HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2005-085 - Shastina Ranch Subdivision Project0 •
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING
ADOPTING FINDINGS TO APPROVE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP APPLICATION S-7-03 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION PD -5-04 FOR THE SHASTINA RANCH SUBDIVISION
PROJECT
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2005, the City Council considered Environmental Impact Report EIR-1-03 and its
supporting documentation and the staff report and other information in the record for Tentative Subdivision
Map Application S-7-03 and Planned Development Application PD -5-04 for the Shastina Ranch Subdivision
project, and considered all testimonial and written evidence submitted prior to and during the public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redding that the following
findings are appropriate and proper to support the approval of Tentative Subdivision Map Application S-7-03
and Planned Development Application PD -5-04.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS
The project is within the scope of the project defined in Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-1-03,
certified by the Redding City Council on April 5, 2005, by Resolution 2005-48.
2. Changes or alternations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in Final Environmental Impact
Report EIR-1-03 .
3. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in Final
Environmental Impact Report EIR-1-03.
TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS
(Government Code Section 66474)
To approve a tentative subdivision map application, the approving body must find that none of the
circumstances as set forth in the Government Code of the State of California Chapter 66474.61(a) through
(g) exists, specifically:
That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in
Section 65451. The project density falls within the range anticipated by the property's General Plan
designation of "Residential, 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre." The project design furthers General Plan
Goals CDD2, CDD3, CDD5, CDD9, CDD 10, CDD 11, CDD 12, CDD 16, CDD 16; NR3, NR5 through
NR 10; T3, T5, T6, T8, T9; HS2; R4, R5, R10, R11; PF 1, PF2, PF 15 as follows:
a. The project will provide an aesthetic master planned community of five "villages" distinguished
by lot and home size, but also sharing certain common neighborhood site and architectural design
elements and a neighborhood park, fostering neighborhood cohesiveness. Features include quality
architecture, project entrance features, streetscape landscape, integration of open space, and
distinctive streetlighting. (General Plan Goals CDD9, CDD10, CDD12)
Shastina Ranch, S-7-03 and PD -5-04 Page 1 of
b. The project provides a range of lot sizes and well-designed housing products, including
neighborhood units with homes specifically designed for small lots, fostering efficient use of land.
(General Plan Goals CDD 10, CDD 11)
C. The development will preserve approximately 61 acres, or 27 percent, of the total project land area
in public and private open space. This land encompasses areas for active recreation (public park),
passive recreation (public trail), preservation of sensitive habitat (vernal pools), and public
protection (floodplain). (General Plan Goals CDD3, CDD5, CDD10, NR3, NR5 through NR10,
HS2, R2)
d. Immediate recreation opportunities will be provided to residents through dedication of land and
construction of a public neighborhood park and public trail system in conjunction with subdivision
development. (General Plan Goals T8, R4, R5, R10, R11, P1715)
e. The project design transfers residential density rights within the project boundaries to avoid
sensitive wetland habitat (approximately 24 acres). (General Plan Goals NR3, NR5 through
NR 10)
f. The subdivision design promotes pedestrianism through: (General Plan Goals CDD 10, CDD 16,
CDD 17, T5, T6, T8)
i. Provision of a ten -foot -wide pedestrianibicycle path within 35 -foot -wide landscaped
parkways along Shasta View Drive.
ii. Provision of sidewalks separated from the vehicle lanes by a landscaped parkway along all
internal streets.
iii. Provision of landscaped sidewalk connections between internal streets and Shasta View
Drive.
iv. Provision of connections between the internal street system and the open -space trail system.
g. The project will enhance the aesthetics of the public -street system by incorporation of a landscaped
traffic circle, landscape median, and widened landscaped parkways in Shasta View Drive.
(General Plan Goals CDD 16, CDD 17, T3)
h. Subdivision improvements promote the use of public transit through incorporation of bus stop
improvements on Shasta View Drive and pedestrian connections between internal streets and
Shasta View Drive. (General Plan Goals CDD 10, T3, T9)
The subdivision is located in proximity to existing employment centers along Airport Road and
the future Stillwater Business Park. (General Plan Goal CDD 10)
The subdivision is in an area of invested and planned public infrastructure. The site is within the
Clover Creek Sewer Trunk Line Assessment District, in which the property is invested. The
project will result in the dedication of land for a public well site and construction of a 24 -inch
water main between Rancho Road and Airport Road as specified by the City's Master Water Plan.
(General Plan Goals CDD2, PF 1)
Shastina Ranch, S-7-03 and PD -5-04 Page 2 of 5
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans. The project's street and lot design conform to the standards of the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. All utility and service infrastructures are immediately available to the site.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. The property will accommodate
creation of the proposed lots and residential structures without the need for any unusual grading or
construction practices.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is readily
accessible by a planned street network and serviceable by City utility infrastructure. The terrain is level
and does not contain any geologic hazards. Areas of steep slope and floodplain are being avoided and
placed in open space. Areas of jurisdictional waters are being avoided to the extent practicable. The
project density is at the low end of the density range allowed by the General Plan. Adequate street- and
utility -service capacity is available to accommodate the project.
That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An
environmental impact report, EIR-1-03, has been prepared for the project. The EIR identifies feasible
mitigations that will reduce all potential effects on the environment, including fish and wildlife habitat
to a level of less than significant.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health
problems. The project does not present any adverse impacts to public health subject to compliance with
all recommended conditions of approval.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this
connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for
use will be provided and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision. There are no public -access easements through the property.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS
(Redding Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.53.060)
To approve an application for a Planned Development Plan, Chapter 18.53.060 of the Redding Municipal
Code stipulates that the approving body must make the following findings:
The proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, standards, and programs
of this code and of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, including density and intensity
limitations that apply. The project density falls within the range anticipated by the property's General
Plan designation of "Residential, 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre." The project design furthers General
Plan Goals CDD2, CDD3, CDD5, CDD9, CDD 10, CDD 11, CDD 12, CDD 16, CDD 16; NR3, NR5
through NR 10; T3, T5, T6, T8, T9; HS2; R4, R5, R 10, R 11; PF 1, PF2, PF 15, as further described under
the Tentative Map Findings above:
Shasrina Ranch, S-7-03 and PD -5-04 Page 3 of 5
•
2. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all
yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking area, loading areas, landscape, and other
features required. The project design satisfies all site standards and residential feature requirements of
the City Zoning Ordinance within the guidelines and purpose of the "PD" District.
The site.for the proposed development has adequate access considering the limitations of existing and
planned streets and highways. The project includes and access will be provided by an extension of
Shasta View Drive between Rancho Road and Airport Road. This street link has been identified on the
City's General Plan as a future necessary street link since 1985.
4. Adequate public services exist or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of development
plan approval, to serve the proposed development; and the approval of the proposed development will
not result in a reduction of such public services to properties so as to be a detriment to public health,
safety, or welfare. Adequate public-service and utility capacity is available to accommodate the project
without adversely affecting overall service levels.
The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding
property or the permitted use thereof and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use
character of the surrounding area. The project site is surrounded by other developed and undeveloped
residential neighborhoods and properties. The project is consistent with applicable noise and safety
policies of the Redding Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).
6. The improvements required and the manner of development adequately address all natural and
manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site, including, but not
limited to, flood, fire, and slope hazards. The project completely avoids development on steep slopes
and within the Clover Creek floodplain, which are to be placed in open space. The project conditions
of approval apply access and General Plan fire -safety guidelines.
7. The proposed development carries out the intent of the Planned Development provisions by providing
a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of architecture andsite design greater than that which
could be achieved through the application of the base district regulations. The project provides a more
efficient use of land through provision of a range of lot sizes, minor deviations to lot width, area, and
setback standards to allow for greater streetscape enhancements and provision of open space and model
homes designed to fit small lots, while maintaining quality architectural features.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Redding hereby finds and declares that the
above Findings are in evidence and approves Tentative Subdivision Map S-7-03 subject to the conditions of
approval and Planned Development Plan PD -5-04.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Redding that this resolution shall not
have the force and effect of law and shall not become effective unless and until Ordinance No. 2349,
approving the Development Agreement by and between the City of Redding and Shasta Ranch Development
Company, Inc., shall be introduced, adopted, and thereafter becomes legally effective pursuant to the terms
provided for in that ordinance.
Shastina Ranch, S-7-03 and PD -5-04 Page 4 of
4
t
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced, read, and adopted at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the 5`h day of July 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Dickerson, Murray, Pohlmeyer, Stegall, and Mathena
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None
Attest:
-&W, �' 8z44 -
CONNIE STROHMAYFdk, City Clerk
Shastina Ranch, S-7-03 and PD -5-04
JOJIN R. MATHENA, Mayor
Form Approved:
RICHARD A. DUVERNAY, City Attorney
Page 5 of 5
IM
Cm uwrrs
PF
2
RS -3
L
U
\ RS -3 -PD
SOURCE: GIS DIVISION
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
0 500 1000 1500
FEET
DWG. NO: DATE PRODUCED:
\PLANNING
SHASRNCH JANUARY 24, 2005
m
GC
GI
MTG. DATE:
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
SHASTINA RANCH SUBDIVISION ITEM:
AND FACILITY PLAN AREA ATTACHMENT:
EIR-1-03, S-7-03, GPA -4-03 & RZ-8-03
~
/'
.
.
€ 1,1)1'. €);I! mE DiID,UN!€J,'
. . ... . -,-', .... _.,', ,,.'V ....... '." ',..,_.
.~~.:'~.~ '-"'-'.""'J!;'"lf<('.~h;7jV;:;\,~l$~[t-}?:\\Y:Bil~.~l~~..~~:.~.;"'t .
~u;>'~Jl.'~"
'0r:_:2~:1jJ1!'~'l~W~;" .' ..' ,. '".',:- ; l~ " . _ ","''I''> ',. 'T~_". .,0;; ,',; ';" _ _,'. "
!~~""---"";"'';f,-'-;';_~_''I.-.---"-_.....,,,- ....
OFfICE or THE CITY MANAGER
~.J
.
777 Cypress Avenue. Redding, CA 96001
P.O. Box 496071, Redding, CA 96049-607]
530.225.4060 FAX 530.225-4325
Michael Warren, City Manager
Phillip A. Perry, Assistant City Manager
Kurt Starman, Assistant City Manager
Randy Bachman, Deputy City Manager
July 7, 2005
F-200
Congressman' Wally Herger
c/o Dave Meurer
410 Hemsted Drive, Suite 115
Redding, CA 96002
Subject: W~tlands Regulation and Good Development
Dear Congressman Herger;
Your aide, Dave Meurer, recently requested that the City of Redding provide you with some specific
examples of how the administration of wetlands regulations has negatively impacted good
development practices in our community.
The City of Redding prides itself on the ability io be a good steward of the environment. It has been
our community's goal to respect and preserve the wonderful environment weIive in. Up to this
point, we have been very successfuf in integrating protection of open space into the fabric of the
community, while also encoUraging quality development. However, it seems t1iat over the past
several years, these efforts are challenged byadministration of enviroiIinentallaws in a way which
is counterproductive and may actually be encouraging sprawl. Attached to this letteris information.
, regarding three recent subdivision developments-all which have been caught up in what we feel
is redundant environmental protection efforts.
Hopefully, this information can be of help in your efforts to protect the environment, while adding.
a ievel of rationalism to the 'review of local development projects by Federal agencies. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at (530) 225-4060 or Development Services Director
Jim Hamilton at (530) 225-4122. . .
i:U~
MW;JH;jsg
Attachment
L TR05\A 705L-CWH, wpd
c: Mayor
City Council
Development Services Director
Michael Warren
City Manager
.
.
Q
ATTACHMENT - LETTER ON WETLANDS TO CONGRESSMEN HERGER
JVL Y 5, 2005
Noted below are recent projects where the ACOE permit process has been problematic and resulted
in what we perceive as requirements oflittle, if any, benefit in protection of the environment because
they are redundant to local ordinances. However, these requirements have resulted in substantial
delays and costs for the developments.
The basic problem is that the Federal agencies seem to be demanding a redundant level of protection
for very marginal wetland resources, and this is occurring in piecemeal fashion. If these projects
were at the edge of a larger conservation/wetland resource area or had much more significant
wetland features on-site (for example, two or three acres of vema I pools), then it would make some
sense.
Requirements for conservatorship, management plans, and endowments are far-reaching considering
the relatively small acreage involved and the fact that the protected wetlands are not contiguous to
other larger wetland resource areas. The City required appropriate, long-term protection of the
avoided wetland/creek resources in all cases; however, the protection provided by this easement and
open-space status were essentially ignored.
These added requirements ultimately add uncertainty and substantial cost and time to the projects.
In the bigger scheme of things, this delay and uncertainty may be forcing developers to look for
property in Shasta County, outside the local cities, which can be subdivided for larger two- or
three-acre "ranchettes." This encouragement of sprawl is countel]lroductive to the basic premise of
compact "smart growth" principles. Hopefully, the following examples help clarifY the problems
we face.
. River Ridge Terrace Subdivision, Units 4 and 5 (S-4-97)
This 49-acre, ridge-top subdivision contains approximately 16 acres of area classified as steep
slope by the City, and this area contains drainage swales and intermittent channels draining
toward the Sacramento River. The subdivision map has been recorded; and of the 16 acres of
open space, a 6.6-acre parcel has been dedicated to the City as "open space," with much of the
rest dedicated as "open-space easements" across private property. Construction of the
subdivision included a loss of .252 (one-quarter of an acre) of intermittent and ephemeral creek
mainly created with the fill from construction of Spinnaker Drive, a local street. The project
includes 43 single-family lots originally approved in 1998, with the approval extended for an
additional three years in 200 I. Clearing and grading permits were applied for in late 2002, and
the subdivision map was bonded for and the map recorded in May 2004. Authorization to
proceed was obtained from Army COl]ls in April 2003.
Army COI]lS requirements included:
I. A conservation easement to cover a ten-acre "preserve" area, including all the drainages
and a 25- or 50-foot buffer area.
2. A separate private third-party conservation group that would monitor and maintain the
area.
3. Potentially complete fencing of the entire area (although they may have dropped that
requirement).
.
.
n
.
It is our understanding that the developer has been unable to arrange for a conservation group
to accept this area for maintenance and monitoring and has still not received Corps permits to
proceed with construction of the majority of the subdivision. All the areas in question for
conservation easements are already preserved by the City's regulations which prevent
development in tbe open-space areas.
. East Oak Estates Planned Development Subdivision
This project involved 76 lots for single-family and multiple-family development, witb 152 total
units on 33 acres. A small, public park (1.75 acres) and natural creek greenway (3.25 acres)
were created, totaling approximately 5 acres. The project site is located in south Redding off
Chum Creek Road, between Alrose Lane and Arizona Street. The project impacted .205 acre
of jurisdictional waters and qualified for a Nationwide 39 permit.
The impacts were limited to essential street crossing and a small and isolated vernal pool area.
Other impacts resulted were temporary from construction of storm-drain and sewer utilitywork.
All the otber jurisdictional waters on-site were avoided and were located within a
City-designated greenway which was protected by open-space (no build), conservation, and
drainage easements via tbe final map.
ACOE permitting has been long and costly for the developer. As a condition of the Nationwide
permit, ACOE required tbe greenway parcel to have a conservation-oriented tbird party to
function as preserve manager. A preserve management plan and fully funded endowment of
potentially tens of thousands of dollars were also required. This is in addition to tbe purchase
of mitigation credits from the Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank for the wetlands permanently
impacted.
. Schade Acres Subdivision
This project involved a 9-lot, single-family subdivision on a 20.26-acre piece of property. The
project is located in northwest Redding on Herbscenta Lane (commonly referred to as tbe
"Quartz Hill Road" area).
The project design impacted .020 acre of jurisdictional waters and qualified for a Nationwide
39 permit. Preconstruction notification to tbe ACOE of the project may not have technically
been required. The impacted "jurisdictional" waters consist of ephemeral drainage overgrown
witb blackberry bushes. Drainage does not connect to any substantial resource feature directly
up or downstream. The impacts of the project result essentially from a street crossing designed
to avoid creating ACOE permitting problems. The major jurisdictional area on-site was avoided
and will be protected by City open-space (no build), conservation, and drainage easements via
the final map recordation.
The ACOE responded to the original preconstruction notification for the project witb tbe same
conservatorship, management plan, and endowment requirement placed on East Oak Estates.
This makes even less sense with the Schade Acres Subdivision, considering the very small and
isolated nature of jurisdictional waters involved. The overall quality of the wetland resource
here is very questionable.
7-5-05
L TR05\A 705L-CWH. wpd