WEED
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL
13, 2000
The City Council of the City of Weed held a regular
meeting on Thursday, April 13, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
City Hall.
Mayor Neva Barnett called the meeting to order and
Council Member Roy Bergfors led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Present, in addition to Mayor Barnett and
Council Member Bergfors, were Council Members Amelia “Mel” Borcalli, Joel
Obuchon, and Vince Tallerico. Also
present were City Administrator Earl Wilson, Finance Director M. Kelly
McKinnis, Police Chief Martin Nicholas, Fire Chief Darin Quigley, Public Works
Director Craig Sharp, and City Clerk Deborah Salvestrin.
RECOGNITIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Wilson announced the City’s
web site address.
Council Member Bergfors announced
his resignation from the City Council effective May 1 because he has sold his
business and is moving to North Carolina.
Mr. Bergfors thanked the citizens and his fellow Council members for
their help and cooperation during his years here.
PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Mayor Barnett invited comments from the audience on
specific agenda items or any item of interest that is within the Council’s
jurisdiction noting that no action could be taken by the Council except to set
the matter presented for the next regular Council meeting. There were none.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND
COMMENTS
Council
Member Bergfors reviewed attendance at the League of Siskiyou Cities’ quarterly
dinner meeting on April 12 noting the presentation on the County-wide push to
get fiber optic hubs through Pacific Bell.
Mayor Barnett reported on attendance
at a workshop in Redding sponsored by the League of California Cities.
Mayor Barnett reviewed the
procedures for the conduct of public hearings, and then declared the present as
the time and place for the scheduled hearings.
A. Notice of Substandard or Dangerous
Condition, 212 Pine Street: Appeal of
Notice ordering demolition submitted by Terry Shumlai
City Administrator Wilson reviewed
that the Council, at the last meeting, opened the hearing and continued it to
this date because Mr. Shumlai was unable to attend that hearing.
Mayor Barnett stated that the
Building Inspector has served notice on the property of substandard condition
relating to various items including inadequate sanitation, structural hazards,
nuisance, hazardous electrical wiring, hazardous plumbing, faulty weather
protection, fire hazard, and hazardous or unsanitary premises over the past
several years beginning in 1993. Mayor
Barnett asked if there is any new information, and Dave Smith, City Building
Inspector, stated there is nothing new.
Mayor Barnett asked for
and received verification that proper notice had been given in accordance with
the law, and then declared the hearing open at 7:18 p.m.
Mayor Barnett asked for
comments and/or questions in support of the appeal of the demolition
order. There were none.
Mayor Barnett asked for
comments and/or questions in opposition to the appeal of the demolition
order. There were none.
Mayor
Barnett asked for Council comments and or questions.
Council Member Borcalli moved,
seconded by Council Member Bergfors, to uphold the demolition order.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Barnett declared this hearing closed at 7:19 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to permit off-site advertising signs subject to specific conditions
City Administrator Wilson reviewed
that the Planning Commission recognized the City has a cumbersome process for
obtaining advertising sign permits and appointed a committee of its members to
review the ordinance and make recommendation for amendment. Mr. Wilson noted that although this process
is ongoing, a couple of individuals came before the Planning Commission to
request faster action with respect to off-site advertising. Mr. Wilson stated that the Commission
subsequently drafted an ordinance and recommended Council action, and the
proposed ordinance was scheduled for public hearing before the Council.
City Administrator Wilson reported
that the proposed ordinance authorizes off-site signs along Interstate 5 in
commercial and industrial zones, and subject to Cal-Trans regulations. Mr. Wilson then reviewed a slide
presentation that showed the billboards currently located near Highway 97 at
Big Springs Road that approximate 14’ wide by 22’ high, or 300 square feet, and
showed the Cal-Trans authorized freeway advertising.
Mayor Barnett noted that the
Planning Commission’s proposed ordinance allows signs to 1,000 square feet, and
briefly reviewed the Sign Committee’s review process, its mission statement,
and the Federal Scenic Byway program.
City Administrator Wilson explained that the process
will include the hearing for public input, and the Council’s options of
continuing the hearing, closing it, deliberation, introduction of the ordinance
as proposed or modified, and referral to the Planning Commission and/or staff
for additional work.
Mayor Barnett asked for
and received verification that proper notice had been given in accordance with
the law, declared the hearing open at 7:40 p.m., and then asked for comments
and/or questions in support of the zoning ordinance amendment.
Steve Anderson, who
resides on Audubon Road in Mt. Shasta and owns Anderson Metal Building Products
and Weed Mini Storage in Weed, came before the Council to review the proposed
signs he will place on his property near the central Weed exit. Mr. Anderson explained that over 17,000
vehicles travel I-5 every day, and listed his personal experience with
advertising. Mr. Anderson suggested
that Council consider changing the proposed ordinance to permit signs only in
industrial zones instead of commercial and industrial as written.
John Lovett, who resides
in Redding and is a sign consultant, stated that over the years he has attended
many similar hearings and the issues of proliferation and size are common. Mr. Lovett explained size as it relates to
distance from the freeway, and also explained difference in destination and
drive-by communities, and the various types of advertising required by
each.
Kim Greene, who resides on
Oregon Street and is the President of the Chamber of Commerce, reported that
the Chamber’s Board of Directors supports the idea of off-site advertising as
presented by Mr. Anderson.
John Oliver, who resides
on Edgewood Road and is co-owner of the Weed Mercantile, stated his support for
the proposal noting that the City of Weed needs to grow, and in order to do
that, the City needs business.
Marty Spiegel, who resides in Mt. Shasta and works in
Weed, told the Council of declining school enrollments that she feels could be
turned around with the attraction of business
Jim Henry, who resides on Willow Brook Lane, Redding,
and who will construct the proposed truck stop project, stressed the importance
of off-site signs, noting he was advised that his business would suffer a 50
percent reduction without the freeway-oriented advertising he is
proposing.
Vaune Dillmann, who resides on N. Old Stage Road and
owns businesses on Main Street, asked the Council to keep small business in
mind noting that often the large business conglomerates like those on the south
end have the money to dominate available signs.
Mayor Barnett asked for comments in opposition to the
proposed ordinance for off-site signs.
Candace Dillingham, who resides on Sugar Pine Road,
reviewed the sign committee’s goals and how it coincides with the City’s vision
statement. Ms. Dillingham reviewed the
sign committee’s progress toward revision of the sign ordinance and summarized
what it has learned regarding sign types and markets. Ms. Dillingham noted that billboards rarely advertise businesses
within the community it is located in due to costs. Ms. Dillingham asked the Council to consider tourism and monies
available for those activities some of which are simply not compatible with
billboards.
Scott Durbin, who resides on Oregon Street and owns a
business on Main Street, stated from his backyard he could view four possible
billboard sites. Mr. Durbin noted his
business is very successful using word of mouth rather than formal advertising. Dr. Durbin urged the Council to carefully
consider any ordinance stating that if the ordinance specifies a certain build
out of signs, that number of signs will be constructed. Dr. Durbin asked the Council to refer the
ordinance to a committee to develop options that will limit any possible
proliferation of signs.
Ed Silva, who resides on Woodridge Court and owns a
business on Shastina Drive, stated that billboards one after the other don’t
contribute to the looks of a town, and don’t invite tourism. Mr. Silva cited the example of the billboards
in South Yreka.
There being no further comments in opposition, Mayor
Barnett asked for rebuttal. Steve
Anderson asked the Council to look for a win-win situation that is in the
interest of businesses and homeowners.
Marty Spiegel said that signs to attract visitors to
the community could bring new residents and business owners and could bring
pride back to the community and enhance the area.
Scott Durbin asked the Council to study the
ramifications of the ordinance amendment, and asked that if the interests of
the homeowners and the businesses cannot be found to be compatible, the Council
should remember that the residents of Weed are the ones who vote for them.
There being no further comments, Mayor Barnett
declared the hearing closed at 8:38 p.m., and asked for Council comments noting
that the matter before the Council is the draft in the agenda package that
permits signs to 1,000 square feet on lands zoned for commercial and
industrial.
Council Member Tallerico stated that he favors
advertisement for local business only, and would not vote for a sign that
advertises business out of the city.
Mayor Barnett noted that City Attorney King is absent
because he has a work commitment out of the City and he is needed to answer
Council Member Tallerico’s question and others.
Council Member Borcalli read a statement that
attempted to clarify statements that are being made around town regarding
numbers of signs that will be installed, and the sizes of those. Ms. Borcalli noted that Council could
control sign and distance, and zoning, and the goal of the City is to attract
business.
Council Member Obuchon stated he does not want to see
lots of signs, but that the Council can amend the proposed ordinance to find
something viable, and expressed interest in finding something to serve the
interests of the downtown people.
Council Member Bergfors expressed support for the
small business owner, and briefly discussed the existing on-site sign
regulations that seem to have no limits as compared to the proposed limitations
for off-site signs. Mr. Bergfors said
signs work and cited the example of the CalTrans sign just south of Mt. Shasta
City that announces traffic related conditions adding that he experienced a 50
percent downturn in business after its installation.
Mayor Barnett reviewed the
importance of the Council’s job of looking at the future of the City, and also
that there are 21 local businesses currently advertised in the CalTrans signs
located on the freeway.
Mayor Barnett reiterated the various
questions that have arisen such as legality of prohibiting out of city
advertising, and limitations on distance from business, and suggested
establishing a committee comprised of two Council Members, the Sign Committee
of the Planning Commission, the City Administrator and City Attorney that will
make recommendations to the Council at the next meeting. Council concurred, and Mayor Barnett and
Council Member Borcalli volunteered to sit on the Committee with Council Member
Obuchon as alternate. Mayor Barnett
noted that Planning Commissioners Acquistapace, Baltar, and Dillingham comprise
the Sign Committee of the Planning Commission.
The Council agreed to table this
item to the next meeting to permit the committee to report to Council.
Council Member Borcalli moved,
seconded by Council Member Obuchon, to adjourn for a 10-minute recess.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council adjourned at 9:08 p.m., and
returned at 9:16 p.m.
B. Sewer revenue program: proposed adjustment of monthly rates for
sewer collection service.
Mayor Barnett asked for
and received verification that proper notice had been given in accordance with
the law, and then declared the hearing open at 9:17 p.m.
City Administrator Wilson reported that Sam Smith,
engineer with PACE Civil, Inc. has prepared the proposed plan that was
discussed in detail by committee of the Council, and set for public
hearing.
Mayor Barnett declared the
hearing open at 9:18 p.m. and asked for comments and/or questions.
Jim Gubetta, who resides on
Woodridge Court, stated the City has collected fees over and above those needed
for sewer maintenance and operation, and they were to be set aside for system
improvements. Mr. Gubetta stated he
believes the City is in violation of Government Code §6601, and also of the
reporting requirements of Government Code §66006, and claimed the City has not
followed State law in the fee assessments of administrative costs for sewer
charges. Mr. Gubetta suggested that a
balance sheet of gifted, waived, deferred, and outstanding fees would be
helpful to decrease any presently proposed increase. Mr. Gubetta stated that the charges for multi-family units versus
those for single-family residential are not fair and equal.
There being no further public input, Mayor Member
Barnett closed the hearing at 9:22 p.m. and asked for Council comments or
questions.
Council Member Bergfors stated that the revenue
program is a requirement of the grant funds that the City received, and the
proposed rates are consistent with rates charged in other communities.
Sam Smith, came before the Council to reiterate that
the rate structure is required by the grant programs used, and was based on
information supplied him by City staff using funds needed for operational
maintenance, debt service, and a small reserve for replacement. Mr. Smith added that the rates are also
based on quantity of flow and quality of effluent going into the system. Mr. Smith noted that there is no perfect
guideline as to how to treat apartments, and a survey of other cities revealed
that some cities treat apartments as 100 percent of the household equivalent,
and some use a lesser percentage. Mr.
Smith also stated that the proposed structure provides uniformity and
consistency over the current structure that is complicated and cumbersome.
Council heard that staff would prepare the
appropriate resolution setting the fees for action at a future meeting.
REGULAR AGENDA
Mayor Barnett recommended the
amendment of the order of the published agenda due to the late hour to
accommodate persons in the audience who want to speak to them.
Council Member Borcalli moved,
seconded by Council Member Tallerico, to amend the order of the agenda as
requested to take items C. and H. ahead of items A. and B.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C. Ordinance No. 350-2000 -- City Council
Meetings: Proposed second reading and
adoption of an Ordinance of The City of Weed Amending Section 2.04.010,
Entitled Regular Meetings, of The Weed Municipal Code To Change Council Meeting
Times (from 7:00 p.m. on the second Thursday to 9:00 a.m. on the second
Thursday, and from 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Thursday to 6:00 p.m. on the fourth
Thursday)
City
Administrator Wilson reported receipt of a letter from William Jaynes, Court
Executive Officer, asking postponement of the ordinance adoption due to
conflict between Court use of the Chambers and proposed City use.
Mr.
Jaynes came before the Council stating that he was unaware of the proposed
change of the meeting date that could conflict with the current Court use of
the Chambers.
Mayor
Barnett noted that the lease expired in June 1999, and efforts to renegotiate
have not met with activity in the renewal direction, however if County staff is
willing to work with the City, Council can table action on the ordinance.
Council
Member Obuchon moved, seconded by Council Member Tallerico, to postpone action
until the County and City representatives can meet.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
H. Nor-Cal Electric Authority: Consideration of Resolution of the City Council of the City of Weed Authorizing the City to Become a Program Participant in Nor-Cal Electric Authority and a Participating City in Jefferson Public Power Authority, and Authorizing Certain other Matters relating Thereto
City Administrator Wilson reviewed past Council
actions related to this subject wherein the City agreed to become a party of
the Nor-Cal Electric Authority joint powers agreement (JPA) to acquire and
operate the electrical distribution system currently owned by PacifiCorp. Mr. Wilson added that subsequent to that
action, the Courts have found that counties can become a party of a JPA for the
purpose of acquisition but not operation therefore another JPA was
necessitated, and the agreements and resolution to approve the arrangement have
been forwarded to the City.
Larry Bacon, City Attorney for the City of Yreka,
came before the Council to discuss the new JPA known as the Jefferson Public
Power Authority. Mr. Bacon noted that
the second JPA is comprised solely of cities with Dunsmuir and Yreka being the
initiating cities, and that Dusty Veale from Yreka has been appointed Chairman,
and Ivan Young from Dunsmuir was also appointed to the board.
Mayor Barnett asked for and received confirmation
that the City of Weed has no financial obligation.
Council Member Bergfors asked about proposed rate
increases, and Mr. Bacon replied that there is a rate freeze to March 2002, and
then six percent is possible for the next two years, and that the City-operated
JPA will be setting rates.
Council questioned deadlines, and Mr. Bacon stated
that April 30 is the deadline for voting members. Council noted that the agreements would have to be reviewed and
approved by the City Administrator
Council Member Bergfors moved, seconded by Council
Member Borcalli, that the reading in full of the body of Resolution No. 05-2000
be waived, said resolution being introduced and adopted by title only.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Member Bergfors read the title of Resolution
No. 05-2000 and moved adoption, seconded by Council Member Borcalli, said
resolution being in the words and figures following:
RESOLUTION NO.
05-2000
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEED
AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO
BECOME A PROGRAM PARTICIPANT IN
NOR-CAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY
AND A PARTICIPATING CITY IN
JEFFERSON PUBLIC POWER
AUTHORITY, AND
WHEREAS the Nor-Cal Electric Authority (“Nor-Cal”) is a
public entity duly organized and existing pursuant to the Third Amended Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement (the “Nor-Cal Agreement”) among the City of Yreka,
the County of Del Norte and such other Program Participants as may from time to
time become parties to the Nor-Cal Agreement in accordance with the terms
thereof and the provisions of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code of the State of California (the “Law”); and
WHEREAS, section 17 of the Nor-Cal Agreement provides
that any California city or county that is located in whole or in part within
the geographic boundaries of the historic electric service area of PacifiCorp
may become a Program Participant upon:
1) the filing by such city or county of an executed counterpart of the
Nor-Cal Agreement and a Local Access and Support Agreement substantially in the
form attached to the Nor-Cal Agreement as Appendix A, together with a certified
copy of the resolution of the city council of such city or the board of
supervisors of such county approving the Nor-Cal Agreement and the Local Access
and Support Agreement and the execution and Delivery of the Nor-Cal Agreement
and of the Local Access and Support Agreement; and 2) adoption of a resolution
of the Nor-Cal Commission approving the addition of the city or county as a
Program Participant; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson Public Power Authority
(“Jefferson”) is a public entity duly organized and existing pursuant to the
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (the “Jefferson Agreement”) among the City
of Yreka, the City of Dunsmuir and such other Participating Cities as may from
time to time become parties to the Jefferson Agreement in accordance with the
terms thereof and the provisions of the Law; and
WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Jefferson Agreement provides
that any California city that is located in whole or in part within the
geographic boundaries of the historic electric service area of PacifiCorp and
that is a member of Nor-Cal may become a Participating City in Jefferson upon: 1) the filing by such city of an executed
counterpart of the Jefferson Agreement, together with a certified copy of the
resolution of the city council of such city approving the Jefferson Agreement
and the execution and delivery thereof, and 2) adoption of a resolution of the
Jefferson Commission approving the addition of such city as a Participating
City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Weed (the “City”) is located in
whole or in part within the geographic boundaries of the historic electric
service area of PacifiCorp; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to become a Program Participant
in Nor Cal and a Participating City in Jefferson;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Weed as follows:
Section 1. The
Nor-Cal Agreement, in the form submitted to this meeting, on file with the
Clerk of the City, and made a part hereof as though set forth in full herein,
be and the same is hereby approved. The
Mayor of the City is hereby authorized to execute a counterpart of the Nor-Cal
Agreement in the form presented to this meeting.
Section 2. The
Local Access and Support Agreement, in the form submitted to this meeting, on
file with the Clerk of the City, and made a part hereof as though set forth in
full herein, be and the same is hereby approved. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Local Access and
Support Agreement, or a counterpart thereof, in the form presented to this
meeting.
Section 3. The
Jefferson Agreement, in the form submitted to this meeting, on file with the
Clerk of the City, and made a part hereof as though set forth in full herein,
be and the same is hereby approved. The
Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a counterpart of the Jefferson Agreement
in the form presented to this meeting.
Section 4. The
Clerk of the City is hereby Authorized and directed to file the executed
counterpart of the Nor-Cal Agreement and the executed Local Access and Support
Agreement, together with a certified copy of this Resolution, pursuant to
section 17 of the Nor-Cal Agreement.
Section 5. The
Clerk of the City is hereby authorized and directed to file the executed
counterpart of the Jefferson Agreement, together with a copy of this
Resolution, pursuant to section 18 of the Jefferson Agreement.
Section 6. This
Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
A. Parking enforcement -- Weed Union Elementary School District: Consideration of proposed agreement
City Administrator Wilson reported
that the Elementary School District has asked the City for enforcement of
parking regulations on District property.
Police Chief Nicholas explained that the City has a similar agreement with
College of the Siskiyous.
Council Member Borcalli moved,
seconded by Council Member Bergfors, approval of the Parking Regulations
agreement with the Weed Union Elementary School District, and authorized the
Police Chief to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
B. Request for adjustment of water billing incurred due to a leak submitted by Jack Killingsworth, 358 Walnut Street
City Administrator Wilson reported
receipt of request for adjustment of a water bill incurred due to a leak.
Council Member Borcalli moved,
seconded by Council Member Obuchon, to continue action. Mr. Killingsworth was not present to discuss
the matter.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C. Ordinance No 351-2000 -- lot line
adjustments and mergers: Proposed
second reading and adoption of an Ordinance of The City of Weed Amending Title
17, Subdivisions, of The Weed Municipal Code Adding Chapters Regulating Merger
of Contiguous Parcels, and Lot Line Adjustments
City Administrator Wilson reviewed
that this ordinance was introduced for first reading at the last regular
Council meeting.
Council Member Borcalli moved, seconded by Council
Member Obuchon, that the reading in full of the body of Ordinance No. 351-2000
be waived, said ordinance being adopted by title only.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Member Borcalli read the title of Ordinance
No. 351-2000 and moved adoption, seconded by Council Member Obuchon, said
ordinance being in the words and figures following:
ORDINANCE NO 351-2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
WEED
AMENDING TITLE 17,
SUBDIVISIONS,
OF THE WEED MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEED DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 25 is hereby added to Title 17 of
the Weed Municipal Code to read as follows:
Sections:
17.25.010 Authority
for merger of contiguous parcels
17.25.020 Owner-initiated
merger of contiguous lots or parcels
17.25.030 City-initiated
merger of contiguous lots or parcels
17.25.040 Form
of petition
17.25.050 Findings
17.25.060 Recordation
of instrument evidencing the merger
17.25.070 Failure
to conform to procedures—Application may be avoided
17.25.080 Merger
application processing fee
17.25.010
Authority for merger of contiguous parcels. Two or more, but less than five contiguous parcels or lots of
subdivided real property which have been created under the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act of the California Government Code or any prior law
regulating the division of land, or a city ordinance enacted pursuant thereto,
or which were not subject to those provisions at the time of their creation,
may be merged without a reversion to acreage and an associated parcel map,
under the authority of §66499.20 ¾ of the Subdivision Map Act of the California
Government Code.
17.25.020
Owner-initiated merger of contiguous lots or parcels. The owner(s) of any two or more, but less than five, contiguous
lots or parcels may request a merger of said lots or parcels upon the submittal
of an application of all the owners of record of the real property in question
requesting such merger, and by filing with the city administrator an
application for owner-initiated merger and waiver of parcel map, on a form
provided by the City. All owners must
have an interest in each of the parcels sought to be merged. The petition and application shall be
processed and the request approved, denied and/or appealed in accordance with
the provisions of §17.25.040 of this Code.
17.25.030
City-initiated merger of contiguous lots or parcels. he city administrator shall require the owner to initiate the
process to merge into a single lot or parcel any two or more, but less than
five, contiguous lots or parcels of land which are held by the same owner,
prior to any land use approval, or the issuance of any building permits on said
lots or parcels if no land use approval is required, when any one or more of
the following conditions apply:
A. Any
one or more of the contiguous lots or parcels held by the same owner does not
conform to the minimum parcel size and/or dimensional standards set forth for
the zoning district in which such lots or parcels are located.
B. One or more of the parcels or lots is
developed, or will be developed, with a single primary structure, that is also
partially sited on a contiguous lot or parcel under the same ownership.
C. One or
more of the parcels or lots is developed, or will be developed, with a primary
use or structure that will be partially or wholly sited on a contiguous lot or
parcel under the same ownership.
D. Merger is
required by the city as a condition of any land use approval or for the
issuance of any permit.
17.25.040
Form of application. The application cited in
§17.25.020 shall contain the following information:
A.
Evidence of title (e.g. grant deeds and title report) to all of the
parcels of real property involved in the merger.
B. Written
consent of all the owners of interest(s) in all of the parcels of real property
involved in the merger. The consent
shall be notarized.
C. An
exhibit, drawn to a standard engineering scale, delineating the existing parcel
boundaries and the location of any existing structures and easements; and
delineating the boundaries of the parcel after the merger.
D. Evidence
of any variances, encroachment permits, or other evidence of entitlement to
deviation from existing zoning law requirements.
E. Evidence of legal and physical access to the
parcel and evidence that access to adjoining lots and parcels will not be
eliminated or restricted by the merger.
F. Evidence
that all property taxes are current for all of the affected parcels.
G.
After receipt of the application, applicant may be required to provide
such other pertinent information as may be determined by the city administrator
and/or the city engineer to be needed for the proper processing of the
application. Such additional
information may include, but is not limited to the following: topographic data,
data relative to drainage conditions or flood hazards, relative location of
public facilities and improvements, information relative to the potential
environmental impact of the merger, record survey, etc.
17.25.050
Findings. The real property described in §17.25.030 of
this Code may only be merged when the city administrator finds that:
A. The lots to be merged are, at the time of
merger, under common ownership and all owners have an interest in the real
property to be merged have consented to the merger, in writing;
B. The
parcel(s) or lot(s) to be created by the merger meet or exceed the minimum dimensions
and area as to size established by the zoning district in which said lots or
parcels are located, or a variance thereto has been granted;
C. The lot or
parcel to be created by the merger has legal and physical access, and access to
adjoining lots or parcels will not be eliminated or restricted by the merger;
D. All
property taxes are current for all affected parcels. Any delinquent property taxes have been paid on all affected
lots/parcels that are the subject of the merger;
E. It clearly
appears from the record, as determined by the city administrator, that any
easements of record affecting the lots or parcels to be merged, or for
adjoining lots or parcels, will not be restricted or eliminated by the
merger. Alternatively, where it appears
from the record, as determined by the city administrator, that any such
easement may be restricted or eliminated, a written, notarized, statement of
noninterference has been received from the easement holder.
F. No new lot
lines will be created through the merger.
17.25.060
Recordation of instrument evidencing the merger. Upon the granting of a merger by the city administrator, a notice
of merger shall be prepared by the city administrator. The notice of merger shall specify the names
of the record owner or owners and describe the real property. The notice of merger shall be filed with the
city clerk, who shall be responsible for recording the document with the county
recorder of the county of Siskiyou.
17.25.070
Failure to conform to procedures—application may be voided. Failure by the applicant to conform to any of the procedures or
time limits set forth herein may result in the voiding of the merger
application.
17.25.080
Merger application processing fee. Applicant
may be charged a reasonable fee, in an amount not to exceed the costs as
determined by resolution of the city council, for processing the merger
application.”
Section 2. Chapter 26 is hereby added to Title 17 of the Weed Municipal Code
to read as follows:
“Chapter 17.26
Sections:
17.26.010 Definition
17.26.020 Authority
for Lot Line Adjustment
17.26.030 Application
17.26.040 Findings
17.26.050 Recordation
of instrument evidencing the adjustment
17.26.060 Failure to conform to
procedures—Application may be avoided
17.26.070 Adjustment
application processing fee
17.26.010
Definition A lot line adjustment is any division of
land exempt from the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act of the California
Government Code, in which no more parcels are created by the division than
originally existed prior to the adjustment.
17.26.020 Authority for lot line adjustment. Two or more existing adjacent parcels or
lots of subdivided real property which have been created under the provisions
of the Subdivision Map Act of the California Government Code or any prior law
regulating the division of land, or a city ordinance enacted pursuant thereto,
or which were not subject to those provisions at the time of their creation,
may have their lot lines adjusted without an associated parcel map, under the
authority of §66412(d) of the Subdivision Map Act of the California Government
Code.
17.26.030 Application. An application shall be submitted in writing, on a form provided
by the city that shall contain the following information:
A. Evidence of title (I.e. grant deeds and
title report) to all of the parcels of real property involved in the
adjustment.
B. Written
consent of all the owners of interest(s) in all of the parcels of real property
involved in the adjustment. The consent
shall be notarized.
C.
An exhibit, drawn to a standard engineering scale, delineating the
existing parcels boundaries and the location of any existing structures and
easements; and delineating the boundaries of the parcel after the adjustment.
D.
A legal description of the parcels after the adjustment.
E.
Evidence of any variances, encroachment permits, or other evidence of
entitlement to deviation from existing zoning law requirements.
F.
Evidence of legal and physical access to the parcels and evidence that
access to adjoining lots and parcels will not be eliminated or restricted by
the adjustment.
G. Evidence that all
property taxes are current for all of the affected parcels.
H.
After receipt of the application, applicant may be required to provide
such other pertinent information as may be determined by the city administrator
and/or the city engineer to be needed for the proper processing of the
application. Such additional
information may include, but is not limited to the following: topographic data,
data relative to drainage conditions or flood hazards, relative location of
public facilities and improvements, information relative to the potential
environmental impact of the adjustment, record survey, etc.
17.26.040 Findings. The real properties described in §17.26.030 of this Code may only
have lot lines adjusted when the city administrator finds that:
A.
The lots with the line(s) to be adjusted are, at the time of the
adjustment, have all owners with an interest in the real property consenting to
the adjustment, in writing;
B.
All the parcel(s) or lot(s) to be created by the adjustment meet or
exceed the minimum dimensions and area as to size established by the zoning
district in which said lots or parcels are located, or a variance thereto has
been granted;
C.
No new lot or lots are created through the adjustment;
D.
All the lot or parcel to be created by the adjustment has legal and
physical access, and access to adjoining lots or parcels will not be eliminated
or restricted by the adjustment;
E.
All property taxes are current for all affected parcels. Any delinquent property taxes have been paid
on all affected lots/parcels which are the subject of the adjustment; and
F.
It clearly appears from the record, as determined by the city
administrator, that any easements of record affecting the lots or parcels to be
adjusted, or for adjoining lots or parcels, will not be restricted or
eliminated by the adjustment.
Alternatively, where it appears from the record, as determined by the
city administrator, that any such easement may be restricted or eliminated, a
written, notarized, statement of noninterference has been received from the
easement holder.
17.26.050 Recordation of instrument evidencing the
adjustment. Upon the granting of an
adjustment by the city administrator, a notice of lot line adjustment shall be
prepared by the city administrator.
Applicant shall cause to be prepared a description thereon which is in
conformance with the lot line adjustment.
The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy of the legal
description appearing on such document. The notice of lot line adjustment shall
specify the names of the record owner or owners and describe the real
property. The notice of lot line
adjustment shall be filed with the city clerk, who shall be responsible for
recording the document with the county recorder of the county of Siskiyou
17.26.060 Failure to conform to procedures—Application
may be voided. Failure by the
applicant to conform to any of the procedures or time limits set forth herein
may result in the voiding of the adjustment application.
17.26.070 Adjustment
application processing fee.
Applicant may be charged a reasonable fee, in an amount not to exceed
the costs as determined by resolution of the city council, for processing the
lot line adjustment application.”
Section 3.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after
its passage.
Section 4.
This ordinance shall be printed in the Weed Press within fifteen (15)
days after its passage.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No action taken – item was removed from the agenda prior
to the time of the meeting, but after the posting of the agenda.
F. Grant application to Department of Water Resources – consideration of resolution of the City Council endorsing application for an Urban Streams Restoration Grant and determining appropriate environmental impact document, conditionally accepting grant if offered, and designating contract manager and fiscal agent
City Administrator Wilson reviewed that the City
previously received grant funding to mitigate flooding problems on Boles Creek
in the downtown area, and since the receipt of the funding it has been
determined that additional funding will be required Mr. Wilson reported that application can be made to the
Department of Water Resources and Great Northern Corporation has agreed to be
the required non-profit corporation co-sponsor.
Council Member Bergfors moved, seconded by Council
Member Obuchon, that the reading in full of the body of Resolution No. 06-2000
be waived, said resolution being introduced and adopted by title only.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Member Bergfors read the title of Resolution
No. 06-2000 and moved adoption, seconded by Council Member Obuchon, said
resolution being in the words and figures following:
RESOLUTION
NO. 06-2000
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEED
ENDORSING APPLICATION FOR
AN URBAN STREAMS RESTORATION
GRANT
AND DETERMINING APPROPRIATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENT, CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING GRANT IF OFFERED, AND
DESIGNATING CONTRACT MANAGER
AND FISCAL AGENT
WHEREAS, the
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Local Assistance, Urban
Streams Restoration Program has announced the availability of funds for grants;
and
WHEREAS, said grants
are intended to help solve flooding and erosion problems in a way that provides
environmental enhancement; and
WHEREAS, the Great Northern Corporation, a local
Siskiyou county non-profit community action agency, has proposed to cosponsor a
grant application with the City of Weed; and
WHEREAS, the project meets all California
Environmental Quality Act requirements, and we have adopted a finding of no
significant impact; and
WHEREAS, we consider the prospects of receiving such
a grant to be reasonably likely.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
of the City of Weed approves the joint application with Great Northern
Corporation for an Urban Streams Restoration Program grant; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that if offered such a grant,
we authorize the City Administrator, or the Finance Director in the absence of
the City Administrator, to accept the grant and sign any city council approved
contract for administration of the grant funds, Project Engineer to develop a
work plan for the project, and the Finance Director to submit invoices to the
Department of Water Resources for activities carried out under the work plan
for the grant contract.
Upon roll call, the vote was:
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
G. Spring Clean Up: consideration authorization/appropriation for May 12 & 13, 2000
City Administrator Wilson reported that Spring Clean Up
has been scheduled to coincide with the County’s Spring Clean Up Weekend, and
that C & D has agreed to do the pick ups on Friday and Saturday, May 12 and
13, at a cost of up to $1,500. City
Administrator Wilson noted that the County’s Spring Clean Up Weekend allows
individuals free dumping of yard wastes, but the City-wide pick up will require
dumping of commercial trucks.
Council Member Borcalli moved, seconded by Council Member
Tallerico, appropriation of $1,500 from the Council’s health and welfare
insurance line item for the Spring Clean Up costs.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CONSENT
AGENDA
Mayor Barnett stated that all items listed under the
consent agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion,
and there will be no separate discussion of the items unless members of the
audience or Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Agenda
for discussion prior to the time the Council votes.
Mayor Barnett asked if there are items to be removed
from the consent agenda. There were
none.
Council Member Tallerico moved, seconded by Council
Member Bergfors, approval of the consent agenda as published including the minutes
of March 9, 2000, payment of Claims #26560 – 26568, #26570 – 26572, #26602 –
26614, #26670 – 26683, #26686 – 26712, #26714 – 26724, in the amount of
$262,540.45, and Financial
Status Report for Month Ending March, 2000.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
STAFF REPORTS
Fire Chief Quigley reported the completion of repairs
to the City’s fire engine, and its expected return to City service.
Public Works Director Sharp reported that Cox &
Cox Construction is back in town to complete its work on the Sewer
Project.
Finance Director McKinnis and Public Works Director
Wilson reported attendance at an economic development conference in
Concord.
ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Tallerico moved
adjournment, motion seconded by Council Member Obuchon.
AYES: Council Members Barnett, Bergfors,
Borcalli, Obuchon, and Tallerico
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MEETING
ADJOURNED SINE DIE AT 9:58 P.M