DATE OF MEETING:††††††††††† January 30, 2006


TIME OF MEETING:††††††††††† 6:30 P.M.




Councilmembers Present:††††††††††† Andy Houghton, Mayor

††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††† Wayne Brown Mayor Pro Tem

Forrest Flynn

Daniel Irving

Larry Stevens

††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††

Councilmembers Absent:††††††††††† None

††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††

Staff Present:††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††† Susan Price, City Manager

††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† Richard Crabtree, City Attorney

Gloria Shepherd, City Clerk

††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† Al Shamblin, Police Chief

††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††† Charlie Mullen, Planning Director

††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† J D Ellison Sr., Building Director/Official

††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† Mark Barthel, Public Works Director

††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† Nik Reikalas, Parks and Recreation Director



Lamar Bayles led the Pledge of Allegiance at the request of Mayor Houghton and the Assemblage joined in.






Charlie Mullen, Planning Director, reviewed the staff report and gave staffís recommendation that the City Council:

††††† 1.†††††††† Open the Public Hearing.

††††† 2.†††††††† Review and consider all public testimony and all other information relating to this item submitted to the City Council.

††††† 3.††††† If determined to be appropriate:

††††††††††† Preferred Recommendation

††††††††††† a.†† Direct staff to prepare a Resolution approving the proposed draft Sphere of Influence Boundary Map expansion, in order to serve as a starting point for the City/LAFCO to undertake a Municipal Service Review (MSR) study and General Plan Update for consideration at the February 21, 2006 regularly scheduled City Council meeting; or

††††††††††† Alternative Recommendations

††††††††††† b.†† Continue the public hearing discussion of SOI to a specific date to be determined and provide direction to staff as to specific information that the City Council would like to be provided with to assist in review and consideration of the proposed draft SOI Boundary Map; or

††††††††††† c.†† Continue the public hearing discussion of SOI to a specific date to be determined and direct staff to modify the draft SOI Boundary Map expansion with specific City Council recommended changes; or


††††††††††† d.†† Recommend that no changes be made to the existing SOI boundary map; or

††††††††††† e.†† Provide staff with other direction as determined to be appropriate by the City Council.

Charlie Mullen, Planning Director, presented a Power Point with an overview of the proposed City of Red Bluff Draft Sphere of Influence (SOI) Boundary Map Expansion.

California State Law requires that each city and county adopt a general plan for the physical development of any land inside or outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning.

When establishing its planning area, each City should consider its Sphere of Influence as a starting point and it is important for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local government agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities.

It doesnít automatically annex property into becoming a part of the City, does not increase taxes, or change the County land use designation or standards until properties are annexed into the City.

It does offer private property owners the choice to request annexation into the City; it offers the choice to request use of City services, and does offer private property owners the potential for greater economic benefit.

State law encourages proactive planning, the City has the legal right to propose SOI boundary that includes properties under the Williamson Act, and the act of planning does not create a legal conflict or cancel properties under Williamson Act contracts or Farmland Security Zone contracts.

Mayor Houghton opened the Public Hearing at 6:48 P.M.

Speaker cards were made available to be filled out by each speaker for the record.

Robert Wedman, Concerned Citizen, opposed this SOI plan because increasing the size of the City with an already stressed Police, Fire and Public Works Department was not good for the City. He felt the proper maintenance of current City streets in Red Bluff, and staffing of City Police, Fire, and Public Works should be in place before moving forward with any expansion plans.

Douglas Schreter, Concerned Citizen, supported the plan and he owns property within the SOI.He commented that the Publicís main concern is about revenue for the City to be able to take proper care of itís citizens and streets and he felt that with all the new housing from this plan it will help to increase the revenue needed to maintain City streets and staffing.

Ann Reid, Concerned Citizen, representative for the Tehama County Resource Conservation District, thanked those who have attended the hearings, including Councilmembers, Wayne Brown and Dan Irving. She went on to define what the Resource Conservation District is about by saying they are a 5 member board appointed by the Board of Supervisors and charged with protecting the natural resources of the community. Their top priority this year has been about planning and the chief concern with the SOI was for the incorporation of the Williamson Act properties. She felt that incorporating the Williamson Act properties and ag lands is neither an ethical or morally correct thing to do.She questioned the logic of the selection of the boundaries and explained that their committee does not feel as though they have been heard at any of those 5 meetings.

Greg Latourell, Concerned Citizen, saw emotions run deep from sitting in many of the meetings but felt law prescribed this process and it was held orderly and he commended Charlie Mullen, Planning Director for this. The SOI expands what the interests are and this process has provided an education of the process that the Cities need to go through and how they need to grow in an orderly process. People want to see the growth proper and he feels that this process will be good for the community. This is only a small step and a long way from the property being annexed into the City.

Pat Frederickson, Concerned Citizen, opposed the SOI taking in her property and has been distributing a petition for anyone wanting to sign it opposing the SOI.

Susan Nall, Concerned Citizen, lives in the proposed SOI and recommended that this be postponed in the North West quad until further study of the Baker Rd problems can be adequately addressed, as Tehama County does not have funds to improve Baker Road in the next 5 years according to Greg Latourell. She feels that the proposal to include Williamson Act land encourages landowners to violate the Williamson Act to accommodate developers and felt that Williamson Act was not as much for tax relief but for preserving ag land for Tehama County General Plan.

Greg Latourell commented about his comment he made at the Planning Commission by explaining that improvements on Baker Road are not an immediate project and it will depend a lot on development. Funding will be available at a future date for Baker Road improvements.

Jessica Quintana read a letter from Floyd Peterson who could not attend the meeting; he owns 9.9 acres contiguous to the City limits and outside the Cityís Sphere of Influence.He feels it is a timely and accurate sphere change and thanked the City for the considerations and efforts of the staff, committee, and commissioners.

C.J. Jackson, Concerned Citizen, couldnít find anything to explain the existing sphere of influence and Charlie Mullen, Planning Director, responded that the Sphere of Influence map was adopted in 1973. Mr. Jackson commented that after working for Tehama County Road Department in 1965 and participating in the building of Baker Road he explained that it was built to accommodate five hundred cars a day and was a well built road.

Greg Latourell commented that Baker Road is a well built road and the ADT (average daily traffic) is about 3,500 today. When the County finishes the General Plan a Circulation Element can be used to determine what roads will be developed such as Baker Road.

Kim Tipton and Duke Leggett, co-owners on property on Baker Road, spoke to the issue and Duke Leggett stated unconditional support and encouraged the City Council to take the opportunity for direct control of the future growth of this city. He explained that it is an opportunity for the City to control while providing smart growth rather than allowing the County to control through piece-mealing the land.

Kim Tipton commented on the growth in the community and how the SOI wonít protect them from growing but rather, the issue is how we want to develop and how we want our community to look in the future. She supports the SOI and once its accepted it helps the Municipal Service review get started and the investigation as to what the future needs in Tehama County provided to the community as Planners and gives tools to get to the last step of being adequate in Fire, Police, Sewer, Water, Bicycle paths or even a municipal golf course around the airport while looking to the future.

Ron Moser, Concerned Citizen, President of Tuscan Development Group, has 20 acres on Hoy Road off of Antelope Blvd. to be developed. He presented a copy of the general description of development plans.The plan may be too encompassing and may need to be carved out but as a resident he has been involved in many developments including non-carbon regeneration and manufacturing. Their property borders City property already and they are not looking to encompass something that is rural, but believes in urban development that enhances the community.They will be a catalyst in bringing sewer out to the Antelope area and they will be paying for that sewer line to be coming out that way.

Mayor Houghton closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M.

Councilmember Flynn commented that the area north of Antelope Blvd and the Wilcox area donít appear to be included in the SOI.

Charlie, Mullen, Planning Director, explained that those areas like Wilcox and Surry Village are already heavily developed within rural standards and are difficult to run utility services to There was also the consideration of preserving Oak woodland habitat. The discussion by the Board of Supervisors about the Antelope area focused on not annexing but creating a district to service the Antelope area and staff didnít want to focus on that area while the County was involved in their process.The streets are not constructed to city standards and there would be large expenses annexing those areas.When you have vacant land itís easier to have the developer put the infrastructure in and then that gets bundled into the sale of the property.

Councilmember Flynn commented that maybe this could have benefited the sewer situation by including the Antelope area and Charlie Mullen, Planning Director explained that there is currently an agreement between the County and City to resolve that problem and it is currently going forward.

Councilmember Stevens commented on growth within the SOI and houses needing to be hooked up to Wastewater Treatment Plant and how many homes the current facility can handle before expanding the plant. The current systems in place will be looked at with the land expansions studies and they will then come up with figures to be proposed. He mentioned other concerns including theISO ratings for the Fire Department and for Para Trax transportation to those areas.Councilmember Stevens felt that a lot more research was needed on what the costs and impacts would be before making a recommendation to LAFCO but it was explained by Charlie Mullen that another study would be costly and redundant and this is the starting point to initiate the Municipal service review study.

Mayor Pro Tem Brown commented that the State Law requires that the City do SOI studies but leaves it to a judgment call to make the decision.He questioned whether a property has to be in a sphere to be annexed and it was explained that the SOI is the precursor to annexation and the map has to be modified for the annexation to occur. No matter how small or large any sphere expansion will have to go through a public hearing and LAFCO and so it is advantageous to do a larger sphere of area and an analysis that will consider the whole area and not do it in a piece meal fashion.

Mayor Pro Tem Brown questioned why they are drawing the lines so far to the West when the natural progression of growth is going to the East.It was explained by Charlie Mullen, Planning Director that here is a road networking in place and less prominent environmental issues.Moving east into the agricultural area may raise those kinds of issues and the thinking was to avoid that.Going to the West and South was a way of avoiding that and by going southward there is also an overpass that could provide an on and off ramp for a potential residential and commercial growth area. A balance has to be struck between growth and no growth and it may be a benefit to the community if planned for as they are doing.†† The other option is for the City to stagnate with no growth.Annexation is not the main focus of the SOI but rather using this as a long range-planning tool.This serves as a starting point for the comprehensive general plan update and is will be used as a long range planning tool that may take 20 to 30 years. There are logistical issues to be worked out but until they start analyzing them, then the information is not there to know what they need to work on.When the MSR is finished it will be written into the request to bring back to City Council to review the document and make recommendations if needed.

Councilmember Stevens questioned whether there is an opt out possibility and it was explained that LAFCO and the provisions of LAFCO say that the annexation either occurs or doesnít occur and if there is disagreement then a voting process is set up to vote to LAFCO. Councilmember Stevens commented that people fear being forced to annex and they question what the City is doing with the current Sphere of Influence and whether these sections could be phased in increments. It was explained that this process is time consuming and expensive and the efficient way to look at would be to look at the larger area for long-term growth.

Councilmember Irving questioned whether the General Plan expressly directs a westward expansion and whether it discourages the eastward growth and it was explained that the policy does encourage the westward expansion and that a policy does discourage going into prime agriculture direction.The Council can always look at the General Plan as a guiding tool and can be updated and modified and is consistent with the current General Plan. The City Council can take into consideration as part of this process as to whether to include the North Antelope area under the Sewer study plan. Re-advertising would be needed to include them and the discussion stage between the County and the City as to the Sewer plans is still in development. The SOI gives the property owners a right to either develop or ask to be annexed into the City if within the SOI.Councilmember Irving mentioned a previous comment about the incorporating the Williamson Act properties and ag lands as neither an ethical or morally correct thing and whether it was unethical to the Williams Act. Charlie Mullen, Planning Director, explained that this is permissible by law and not a conflict and that it is that personís opinion.The City Attorney, the Analysis of the Law, as well as the LAFCO Director has confirmed that this is permissible.

Richard Crabtree, City Attorney, explained that by itself the inclusion of Williamson Act Property in the Sphere of Influence does not affect the validity of the Williamson Act contract or its integrity. There is a statutory process which is not an easy process which a Williamson Act contract can be amended or ended early, but the sphere of influence by itself does not do anything to change the status of the Williamson Act Contract. There are Williamson Act Contracts properties in annex territory for incorporated cities and the contract itself is not affected by the inclusion into the Sphere of Influence

Councilmember Flynn questioned whether it wouldnít be to everyoneís advantage to include the Antelope area into the Sphere of Influence and then it could go in either direction.If they were in the sphere they wouldnít have to annex and at least they would have an option.

Susan Price, City Manager, explained that this is still a project that is evolving as far as the locations, phasing, and the cost estimates per household include costs for expansion.

Mayor Houghton questioned what options the developers off of Hoy Road would have if this process dies. It was explained that they could go through the County or file for their own Sphere of Influence expansion for the specific property and they would be footing a large bill for the study.If the City didnít do this new study and the developer pays 100% of the cost of a Sphere of Influence study then this developer can potentially seek reimbursement from other developers for the costs.

Greg Latourell commented that some of the developments in the community are being built through County standards with different standards than the City would require.There is a lot going on now in the Sphere of Influence right now and being proposed in our existing bounds.

The City input on these standards can be proposed and the City can be more progressive with the City comments to the County regarding the standards as an interested agency.

Councilmember Flynn commented that the City can either sit back and do nothing and let things just happen and if they do they arenít doing their job. Whatever they do with one property will affect another property but they need to go in a direction with proper planning, as they have to start some place.

LAFCO can initiate a SOI Boundary change, the City Can initiate a request for SOI Boundary Change, and a property owner can initiate a SOI Boundary Change.

Councilmember Stevens commented that not knowing what itís going to cost makes it hard for him to make a decision and feels that this is far too progressive.

Mayor Houghton understood Councilmember Stevens concerns, but he felt that it wasnít wise to spend money twice and the Council will have a chance to look at this once the studies are done and itís time to at least look at this.

Councilmember Stevens requested the names for the Public Record of those who were represented on the LAFCO Board and Mayor Houghton provided those names: Mayor Houghton Ross Turner, Tehama County Supervisor, Darlene Dickerson, Councilmember of Corning, Ron Warner, TIC Supervisor, and a Public at large member to be chosen from applicants.

If a property owner chose to be annexed and if there is a neighbor who doesnít want to, the neighbors could talk to other property owners and choose to be a group annexation and if a majority objects the process could potentially not go through.

Irving, Flynn to direct staff to adopt the preferred resolution.


AYES: Councilmembers:††††† Flynn, Houghton and Irving

NOES:Councilmembers:††††† Brown and Stevens

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING:†††††† ††††††††††† None



At 8:30 P.M. Mayor Houghton adjourned the meeting to February 7, 2006 at 7:00 P.M., in the Red Bluff City Council Chambers.


s/b Andy Houghton




s/b Gloria Shepherd

City Clerk