIDGE, HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED ANY SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH THAT, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT SOME OF THE SPOTLIGHTS IN AND AROUND SUNDIAL BRIDGE WERE FULLY SUBMERGED UNDERWATER. THERE COULD BE SOME ISSUES THERE. MY RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT IS THAT YOU ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. IT HAS TO BE BY A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE, OR IN THE CASE OF TONIGHT, A UNANIMOUS VOTE. THIS WILL RATIFY MY PROCLAMATION AS THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DECLARING A LOCAL EMERGENCY, AND ALSO ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REPAIR OF THOSE AREAS WITHOUT A SOLICITATION OF COMPETITIVE BIDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE 20168 AND 22050. WITH THAT, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I ARE BOTH AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU, SIR. SO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS EMERGENCY SITUATION. I WILL SUBMIT A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. SECOND. MAYOR PRO TEM RESER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING? NO. OKAY. TAKE A VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER ODETTE IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER DANUKA? AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM RESNER? AYE. VICE MAYOR LATAU? AYE. AND MAYOR MUNZ? I'M A LITTLE BIT TORN. AYE. A LITTLE MAYOR HUMOR. NOT FUNNY. 9-1-C, CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING THE AT-HOME SHASTA AD HOC COMMITTEE. IT'S ME AGAIN. YEAH. MR. TIPPIN. YEAH. SO, FIRST THING I'LL CLEAR UP IS THAT IT'S NOT REALLY AN AD HOC COMMITTEE. YEAH. I PROBABLY NEED TO POINT THAT OUT. THAT'S CAUSED SOME CONFUSION. INITIALLY, WHEN THIS STARTED, IT WAS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE A FEW YEARS BACK. TODAY, IT'S REALLY A STANDING COMMITTEE. AND SO, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE BROWN ACT. AND WITH THAT, I'LL DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THIS IS. SO, A FEW YEARS BACK, THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, CSAC, PUT TOGETHER A WHITE PAPER, IF YOU WILL, THAT DISCUSSED WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN ALL DO BETTER IN ADDRESSING THOSE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN OUR VARIOUS COMMUNITIES. LARGE PART OF THAT DOCUMENT WAS ABOUT COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS BETWEEN CITIES AND COUNTIES, ABOUT FINDING SOURCES THAT ARE ONGOING, CONTINUOUS, AND THAT HAVE FLEXIBILITY. THAT NEVER REALLY HAS GOTTEN OFF THE GROUND. SOME OF THE BIG 13 CITIES, WHICH I THINK EVERYBODY CAN FIGURE OUT WHO THOSE ARE, WANTED TO REVIEW IT AND DO THEIR OWN ANALYSIS. AND SO FAR, NOTHING'S REALLY COME OF THAT EITHER. THEN, SUPERVISOR TIM GARMON SUGGESTED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THAT WE GET TOGETHER IN A FASHION TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT COULD BE UTILIZED BY THOSE ENTITIES IN SHASTA COUNTY. THAT WAS A TRUE BLUE AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND EACH OF THE AGENCIES HAD AN AD HOC GROUP THAT PUT TOGETHER, AND THEY DEVELOPED A PLAN. IT TOOK ABOUT SIX MONTHS. THAT PLAN WAS PRESENTED TO EACH OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES IN DECEMBER OF 23, I BELIEVE, AND THAT WAS ENDORSED BY ALL. I USE THE TERM ENDORSE ON PURPOSE BECAUSE IT REALLY WASN'T AN OFFICIAL ACT. IT DOESN'T REALLY ALLOW FOR ANY SPECIFIC ACTIONS BY ANY INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATIVE BODY. THE PLAN HAD THINGS THAT HAD NON-PROFITS DOING. IT HAD ITEMS THAT THE CITY OF READING WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR, SOME OF THE STUFF THAT SHASTA COUNTY WAS INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR, BUT IT SORT OF BROUGHT IT ALL TO ONE DOCUMENT THAT EVERYBODY COULD LOOK AT WHAT WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO ACHIEVE OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. WITH THAT, THE CITY COUNCIL, IN PARTICULAR, DECIDED THAT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THAT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS TO STAY MEETING ON A MORE REGULAR BASIS. IT HASN'T BEEN EXACTLY REGULAR EVERY MONTH OR EVERY TWO MONTHS, AND TO RECEIVE PRESENTATIONS FROM NON-PROFIT AGENCIES, FROM CITY STAFF, FROM COUNTY STAFF ABOUT PROGRAMS AND EFFORTS AND INITIATIVES THAT WERE ONGOING TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE IN NEED OF HOMES AND THOSE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS THROUGH VARIOUS ISSUES LIKE ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES AND MENTAL HEALTH. THOSE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT A YEAR, BUT A LITTLE OVER A YEAR, AND WITH THE ELECTION, THE OTHER LEGISLATIVE BODIES, SHASTA LAKE, ANDERSON, AND SHASTA COUNTY HAVE ALL NAMED ADDITIONAL OR TWO NEW PEOPLE OR CONFIRMED AN EXISTING MEMBER TO STAY ENGAGED IN THIS ACTIVITY. THE ITEM FOR YOU TONIGHT IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER YOU WANT TO CONTINUE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE AT-HOME COMMITTEE, AND IF SO, WHO WOULD BE THE TWO MEMBERS THAT YOU RECOMMENDED SIT ON THAT COMMITTEE TO REPRESENT YOU? WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. WELL, SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE, I'VE BEEN ON THAT COMMITTEE SINCE ITS INCEPTION. MY OPINION OF IT HAS GONE UP AND DOWN LIKE A ROLLER COASTER. I'VE TALKED TO MR. TIPPIN NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT IT. IN THE BEGINNING, I, TO BE HONEST, I KNOW IT WAS A WASTE OF TIME. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY. YOU HAVE NO POWER TO DO ANYTHING. WHAT YOU DO BASICALLY IS YOU SAW THE, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, THE MATRIX OF ALL THE ITEMS, AND WHAT YOU KIND OF DO IS LOOK OVER THAT, APPROVE THOSE THINGS, AND BRING IT BACK TO YOUR COUNCIL, AND THEN ALL TRY TO COME TOGETHER AN AGREEMENT ON THAT, ON THOSE ITEMS. HOWEVER, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THOSE ITEMS, WHICH I HAVE, AND VOTED AGAINST ONE, THEN YOU GET CALLED OUT FOR NO APPARENT REASON, AND SO I HAVE, BUT I'VE LATELY IN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS, ACQUIESCED BACK TO WHERE I'M ENJOYING IT. IT'S BEEN, ENJOYING IS TOO STRONG A WORD, BUT IT'S BEEN GOOD INFORMATION THAT I'VE LIKED AND LEARNED. SO I KNOW THAT TANESSA IS PASSIONATE ABOUT IT, AND I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT SHE, I'M SURE SHE WOULD WANT TO STAY ON IT. IF THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO GET ON, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. SO I DON'T KNOW, YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? NO, I'M OKAY. I'M FINE, THANK YOU. CAN I INTERRUPT AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE KEEP OR REAFFIRM THE CURRENT APPOINTMENTS, UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO VACATE THE POSITION, MR. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOMINATE OUR CURRENT MEMBERS TO CONTINUE SERVING ON THE COMMITTEE. I SECOND IT. I WOULD LIKE TO VACATE AND MAKE A SECOND MOTION OF, THANK YOU, MS. RESNER, VERY MUCH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF MIKE WOULD LIKE TO BE ON IT, AND IF YOU WOULD, THEN I WOULD NOMINATE TANESSA AND VICE MAYOR LATAW TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE. WELL, I'M CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR MORE THINGS TO DO. OH, THAT'S GOOD. THIS GIVES ME A CHANCE TO CONTINUE TO LEARN, SO I DO HAVE INTEREST TO SERVE ON THIS. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VACATE, I WILL SECOND YOUR MOTION AND I'D LIKE TO PARTICIPATE. I'D BE HAPPY TO. I WILL RETRACT MY PREVIOUS MOTION. OKAY. TAKE A VOTE THERE, MS. SHARPE. COUNCIL MEMBER AUDETTE IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER DANUKA? AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM RESNER? AYE. VICE MAYOR LATAW? AYE. AND MAYOR MENZ? AYE. ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE WE'RE MOVING ON. MOVING ON, 9.15B. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND INTRODUCTION TO UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF READING'S CONTRACT WITH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, CALPERS, TO ALLOW UNREPRESENTED SAFETY AND NON-SAFETY EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SHARE ADDITIONAL COSTS OF THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT. PERSONNEL DIRECTOR CARRIE KIBLER WILL TAKE THIS. THANK YOU, CARRIE. WELL, GOOD EVENING. THE ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS A FOLLOW-UP ITEM. SO IN DECEMBER OF 2024, THE COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2024-112, WHICH CONFIRMED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR ADDITIONAL COST SHARING OF THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO CALPERS, IN WHICH THE CLASSIC UNREPRESENTED NON-SAFETY EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS AGREED TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL .876 OF THE EMPLOYER SHARE FOR A TOTAL EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION OF RETIREMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 10.01%. CLASSIC UNREPRESENTED SAFETY EMPLOYEES IN TIER 1 AGREED TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL 1.73% OF THE EMPLOYER SHARE FOR A TOTAL EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION OF 19.23%. AND CLASSIC UNREPRESENTED SAFETY EMPLOYEES IN TIER 2 AGREED TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL 1.62% OF THE EMPLOYER SHARE FOR A TOTAL EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION OF 19.12%. THESE CHANGES WOULD ENSURE THAT THESE EMPLOYEE GROUPS ARE SPLITTING RETIREMENT COSTS WITH THE CITY 50-50, WHICH HAD BEEN A PREVIOUS GOAL OF PRIOR COUNCILS. HOWEVER, CALPERS REQUIRES VERY SPECIFIC STEPS BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO AMEND OUR CONTRACT WITH CALPERS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE CHANGES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO. THE VERY FIRST STEP IS TONIGHT, WHICH IS AN ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION, AN INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD AMEND THE CITY'S CONTRACT WITH CALPERS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE CHANGES. AND IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO APPROVE THESE ACTIONS TONIGHT, I WOULD RETURN AT THE MARCH 18TH MEETING, AFTER COMPLETING THE ADDITIONAL STEPS, IN ORDER TO SEEK THE FINAL ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER? NO, I DO NOT. MAYOR PRO TEM RESNICK, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, BUT I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE ITEMS 1 AND 2 AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. I'LL SECOND. COUNCIL MEMBER ODETTE IS ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBER DANUKA? AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM RESNICK? AYE. VICE MAYOR LATAU? AYE. AND MAYOR MUNZ? AYE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE WILL NOW MOVE ON RAPIDLY TO COUNCIL TRAVEL REPORTS. NONE. MAYOR PRO TEM RESNICK, ANY TRAVEL REPORTS? I DO NOT HAVE ANY. I DO NOT HAVE ANY TRAVEL REPORTS. YOU'RE NOT ON CITY TRAVELING RIGHT NOW? I AM NOT ON CITY TIME TRAVELING RIGHT NOW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. JUST CHECKING. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 12. AND MAYOR PRO TEM RESNICK, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I AM WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT YOU GENTLEMEN AND THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER BRINGING BACK EARLIER THIS, WELL, I GUESS IT WAS LAST YEAR. LAST YEAR, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS IN THE ROOM, THOSE OF US WHO WERE CANDIDATES AT THAT TIME, BUT A TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSE WAS DISCUSSED. AND I KNOW THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS WORKING ON THAT. AND I ALSO KNOW THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS WORKING ON A MULTITUDE OF THINGS AND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT SHORT-STAFFED AS OF THE LAST LITTLE BIT. SO I'M WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNCIL WOULD ENTERTAIN GIVING THE CITY ATTORNEY SOME CLEAR DIRECTION FOR TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSE THAT WOULD COVER THE COST OF EDUCATION, INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT, BUT WOULD INCLUDE ALL OF THOSE FOLKS WHO SELL TOBACCO. I THINK THAT IT MAY TAKE A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO COME UP WITH SOME LEGAL DISTINCTIONS OR SOME CLEAR LANGUAGE WITH THE PREVIOUS MOTIONS THAT WERE MADE REGARDING TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSE. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I AM SEEING WHETHER OR NOT EVERYBODY WOULD ENTERTAIN THIS. THE OTHER ONE IS THAT DURING THE, I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ALL AWARE THAT THERE ARE 130 LICENSED TOBACCO RETAILERS. AND LAST YEAR, 25 OF THOSE DID NOT, DURING INSPECTIONS, DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED STATE LICENSE. 31 OF THOSE SOLD ILLEGAL FRUIT FLAVORS. AND 30% OF THE YOUTH WHO REPORTED USING TOBACCO. COUNCIL MEMBER RESNICK? YES. CAN YOU NOT HEAR ME? I'M SO SORRY. NO. WE CAN HEAR YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAYBE SUMMARIZE INSTEAD OF GETTING INTO SOME OF THAT DETAIL. SO I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING... OKAY. I WOULD... YEAH. YOU CAN SUMMARIZE WHAT IT IS THAT I AM SAYING. BUT ESSENTIALLY, I WOULD LIKE IT TO INCLUDE ALL RETAILERS WHO SELL TOBACCO. YEAH. SO I THINK STAFF HAS DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL REGARDING THIS TOPIC. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER RESNICK WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THAT DIRECTION IF THE COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN REVISITING AND MAYBE REVISING THE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATIVE TO TOBACCO LICENSURE ISSUANCE TO BUSINESSES IN OUR CITY. CAN WE BRING IT BACK FOR INFORMATION ONLY OR BRING IT BACK AS A... YEAH. SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT NOW. SO WE WOULD BRING BACK SOME INFORMATION AND THEN YOU COULD EITHER KEEP THE ITEM THE SAME AS FAR AS DIRECTION OR YOU COULD CONSIDER REVISING THAT DIRECTION TO BE MORE EXPANSIVE OR LESS EXPANSIVE. AND THEN YOU BRING IT BACK LATER THEN FOR A VOTE. THEN IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT SORT OF STARTED AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS WE'RE DOING RESEARCH. AFTER THAT RESEARCH, WE NEED TO DO AN ORDINANCE DRAFTING, WE NEED TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND SO I THINK WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER ROSNER IS SUGGESTING IS THAT PERHAPS THIS NEW COUNCIL WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATION AND A CHANCE TO EXPAND IT IF THEY SO CHOSE. YEAH. I'M FOR IT. CORRECT. MIKE? YEAH. I OPENED TO THE INFORMATION. OKAY. YEAH. I ATTENDED THAT MEETING AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY. PERFECT. WE'LL BRING THAT BACK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE? IF I'M TOLD. THANK YOU, TREASURER. YOU'RE WELCOME. OH, NICE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DID THAT. THAT WAS GOOD. ANY OTHER ITEM 12S? WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.