Apr 16, 2024 6:00 PM - Redding City Council - Regular Meeting

>>Welcome to the City Council, April 16th, 2024. I am Tanesa Audette, your Mayor. I want to introduce to the left of me our City Attorney, Christian Curtis. We are coming out of closed session. We have no reportable action or do you want to say that? Okay. That is our City Attorney. To the left of him is Barry Tippen, our City Manager . I have been inviting people to come to City Council meetings, so we're going to, you know, introduce everybody. So in case I have new people that haven't been here before, Barry Tippen is our City Manager . Steve Bate is our Assistant City Manager . Alright. So if anyone wishes to address the City Council on an 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 alcoves at the back of the council chambers and submit it to the city clerk. The City Council will allocate up to a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker for each agenda item. Staff reports are available online at the city's website, cityofredding.gov, or in the public view binder located on the podium at the north side of the chambers. If you would all, stand up, we are going to do the pledge of allegiance. >>[ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ] Stay standing. We'll have an invocation, Reverend Ken Ficklin of Unity in Redding. >>Let my words be Your words. Divine we but about our community. We open our hearts and minds so that we might truly hear each other and to see the good in each opportunity and in each idea. We ask for guidance in finding ways to work with each other. We ask to make a decisions that are best for the city. We hold this meeting up for all it can be. We hold each person in attendance to be the best they can be. We give thanks to all our employees who serve our city and make it a place we wish to live. And to Spirit, we give thanks for making this journey through life possible. And so it is. Amen. >>Amen. Thank you. Now we can do roll call. >>[ CALLING ROLL ] >>Pursuant to the Brown Act, City Council cannot take action on public comment items. The City Council will allocate up to a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker for a total of 30 minutes 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 speakers if 30 minutes is not adequate to accommodate all 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 adjust the City Council at that time. We have one speaker tonight. It's Alex Blackie. You're up. >>Good evening, everybody. I'm here to talk about a little bit about the past in our county and our city. About 5, 10 years ago, we made a decision to give all the newspaper boy jobs to adults, so they could feed their family. We didn't let the children feed themselves. But we took the jobs away. Didn't think nothing of it. Does have an impact. Then we have another thing in this city and county. It's called monopoly-fication. Basically, you're in business in a certain way, you got a monopoly on really to take our cans. Really to take our cans or recyclables. Seems that the city is in business with all these recyclables making a considerable bottles. But the fact that you're going to spend $10 in gas to for $5 in bottles. But the fact is that's been taken advantage of the water, the soda, the beverages, government gets a big handout. And it seems that the city and the county take a little bit of the pie with it. Okay? It's a real scam on the bottles, cans. Spend 10 , you get 3 back. I think somebody needs to look into this in the county and the city. There are other things, such as, well, the individual that got run over, transient, and died. $130,000 was set aside for that individual or something. But the funny thing is, nobody filed charges. The there was no, accidental death. The city was annulled of any of this. I don't know what you want to call it, but it seems that we need to look at certain things. Thank you. >>Thanks, Alex. We're good. We'll move to the consent calendar. The consent calendar contains items considered routine and are 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 fill out a speaker request form submitted to the city clerk before the consent calendar is considered. It shall be the prerogative of any council member before the consent calendar is acted upon to 1, comment on an item, to respond to any public comment on an item, 3, request a record reflect an abstention, or nay vote on an item, 4, remove an item and place on the regular portion of the agenda for delivery of a staff report and or extended discussion or deliberation. Does any of the council wish to take an item off consent? >>I understand there's I understand there's some public comment on 41 a. We might want to take it off. It'll come right up again anyway. So I would say take 41A off and make it 9.1A. >>41A? Anybody else have a, for us to take something off? No? K. We'll make that 9.1A. Do we have >>With that, I'll make >>Seeing none, we will move to item 9.1 a which is to consider submission of comment Oh no. I take it back. It says authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the California Energy Commission indicating the City of Redding's support of Shasta County and its opposition to the proposed Fountain Wind Project in Shasta County? >>Yeah. Honorable Mayor. I I'll do a brief introduction to this item. Essentially, I think as, many people in the community know that there, was a project, Fountain Wind, project that the, Shasta County, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors denied approval of said project. Since that time, there's been some legislation at the state level that has been introduced and passed, whereby the CEC can that's the California Energy Commission can override local control and letter that, was crafted for your consideration tonight doesn't really opine on the merits of the project itself, is is outside the City's jurisdiction. However, all cities and counties within the State of California should be deeply concerned about the continued, infringement on local control in our state. So we crafted the letter, for the Mayor's consideration, the council's consideration, recognizing that, our belief that local control is paramount to how we govern, and it is important that our communities know that as they, voice their opinions, their voice their voices are considered, and respected and that final determinations made by elected officials in those jurisdictions are final. And, our recommendation is that you would send the letter to the comments. K. Well, we'll open this up for and with that, I'll close my comments. >>Okay. Well, we'll open this up to public comment. So, Ray Thomas, Aynor Diaz and David Rickert. >>Mayor, Council, my name is Ray Thomas. I am a retiree of Reading Electric Utility and also of IBEW Local Union 1245, longtime resident of the City of Redding and currently, well, for the last 18 years, a resident of District 3 in Shasta County. I'm here to speak and offer some thoughts against a letter of this type for a few reasons. Most importantly is that this body heard and approved resource plan, your IRP, in November of 2023 from Utility Director Zettel. The key takeaways from that plan included the importance of renewable resource energy on your power portfolio. It also clarified based on Mr. Zettle's presentation that the former IRP that was entered into in 2019 had REU take the progressive position of entering into green energy contracts that saved you some $52,000,000, you and your utility to look this type of a project, which is being built with private funds on private property and the only shovel ready project before the CEC at this time, I think it flies in the face of all local utilities that need to procure green energy in order to meet the standards of California. The 5 county Central Labor Council, including the Laborers, International Union and the IBEW, when I was president, we supported the project before the board of supervisors, not just for the jobs grid. So I would offer to you that aside from state mandates that this project is not one to oppose for local utilities such as REU. And so I would ask you to reconsider. Thank you. >>Thanks, Ray. >>Thank you very much. Good evening Mayor Audette and Council members. My name is Zane Ardez and I reside at 4277 Paso Temple Court in Reading. I represent not only CNX and developers of the Fountain Wind Project, but also the supporters who reside and have businesses in the City of Redding and Shasta County. I respectfully request that you consider not sending a letter opposing the project for several reasons. One, please recognize that the information you're being provided Shasta County residents demonstrated strong opposition of the Fountain Wind Project, that is not the case. When the Planning Commission made their decisions, there were many supporters as many supporters of the opponents, just not as loud and vocal. Recently, Fountain Wind supporters have been more and more vocal in supporting the project. It is my opinion that this has led the County to reach out to you since their approximately 464 $1,000 efforts to date to oppose the project are not resonating with either the locals or the state. We have local business and resident support in addition support from the labors, local unions, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Operating Engineers. 2, the City should not let this play out and avoid the anti-business campaign being pushed by NIMBYs who have no interest in the economic future of Reading. 3, the City doesn't have to endorse the project but join this campaign against businesses looking to invest in our communities a bad luck not only to those who are already here but also to those who may be considering Reading. There will always be a debate around local control but why should we chase off tens of 1,000,000 of dollars in tax revenues and jobs from a project revenue over the next 30 years, $2,500,000 in sales tax revenue over the next 30 years, $2,500,000 in sales tax revenue for construction over 200 local jobs. This revenue is the amount projected to go to the county of which the City of Redding, Anderson and slate plus School Districts will receive a piece of the pie? Lastly, what kind of signal are you sending the state which has given us 1,000,000 of dollars in grants for road, water and sewer improvements, parks and trails, community development block grants? We received $3,800,000 in a clean grant for a downtown urban park. $12,800,000 for wildfire prevention. $1,000,000 to resolve the homeless encampment off Avenue. Police department received 148,000 and 127,022,223 respectively. This is just sampling. Now you want to join the county's ill-conceived fight over a project that is good not only for Shasta County but also for Redding. Remember that Shasta County is suing the state. Why should Redding get mixed up in an irrational fight that's not about local control but really about appeasing NIMBYs so certain supervisors can get elected? What happens the next time the city goes to the state looking for more grant funding? Thank you very >>Mayor Audette, members of the City Council, thank you and good evening. Dave Rickert, county executive officer. I just want to address a few points on this and I appreciate the spirited feedback from other members of the community on this issue. Chiesa County is looking at a number of factors in regards to this. So probably first and foremost would be the environmental impact that these windmills are going to cost on the surrounding countryside is something we took into consideration. Probably a bit impact for a number of our residents in Shasta County, including the city of Redding is fire risk and fire safety. Already, our fire insurance is exorbitant and this will not add to the situation. And matter of fact that the, windmills pose significant fire risk as far as aerial drops for fire prevention and retardation. So these are some things I want you to consider also. Also, the direct impact to tourism, it will be fairly detrimental. These windmills, I believe, are 600 feet tall. They will be the largest structures in the sit in the county, and there are 43 windmills plant. Oh, finally, and I think foremost, and I think your city administrator, Mr. Tippen, hit the nail on the head. This is yet another attempt by the state of California to impose override on local control, and it's very important that the local government decide local factors for their citizens, and I hope you consider that issue also. Some additional people that are, groups that are opposing this are the Redding Ranch Ria, the Pit River Tribe, the City of Shasta Lake, and the County of Shasta. So thank you for your consideration on this issue. >>Thank you. Anybody on the council have comments to make? >>I do. >>Go ahead. >>I'm going to be voting no on this item. I think it's a good project. I understand the concerns of people that don't like it, and sometimes that's what we get paid to make the hard decisions for. I don't see any reason if it was located in the City of Redding, that might be one reason to write a letter. It's not. It's located in Shasta County. In spite of the way the letter is written, it says it's in support of Shasta County's opposition, so it's going to be interpreted by the state agency as support for the opposition. I don't think it's a fight that we need to get into. So I'm only voting no. >>Council member McDonough. >>Thank you, Mayor. And I thoroughly understand Mr. Tippen's explanation of the letter and the reason for the letter. However, I do think it's inappropriate to jump onto the tail of the county. Mr. we don't like the fact that the state is taking over some of our responsibilities. I think that's an issue that we can fight on our own and not ride the tails of our County. Thank you. I'll be voting no. >>Can we change some of the language, Mr. Tippen, to, you know, I don't know if we want to just say we're control. Because if it goes there, then sooner or later, it's going to come here. I mean, that's my thought. >>Yeah. I mean, I clearly, the tenor of the letter is mostly associated with, the infringement on local control, local land management decisions. Obviously, the council has the prerogative to change any, the letter in any which way you see fit. >>Did you have anything that you want to add? >>I would just like to make a comment. I I'm not going to debate the Fountain Wind Project. I think if I lived there, I wouldn't want I wouldn't want it there either. But this is just a matter of our authority, our realm of authority. And I just think this is as to our council members have stated, I think this is outside our realm. So it concerns me that we would send a letter of that we would take a position on something that's outside the city. But I do like the idea of sending a letter of saying that we want to maintain local control. So I I do appreciate that piece of it. If we could modify the letter in that way. >>Yeah. I also, I think to note, we're not joining any campaigns. This is a letter about local control. I don't think we're arguing the merits of the Fountain Wind project. That's already been decided. I think the only reason to write a letter is because they're basically trying to take control out of, local hands. And so rallying around, pushing back on that, I think, is important. But it is I'm wondering if we can edit the letter and take out some of the language that maybe, seems like we were we're taking a more emotional side to it. The specifically, the line that says, about negative impacts to their quality of life to the point of one of the speakers. If just, you know, some people said that it wouldn't, some people said that it would, that gets more into an opinion on the merits of it. If we struck that line from it, would be would everybody be more comfortable with voting on this letter? >>Could you just remove the first paragraph? Just the first paragraph. >>It seems to me that the problem is if you want to write a letter about local control and you need to take out everything that has to do with Shasta County or the project itself and then just write a letter and general letter to governor Newsom and say, hey. We think you guys take away local control more than you should. Don't reference any project. That's the problem with it. When you reference a project, it's going to be taken as opposition no matter how you frame it. >>Well, I mean, it's an example of what we're talking about because otherwise it has no it has no consequences. >>So the letter would be, dear Governor Newsom, we oppose the state's efforts to take local control. Sincerely, Mayor. >>That's what I don't yeah. I don't think that that actually speaks to the issue at hand. >>Well, it speaks to local control issue? But if you start expanding on that, then you get into taking an opinion on the merits of the project. And if you don't want to do that, then you shouldn't do it. >>I think you can probably do both. >>I think if we take out Shasta County and put in City of Redding, you're going to accomplish what we're trying to do. We're trying to resist the government from taking over our control, taking it out of our hands. Get let's Shasta County fight this on their own, and we'll take care of our own business. >>Well, I mean, I'm inclined to support Shasta County in what they're trying to do. They're trying to maintain their local control. They believe that they are representing the people of the county. They went through the process the right way. They had all the right meetings. They, you know so and this is what they came with. So we're going to support local control, we have to support local decisions. I think adding things like, like that one sentence just seems more than what's necessary, but I think you have to reference the project. If we're going to support Shasta County and them making local decisions, then it's relevant that we'd reference that local decision. Is there any part of the letter that you would want to change that we could do now, or do you want, what would you like to do? >>I would just recommend that, at this point that you worked with, City Manager and com composed a letter based on what you heard tonight, letter is can decide if, I think the letter is more directed towards supporting the county and, secondly, through local control. I would like to just kind of reverse that. Our main goal is we want to dispute local control, and we want to have control, and then we can also just say, you know, yes. Well, I yeah. I agree with I agree with, Julie. Let's reword it and bring it back. >>So what I think I'm a little bit confused. So are we going to support Shasta County, or you want to not support Shasta County and support local control? Because this is to support Shasta County decision, local control, and their decision. >>I think if we were to that one vote, I would like supporting them. I want the emphasis to be local control in the second >>I would suggest that we get that in the form of a motion >>Yeah. >>And a second and a vote so that we know what the direction from >>the proposal is. The motion is to recraft it? >>Yeah. I would make that, we recraft the letter with, as, Council Member Muns, said that we support local control and, and we support Shasta County's right to make a decision in within their sphere of influence without stating that we are opposed. Influence without stating that we are opposed to the fountain wood projects. >>Without taking a position on the project. Yeah. Okay. So that's your motion. Okay. All of those in favor. Aye. Any opposed? >>Opposed. Okay. >>I'm opposed. >>Alright. Okay. We are moving to, regular calendar 9.4a, which is consider submission of comments regarding the writing reentry as fee Trust and Casino Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. And that is who's giving that? >>Yeah. So I'm going to give a brief overview of this item, and then I might recommend that the council then take public in comment letter, what you're looking at is a comment letter as to the sufficiency of the EIS of the Rancher proposed Feed A Trust and Casino project. Tonight, we are not considering the merits of the project, whether the council, you know, has a position to take on the project pro or con. Impacts to city facilities in the community generally, within the city and whether those impacts have been truly mitigated. We have prepared a sample letter for your consideration tonight relative to that topic, and I'll go through that relatively on. One on. One is economic impact. The EIS has a few statements in it where it speaks to a loss of retail sales within the City of Redding, and it identifies an amount of lost retail, that would be projected, mitigated or what can be done. We find that concerning, and we think that they should provide additional information on how that impact could be mitigated. Additionally, they mentioned, the entertainment venues, specifically the Civic Auditorium, and how it may or may not compete with, the venues their response is that they simply won't compete because they don't have the same types of shows. And that is what they indicate as, the fact that there is no impact. We find that that is lacking in detail, and it should have had more definitive study. There's many casinos around. There's many cities that have auditoriums. There clearly was an opportunity, in our opinion, that there could have been, some examples given of how they've coexisted and why the shows aren't the same, but instead they just relied on a single sentence essentially saying they don't compete because they don't do the same shows, which I think is, in question. The next is the traffic and transportation and circulation of aesthetics that we'll talk about in a minute, are ones that are, you know, more nebulous, they're more subjective, and they're harder to clearly identify the impact and identify mitigations. Traffic, however, work that was done and presented by Kimley Horn, to look at the work that was done and presented by Kimley Horn within the EIS. And GHD and our staff have found that the, analysis is just simply lacking. An example would be, our consultant believes that the peak hour of traffic that they should have studied would be midday on Saturday. Instead, they looked at peak hour being midweek at 5 o'clock or we think that they've, then underestimated the amount of traffic impact on city streets and therefore have not identified appropriate mitigations. Be asked to redo that document, and redo the traffic section and provide proper mitigations so that the city streets wouldn't be impacted. The next is really under electric and water supply and utilities generally. Our issues there, have to do with the, fact that some of the corridors that they've identified or that we know that would be there, and to serve their facility, should they use our utilities, sensitive lands. And we think that at least they should address that and it should be made aware of. We also think that, the capacity studies that would be and more studied. As it is right now, we feel comfortable that our systems would be able to handle this facility, and yet there's been no really engineered studies that would indicate that that is the case, and we think that would need to be done. And lastly, I'll touch on is just the aesthetics. The comment in the EIS is that it fits with the nature of what's already there, and it doesn't have a negative impact on the viewshed to structure would have some, negative impacts in terms of the viewshed of the river. I think as it relates to the character of the corridor, I think there's some opportunity for interpretation there. You do have, the, equipment rental on the other side of the street, but I don't think it is such a nature that you can just wave a hand across it and say, oh, it's compatible. I think that they should have done some additional analysis and provided some, perhaps means of mitigation through aesthetic design or architectural commitments to make sure that it does fit into that general vicinity down there and the view sheds that are offered. As I noted, there's some additional details that, both Mr. Pagan and Mr. Webb could provide to you, but hopefully that gives you a sense of the nature of the letter that we're recommending, you authorize the Mayor to sign and send in, it is due, by the 28th of this month, in order to be considered prior to, the comment period for your public comment. Okay. >>We're going to go to public comments. Steve Williams, Pam Hughes, Dan Frost. >>Good evening, honorable Mayor, City Council members. Thank you for your service to our community. I'm Steve Williams. I represent Shasta County Citizens for Responsible Community Development. I've spoken to this project before. Mr. Tippen outlined many of the comments I was going to be making, so I don't need to repeat them for your sake. I agree with everything that he has outlined as being concerning. I do want to point out a couple of items in addition to that. This final EIS is based on a draft EIS that is over 5 years old, and I would say it's stale information. A lot of what he has addressed in his concerns about traffic, 5 years ago, as we all know, that was a very comment properly on the cultural sensitive nature of this site. I've spoken in Sacramento to the assembly and senate where other tribes have presented some extreme concerns about the use of this land, being put to use as a casino. There's some, debate, yet to be proven over what occurred on this site. But it is considered a culturally also don't think that it properly addresses the impact to city police, fire, law enforcement, other related issues. As you know, the county is currently in litigation over an agreement they signed with the Rancheria to try to mitigate impacts on those types of issues. Many believe that the county gave away the store in that regard. The costs are significant and could be 10 to many times higher than what was agreed upon. I would urge the City Council to make the comments to the Secretary of the Interior expressing your concerns about the inadequacy of this EIS and that the information is stale. Thank you very much. >>Thank you. Thanks, Steve. Pam Hughes? >>Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this issue. I've been involved in it since it first hit the public. I believe it was in 2016, and I've written letters and emails to the people that are in charge of the BIA. I'm very encouraged to see all of the detail that you are including in this letter. It includes so many of the things that I think are important in terms of the city's opposition to this. I'm really concerned about an inappropriate use of the land, not only the cultural aspects of it, but the fact that it's agricultural land. And I think it's very inappropriate to pave it over. So for so many various reasons I really appreciate the fact that you're pointing out all of the details of insufficiency. >>Thank you, Pam. Dan Frost and then Tom. >>Good evening, Adam Mayer, members of the council. I'm Dan Frost. I rep I have reside at 2431 El Verano Street in Redding located about half to 3 quarters of a mile from the project. I want to thank, the staff and the council for, addressing, the adequacy of this EIS. I would be delighted to, discuss many of the merits of this project, which I oppose. But the subject of this is the comments to be submitted by the city. I think the staff has done an excellent job identifying many of the numerous glaring errors in the CIS. I would suggest perhaps that this letter be sent as is, but with the possibility of writing a follow-up letter addressing those issues that Mr. Williams just outlined. I think those would be a good addition to the letter. Letter as I >>Tom, you're up. I cannot read your last name, but Tom R. Tell me your last name, sir. >>My name is Tom Reams, and I'm with the Churn Creek Bottom Homeowners Association. I've been asked to read this letter to you, which I think you all have a copy of. But we want to thank you for your position in the previous letters regarding the impact of the proposed Reading Rancheria project where they have requested the Department of Interior to allow them to bring several parcels into the Tribal Trust and move the Wind River Casino to the Strawberry Fields on the west side of I5 in Churn Creek Bottom. As an organization, we've been trying to protect this farmland from development for years. This is a prime example of how urban sprawl gets on top of farmland. And if we allow this to keep going, we're going to start looking like Sacramento. This is very large. I've heard it's over 2,000 pages. It has an executive summary which lists the impacts that the project will have on the land and the community. There are alternate sites and alternate project specifications listed as well. So there are other places it can go besides the strawberry fields. So, you know, we would like you to reinforce your letter to the BIA and you gotta do it by April 25th. The water supply needs to be addressed. Biological resources, including the destruction of endangered plants, insects, bald eagles and their habitat, and other birds and amphibians and fish and bats. One thing I wanted to bring up is I heard the fire chief from Shasta County say that they don't even have the equipment necessary to put out a fire in a 9 story building. So he told that to the Board of Supervisors and I just don't think anybody was paying any attention to them. So I guess if there's a fire, they just watch it burn because they can't get up that high. The fiscal adverse effects on city and county resources and operating budgets should be looked at. The city will not receive any tax revenue for anything sold on tribal trust land. This will also affect the current taxes collected on the Hilton Garden Inn and the Wind River Mini Market and the gas Crime has not been adequately addressed. Crime has not been adequately addressed. And as he already mentioned, the traffic study is 5 years old and a lot of things have changed with the Costco being put there, it'd be a nightmare. Access from Adra Way, which is over by Smith Road, would involve traffic using Churn Creek Road, a little narrow country road. >>Thank you, Tom. >>So yeah. >>I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. >>And you have copies of this letter. >>We do. Okay. So you can do it. Okay. >>Thank you. Yeah. Alright. Well, that concludes our public comment. >>The letter that Mayor then Vice Mayor Winter sent in 2019 and then the proposed letter where we identify you've identified or staff has identified a number of concerns. From that, I've got a couple of questions for you. I find no record indicating that we submitted our comments during the Cooperative Agency review period. Did we or do we not? >>Are you referring to the notice that we received in December? >>Yes. >>Yeah. The so they have to cooperating agencies 30 days before they actually publish in the federal register. They did not publish in the federal register until March, 29th. Okay. And so they wouldn't receive comments until after 29th. Okay. And so they wouldn't receive comments until after publication in the federal register. >>Did, did we ever ask the BIA to meet with our traffic consultants regarding traffic mitigation? We didn't ask the BIA. We did tribe, and suggested that a good course of action would be for our traffic consultant to meet with their traffic consultant, for various reasons, that was unable to take place. >>Have we ever asked the tribe to support the diverging Double Diamond project? Yeah. In a recent grant application, we asked that they consider providing a letter of support for that grant application that went in a few weeks ago, I think, and they agreed and did supply a support letter for that project. I believe they submitted it directly to Caltrans. >>Yeah. I've heard of that one. And but they haven't support it. They haven't even done it with the city, just with Cal Trans. Just they send it to Cal Trans. That's correct. >>When we approved when the city approved the Costco project, did we also say that the roundabout at Bocelli would service the tribe expansion? >>We did not. When we first started that EIR, that project had not launched, and the typical standards are that you consider projects that are, in existence or have been started in an environmental process, and that one had not started, and so it was not included in the initial study that was done. In the in the area of concern there, does Bocelli Lane already have utility easements near the roundabout? >>It has some utility easements. I don't know if they're sufficient. You know, the I think the, if you're referring to our comments in the letter, it's really more further down, South Bocelli as you reach, their property. >>No. I've been down there and I've looked at what's the status of the pump house currently located near the entrance to their property? >>In good shape and operable? >>It's my understanding that the city approved the Costco EIR, and that that document indicates the roundabout would also serve the tribes project. Is that accurate? >>I don't recall that. You know, as the, council recalls, the final specific plan was approved, and which is the because it was done through petition and then approved by the City Council. So that specific plan, which was very detailed and laid out all of the mitigations that were previously founded within the EIR. The EIR has, still been certified. I would have to go back and look specifically. My recollection, it is it does not include that. >>Okay. You know, I'm really curious as to why we're just now commenting on the issues concerning cultural resources and the future utility agreements between the 2019, when we sent the letter, it wasn't in there, and now it's fact that in 2019, when we sent the letter, it wasn't in there, and now it's in >>In 2019, you'll note also that, they did not, well, our comment at that point was that they had no alternative. It was just that they were going to use our, utilities. And our comment was that the City Council had not approved, said usage, and therefore, it was an inadequate mitigation. They since came back with the idea that they may use our utilities or they may develop their own water source and their sewer treatment. And then in doing that, they've identified that our facilities are a reasonable, facility to use. But we note based on their cultural analysis that some of the corridors that corridors that would have to be used for utilities could go through sensitive lands, and we are not suggesting in any way, shape or form that they would be inadequate in their observation of said cultural lands. We're just noting that the environmental document does not take into account that in order to use our... >>I think, easements near that road that goes around the hotel? Do we know? >>Well, we own the road in fee title. There is no easements, so it's a public road. Is there any utility? Well, we there's no utility easements because you can't have a utility easement in something we own. That is not allowed by law. Right. We can put those utilities in that road anytime we want, so therefore easements are not allowed. >>Well, then let me rephrase the question. Are the utilities near the road? There are utilities in the road. Okay. My and my final comment on the letter itself, we're doing a great job of identifying the shortcomings and what we want, but we don't ask them to correct it in >>the letter. That's the nature of the letter. The request is to ask for what we see as virtually every paragraph, of the traffic section, I believe we say something to the effect of therefore the EIS must be redone and consider this. >>Well, and I saw that as I'm speaking of the other parts of the letter where I it's just simple. For me Yeah. But, again, the letter fix this. >>Yeah. The letter submitted by the process indicates our request for them to correct it. That is the process in the federal, EIS process. Okay. >>You've answered my questions. Thank you very much. You're welcome. >>Council or vice Mayor Winter. Thank you. I want to thank all the people that have come out to speak to this subject, and I have been, opposed to this project from the beginning for a variety of reasons. And this is coming back with the EIS, and I would say that the EIS clearly demonstrates deficiencies in numerous areas. In particular, I would I would concur with staff that the traffic study is completely inadequate and is not even standard for the industry. It was really quite old. And I would say that most people are concerned about the traffic in that roundabout with Costco. Even now, you know, that that's an intersection that gets a tremendous amount of traffic. So putting a casino right there, the traffic jumping right into that into that intersection is really concerning. So I think if the ranch area is really serious about this, they would need to put forward a completely different traffic study. I'm also concerned about the assumptions that the city of Redding will provide utilities. Remember, this property is outside the city limits, and we do have a policy not to extend service outside the city limits unless there's a pressing rationale to do so. So there would need to be any huge benefit to the city of Redding to provide, to provide services, not just because they want us to. So that that would be an issue. And also, certainly, the, cultural I think more has come to light about the cultural impacts in that particular area. So I appreciate that our letter, addresses that. So I would like to actually go ahead and make a motion that we support staff's recommendations to send this letter to the BIA. >>Mayor, if I may. I I understand what you're saying, miss Winder. In 2020, when was elected, the tribe sent us a 16 page document, 16 page document where they said, we would like Reading Police Services with a dollar sign and a blank space. We would like Reading Fire with a dollar sign and a blank space. We would like Reading Sewer, Water, and Electric. Mr. Tippen, if you recall our discussion, one of the items in that letter was they wanted to give us River Toeslami golf course for City Park. Well, that was 16 pages, and we couldn't even get the council at that time to have staff review it to tell us if this is a good deal or not. It's all about a negotiation. You want our electric? This is what it's going to cost. You want our sewer? This is what it's going to cost. And we negotiate. Right. They're a sovereign nation. They don't collect tax. That doesn't mean they can't. And if they wouldn't, we would have a discussion and talk about that. And that's not so I'm addressing that, even though it's not agendized, I'm addressing it because of the comments made by Ms. Winter. >>Councilmember DeCquisto, did you? Yeah. From a 30,000 foot view, and don't take this the wrong way, it seems like it's a food fight between the City of Redding and the Tribe. It's up to the BIA whether they approve the project or don't approve the project. So, Mr. Tippen, for the benefit of the audience, if we write a letter and say there's 6 things we want corrected, just as an example, the BIA would send that letter presumably to the tribe and would say, this is what the city would like. We think you should do a, b, and c or do whatever you want. What do you know what they would do? >>Yeah. My my assumption is that the BIA, who is the responsible agency for this document, they would actually look at our comments, determine on their own whether they have merit. And if they deemed them to have merit, they would submit them to the consultant to fix and resubmit to to, before review. And then the response would be the next thing would be an amended EIS in some fashion that would come out, and we go through the same process together. Are you happy with what they wrote? Wrote? >>That's correct. They would they would let's let's say use traffic, because that's one that I think everybody can get their head wrapped around really easily. BIA looks that back to the consultant and say, redo all your traffic analysis and relook at all these intersections and all the road corridors and determine whether or not they're impacted with this new information. That study then would be sent back to the BIA, and then that would be recirculated out, and 45 day draft, or they could incorporate those into another final EIS and then publish that in the Federal Register within another 30 days. So that would be up to the BIA solely, to the BIA. It is their determination, not the tribes. >>So so the end goal is a final EIS in some fashion at some point in time? >>That's correct. And so, I'm glad you brought that up. So once the comment period ends, all comments are received, and let's say the BIA determines that none of the comments, sufficiently warrant, doing anything other than approving the document. At that point, they do what's called a record of decision. And then, after the record of decision is where somebody can appeal. And I believe, in this case, it's appealed to the EPA, for review. And then subsequent to that, there could be lawsuits and, you know, it goes into that whole other And then subsequent to that, there can be lawsuits and, you know, goes into that whole other legal aspect, which the person to my right can answer those questions much better than I. >>And then the end result of this is unrelated to their request to convert the property from necessary considering sending comments on is a necessary part of both the casino construction and returning the land from fee to trust. You have to have this element before you can do the other 2. You couldn't do the other 2 without this element. >>Okay. Thank you. >>Council member of mine. >>Mr. Webb, can you come up for just a second? And I I maybe Barry can answer the question. I just don't know. When this traffic I'll wait till you get up there. Thank you, sir. When this traffic study was initially done, do was done? When it was started? >>The the traffic study in the FEIS, I believe, was 4 or 5 years ago. >>So they take into consider anything had to do with Costco or this Save Mart. Save Mart, all that other stuff? >>They did they did Costco and Save Mart and all that. >>They did. They took that into consideration? I believe they did. Yes. But >>He was not here. >>Thank you. So my point is I would just like to add in what, you know, Mr. Williams is. So a lot of this stuff is based on, you know, 5 or 6 years old information. And then, you know, even though you base it, the the reality of what we have now is speculation >>back then, and there's reality now. >>I mean, personally, I everybody knows I'm down on that area every day, and it is busy almost all day long. So there is considerable consideration and upgrade and update I would think that would be needed. So thank you. >>Okay. Well, we have a first. I'm not sure if we have a second yet. I'll say that >>I'll take it. >>Okay. So we have a second. I'll just say that I think, I appreciate all the comments. I appreciate all the emails that we've gotten, the letters. It's always, a sensitive issue. Everybody loves the tribe. We love what they do with our community, but this is necessary for the business of making sure that we're protecting, you know, our citizens. We're protecting, businesses. We're protecting what it is that, is in our purview in the city of Redding. So with that, we have a first and a second, and we'll take a vote. All those in favor? Aye. >>Aye. Any opposed? >>Opposed. I'm also opposed. And it's for the reason that we just talked about, the government taking local control. Now we're trying to control tribe, and I think that's wrong. So I'm voting no. >>So that passes 32. Alright. So moving on to 9.4b. Consider report regarding the terms and qualifications of the City of Redding Planning Commission members. Who's taking that? >>Well, I'll take it to the extent that I'll just mention that, at the last meeting, the council, asked that the staff bring back an item, that would include deliberation. With that, I'll close my comments. >>Do you have a, do we have, like, a I asked if we could say the role of the of the responsibilities of Planning Commission and the corresponding authority of, like, who are they accountable to? >>So the the planning commission, is a creation, of state law. You you don't you're not required to have one. But if you don't have 1, all the decisions, must be made by the City Council. Their rules are really sort of twofold. One is that, they serve as an advisory function, to be able to provide advice to this council, on various legislative acts, primarily, adoption of the general plan, adoption of zoning codes, related sorts of planning laws, that you will undertake. And there's a process for them to conduct both a adoption of those rules. The other function, or I would say other primary function, those rules. The other function, or I would say other primary function is really, the quasi judicial one, one where the the commission forth that, contain some sort of discretionary element, to the, to the particular permits, applications, and projects, that are, brought before them. In those cases, the decisions, that the Planning Commission makes are final, unless appealed, to Maisonos never voted for somebody who doesn't have planning experience. So I asked for this information to be brought back was because the comment was made that, council member Mazano has never voted for somebody who doesn't have planning experience. And so I wanted to go through all of their resumes to find out if there was anybody that actually had planning experience, went to college for city planning, for zoning, for any of that. And I went through each and every one of these that were in our packet and none other than, experience that they may have gathered being on the planning commission, none of the, candidates have planning backgrounds. None of them have degrees in planning. Each one of them adds value, but none of them actually has a planning background, as was previously stated. I have some other comments, but I'll open if anybody wanted to make any comments before we keep going. I do. >>I think the only one I've ever voted on was on Marcus Parton, a gentleman that has 45 years of experience in the planning field. My my point was in my when you brought this up is I was just trying to understand, your selection process. I mean, it is your right to appoint whoever you want appoint as long as we approve it. You selected a gentleman Joshua Johnson, and you look at his credentials, and he's he's a realtor and he has, a construction business. He's got a development going on right now in the Reading area. My only question with him was, at a previous engagement, he had informed me that he was going to run for City Council. Now I'm not holding that against him. My question to him would have been, why would you want to jump on our planning commission when you're going to jump off in 2 years? It's a 4 year assignment, and you put us in the position of having to go back out and find somebody else. And then I look at and this gentleman was not here, but I look at the resume for, Mr. Mr. Stein, and he has a bachelor's degree in science business administration, a master's of arts in practical theology, leadership coaching, and a doctorate of ministry, in leadership, and a certificate of specialization in leadership And then why do you want to be a member of the commission? I'm passionate about growing our city by making it easier for businesses and entrepreneurs to expand. Now I look at another resume that says, I studied structural and urban planning at UC San Diego. Graduating with a bachelor of science degree in 2001. I graduated from the University of Washington, Seattle with a master's degree in civil engineering. >>I served on boards of local chapters of the International Building Code Council, Structural Engineers Association, Society of Women Engineers, the Women's Fund, my career in transportation includes my current position as a senior transportation engineer at Caltrans and previously as an associate engineer in the Bridge Administration and Design Unit for the Shasta County Public Works. That's a young lady by the name of Katherine Lowe. And then >>So is that on the actual is that on our staff report? Are you looking at other people's applications? >>This was another application. >>Sure. So of the people that are on here, you said you've never voted. You voted for every single person that's on the planning commission right now has come up for, their reappointment, and you've been on since 2020. So you have voted every one of them in, and none of them have those criteria. So that's what we're talking about. >>I think You made the comment that you've never you voted every single you approved every one of these people that are on here without planning any experience. And but they have they have real estate experience So does Joshua Johnson. Buildings I'm fine with Joshua Johnson. >>So does David Stein. He has he's been on a board of his company his family's lumber company for years, and he owns businesses within the City of Redding that does business here. >>Several other properties. This gentleman wanted to serve on our board because he has experience working with So we're not going to read the applications of every person that's applied >>I would like to. He's qualified. >>That's not what this is about. So this is about our current planning commission. >>Fine. Thank you. >>Just for council member, went through. Observation. The observation is you brought it back because you wanted to talk about the qualifications of the applicants for the planning commission. Correct. >>Candidates. He said he has never voted on anyone. Incorrect. He said that he has never voted for anyone that doesn't have planning experience. That's what we're talking about. And so we brought back who's actually on the planning commission and who he voted for. So that statement was inaccurate. It was wrong, and I brought it back. >>Do you have a comment on that? >>Yeah. For the record, I think Mr. Marzano is appropriate in what he has to say in bringing your attention and the and the public well, just let me finish for crying out loud. It's appropriate for him to bring back what he thinks are qualified applicants that deal with that have previous planning experience to deal with the subject that we're talking about generally. >>Is it not appropriate? Because it is not his job to pick them. When he is the Mayor, he can pick them. But we are not arguing the merits of who's already or of the people that have applied. We're arguing the merits of people that are actually on. >>You're going to let anybody else speak or you're just going to hog the whole thing? We can agree to we can agree to disagree. I just want to state for the record that I thought Mr. Manzano's comments were appropriate for the nature of the item brought before. >>Thank you for your opinion. >>Vice Mayor Winter. And, another direction, I would just I would say that the I am concerned of some of the direction that I've seen on the the planning commission in the past year is and it seems to be that there there may be just and this might help with, having director Piggott work with the planning commission to but but just to make sure that they understand that they are advisory, commission to us. And they are not And I think one of the areas of big concern for me is that we as a City Council appropriated, I get $60,000 for a general plan update. We tasked our staff and the planning commission to bring us back a general plan update. And the planning commission and staff hired a professional consultant and spent a lot of time, I would say last 2 years, if not more, with focus groups, workshops, podcasts, surveys to create what I thought was a thoughtful, excellent plan. And I watched the interaction of the planning commission. I, watched those meetings online for the most part. I did attend a couple of them. And I saw that the interaction between the staff and the consultant with the planning commission was extremely professional. And that the staff listened and made dozens and dozens of changes the spoke spoke with director Pagen about this, who really thought that he was going to get, an overwhelming majority vote for the general plan, we ended up with 1, planning commissioner who recused himself and then 3 who declined to approve the planning commission them the resources to do it. They had a lot of time to do it. And I felt like the plan that our staff and the professional consultant really made, changes that were brought forward a really excellent plan. And so that would be one of the reasons why I agreed with our Mayor at our last meeting, meeting not to reappoint Mr. Marcus Parton and Mr. Cameron Middleton. I thank them for their service. They've completed their terms, but Mr. Parton recused himself, self, from the entire general plan update, and Mr. Middleton opposed it, which, was just I thought I thought negligent. And then what really concerned me is that I I saw that, in the just recently that the chair, Mr. Aaron Hatch, who's in the the audience tonight, accused our our director of director Pagen of withholding information deliberately from the planning commission accused our city attorney of, manipulating Brown Act law to to because he wanted the vote to go a certain way. And this is just not something that I want to see in our planning commission. I just think this is, divisive. It's kind of a a toxic environment. And certainly, I would hope that, this behavior would cease. And I would ask that we perhaps formalize training with, have director Pagan formalize training because we have 2 new planning commissioners coming on so that they clearly understand their roles and that they agree to undergo training to be a planning commissioner within a year of appointment. And I'm certainly open to discussing the environment and what we what we may want to do on the planning commission at this time because I I I am really concerned about what I saw happen. >>As I am, miss Winter, we just sent Parton to planning school to the tune of $2,000. Look. I'm looking at the and then we're going to talk about the applicant that was appointed. And this is what I I just want to make sure that the city is getting the best person for the job, and this doesn't tell it to me. Mr. Stein is on the board of directors for Stein Lumber. So what does he do there? Keep the books? And he is the owner of a few businesses. What kind of businesses? Does he have any real estate background like the current members of our planning commission? >>Encourage you to meet with him, and you can talk to him about that. >>I would have liked to have had that opportunity. >>Sure. When you're the Mayor, you can do that. You can do that then. But you are free to meet with him at any time to talk to him about his vision for the city. >>And I think I cleared the air on on on Mr. Johnson. I think he's more than qualified to sit on this commission. I was just concerned that he might want to leave it in 2 years. That's all. >>I, so on the issue of of, the general plan, it was I attended many of the, planning commissions for the general plan, watched a majority of them online, went to the workshops. I was I'm not really sure the remedy, but I was I was very surprised, for the last year or 14 months that we've been going through the general plan process. I was very surprised to never once get a call or a question from the planning commission to ask, you know, the direction that the council was wanting to go in or if they were aware of some of the issues. So I came to the meetings, but, nobody on the planning commission reached out to say, hey. There are some concerns. I heard the concerns in the meetings, but I also saw the staff responding to those concerns. And, and and read several times how things were changing and many of the languages were being changed. I believe that, that vice Mayor Winter had said that, you know, something around 80% of the language was directive. And so I'm I'm when you have 2 people that are complaining about language at every single planning commission meeting when it comes to the general plan, when 2 out of 7 have that issue and you get a result of 80% is very directional, I'm not sure what more that can happen. And then to find out there was actually a 100 changes that were made should have satisfied what was happening and what could happen for a general plan. It is not supposed to be specific. I felt like the citizens and those that wanted to build or develop or start their businesses here that they had the flexibility, those that wanted to preserve open space or, talk about what you can do and where that there was a level of importance that was clearly created around those things, but also the flexibility that people could create and build. And so when those answers were not good enough to even say, okay, well, we'll compromise. There was 20% that wasn't exactly what was wanted, and it was very disheartening to watch that process. And after all of those concessions and after what the staff is recommending, what the what the consultants are recommending, what, you know, every the council. We are elected by the people, which means we are accountable for the choices that are made. The planning commission serves at the will of the council. And so if the direction that we're going is growth and development sustainably, responsibly, really reading, having doctors come, This stuff is actually very important, especially important to me. My picks are never going to be where people go to church. My picks are going to be if you're pro development, if you are pro the growth of Reading, if you're pro Reading. Reading needs to grow. Otherwise, we are we are trying to pay for the infrastructure of Redding on the backs of people with fixed incomes, with our senior citizens. We need to attract families. You either raise taxes or you increase your tax base by 10 or 20000 people would make a huge difference so that senior citizens are not constantly being tapped to give more to maintain the city. So for me, when I'm watching this and and the general plan isn't general enough, and we and and the commissioners are demanding, literally saying words like, I'll die on this hill. It is so disheartening to watch because the goal should be that we actually create something with enough flexibility and responsibility that we can take the the city in the direction it needs to go based on the direction of the people, not us mandating that they will do this and you must do that when the when the city or the people may not be ready for that. But but where I am I am struck and concerned was April 9th. And in the last meeting when, commissioner Hatch accused the staff and the lawyer and all of them of polluting of of some kind of a crime as though the letter and the email and the comments made were not enough for us to understand the position that he was taking, that somehow that they could influence us in such a way that they'd have to violate the law to communicate that, that was just a step too far. And I don't know if the remedy is removal, but I also don't know how you move forward on a body when you're accusing staff of crimes. So I'm not sure what the council wants to do or is willing to do, but I feel like that just went too far. >>I would, I would concur and it pains me to say this, but I I do think if the council has th