Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 2000-09-22 214 City Council, Special Meeting Civic Center Council Chambers 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California September 22,2000, 12:00 noon The meeting was called to order by Mayor Anderson with the following Council Members present: Cibula, Kight, McGeorge, and Pohlmeyer. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, Deputy City Manager Starman, City Attorney Wingate, Assistant City Engineer Russell, Senior Planner Keaney, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Executive Secretary English. I RESOLUTION - Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project, Environmental Determination ED-3-00, by City of Redding (S-060-150-165) Senior Planner Keaney provided an overview of the Report to the City Council dated September 19, 2000, incorporated herein by reference, regarding a proposed resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Clover Creek Flood Protection Project. The project was described as the construction of a 45-acre detention basin incorporating 10 to 15 acres of wetlands, restoration of the creek channel, and oak woodland on a 145-acre site. Mr. Keaney noted that all of the necessary public notices and procedures required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been followed. He mentioned that the mitigations were revised during the public review and comment period to address questions from the Department of Fish and Game. I It is the recommendation of Senior Planner Keaney that the City Council adopt by resolution the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Impact Determination ED-3-00. In response to Council Member Cibula, Mr. Keaney explained that this is the appropriate recommendation for this project due to the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this project as a requirement of CEQA, which lists the party responsible for follow-up and assuring that the mitigation measures are completed. He expected most of these measures to be folded into the construction contract making them the responsibility of the contractor and the Department of Public Works. City Attorney Wingate pointed out that while a public hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not required, it was held before the Board of Administrative Review with substantial notice provided to the property owners. Mayor Anderson determined that there was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. MOTION: Made by Council Member McGeorge, seconded by Council Member Pohlmeyer, that Resolution No. 2000-158 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project, Environmental Determination, ED-3-00. Voting was as follows: I Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Cibula, Kight, McGeorge, Pohlmeyer, and Anderson Council Members - None Council Members - None Council Members - None Resolution No. 2000-158 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 09/22/2000 215 I RESOLUTIONS - Intention to Acquire Property through Eminent Domain, Charles R. Boggs, General Partner, Shasta View Investments Property, and Coleburn R. and Valdene . Thomason, Thomason Development Company (C-070-01O & S-060-150-165) City Clerk Strohmayer announced that notices of hearing regarding the intent of the City Council of the City of Redding to acquire property by Eminent Domain were provided to the subject property owners on September 6, 2000 by certified mail. She noted that written requests to appear before the City Council on this matter were received from William Livaich, the attorney representing Charles R. Boggs, on September 21, 2000, and from Eihnard F. Diaz, representing Cole burn R. and Valdene Thomason, on September 18, 2000. City Attorney Wingate explained that this proceeding is required by California law whenever the City of Redding determines that a need exists to acquire real property for a public project and may have to use its power of Eminent Domain. Before the property can be condemned through the power of Eminent Domain, the public agency must adopt a resolution of necessity with respect to the property proposed for acquisition. The purpose of the resolution of necessity is to hear the evidence, and make a determination regarding three specific findings. The findings that must be made are (1) whether the public interest and necessity require the project, (2) whether the project is' planned or located in a manner that would be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, and (3) whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. I Assistant City Engineer Russell provided an overview of the Report to the City Council dated September 19, 2000, incorporated herein by reference, regarding adoption of resoh:~tions of necessity to acquire real property by Eminent Domain. The Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project arose out ofthe City's obligation to assume responsibility for flood protection for homes and property located within and adjacent to the Clover Creek floodplain. Substantial development and grading have occurred in the upper portions of Clover Creek causing increased storm water runoff and altered stream flow characteristics. Staff has identified these factors as contributing causes of the flooding that occurred in this area between 1995 and 1997, which was responsible for damage to property owners residing in the vicinity of Goodwater Avenue and Freeman Way. Mr. Russell noted that a lawsuit was filed in 1997 by seven of the owners of the property located along Clover Creek near Goodwater Avenue and Freeman Way seeking damages from the flooding, as well as substantial loss in property value caused by the significant probability of future flooding. He indicated that the City has studied how to solve the problem, and has considered several alternatives, including (1) construction of a large drainage canal along Goodwater Avenue to Rancho Road, (2) acquisition of the property subject to flooding, and (3) construction of a storm water detention basin above the areas subject to flooding. Because there is also a history of flooding from large storm events along Clover Creek in the vicinity of the Redding Municipal Airport north ofMeadowview Drive, the City has looked for an alternative which would detain a sufficient amount of storm water upstream in order to prevent flooding all along the stream to its confluence with the Sacramento River. It has been determined that a substantial detention basin is required in an upstream location, and it also appears that it may be necessary to install a 60-inch drainage pipe in Goodwater A venue to carry the storm water runoff, in addition to a large detention basin. . I Assistant City Engineer Russell advised that the property under consideration today is undeveloped, located upstream ofthe problem area on Clover Creek, and there is sufficient area to accommodate a detention basin of adequate size. The proposed project consists of a large detention basin, a series of detention ponds at various elevations, a detention basin levee, wetlands blending into Oak Meadows, and neighborhood park facilities. He indicated that 25.5 acres of property owned by Colburn and Valdene Thomason is necessary for this project,. and ideally suited for a large portion of the proposed detention basin because of its low elevation and the fact that approximately half of the property is located within the Montgomery Watson Report floodplain area. Another Jactor considered was that there are substantial wetlands features within the parcel. 09/22/2,000 216 Mr. Russ~ll co~ented that approximately 93 acres of property owned by Shasta View Investments will be neeqed. Most of this property will be used for the detention basin, a series of deten~ion ponds, wetla,nds, ~d Oaks Me,adows open space. The feasibility of neighborhood park facilities is also bei!1g considered, and a portion of the project on the Shasta View Investments property will allow substantial detention of storm water runoff, as well as open space and park fapilities. Council Member Cibula asked if any major improvements had currently been made to the property. Mr. Ru~sell responded that there is a partjally completed subdivision which is not being considered in the proposed acquisition. The remaind,er is vacant, undeveloped property. I At the request of City Attorney Wingate, Mayor Anderson directed that the staff report be made part of the record in its entirety including all attachments. Mr. Wingate pointed out that staffs recommendation not only addresses the problems of the property owners within the f1~odplain immediately south of the proposed detention basin, but it also solves problems for property owners downstream closer to the Meadowview Drive area near the Redding Ml1;nicipal Airport. He suggested that this recommendation meets the requirements for making the findings for a resolution of necessity. Mr. Wingate advised the City Council to make additional findings which include the following: 1. That Government Code Section 7267.2(a) offers were made to the owners, and the offers fully complied with Government Code Section 7267.2(a). 2. That the City has fully complied with the C~lifornia Environmental Quality Act for this proposed project, an Initial Study and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for public review, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were adopted. 3. That the City does have statutory authority to acquire the property by eminent domain, pursuant to the applicable law set forth in the proposed resolution. I ~ity Attorney Wingate noted for the record that the City Clerk is in receipt of a petition from 162 property Qwners in the area requesting that all of the Oak Meadows Estates property be acquired by eminent domain. It was the property owners' request that the open space and park facilities be made even h;lrger th~ recommended by staff. He contended that , 'J the proposed project provides the greatest private good witp the least private injury. Mr. Wingate pointed out that the Shasta View Investm~nts property owner has already expended substantial monies to develop the 52-lot proposed subdivision currently in place. It -is the recommendation of City Attorney Wingate that the City Council make all the findings and adopt t~o separate resolutions of necessity to acquire the Thomason property and the Shasta View Investments property by eminent, domain. Mayor Anderson announced that the City Council would discuss each matter separately and the first would be the Thomason property. He pointed out that today's proceedings were to consider the issue of eminent domain, and any requests to speak on subjects other than eminent domain would be taken up during the Public Comment period. Charles Boggs, C. Boggs, Inc., 4401 Hazel Avenue, No. 275, Fair Oaks, California, General Partner for Shasta View Investments, stated that the $800,000 offer his company received from the City was not an adequate offer, citing an article in today's newspaper which discussed Oak Meadows and some of the property located to the east of Clover Creek. He indicated that if the calculations are viewed on a per-acreage basis, it would seem that the property owner to the east (without the vested tentative map or development agreement) was offered more for this property than was Shasta View Investments. I 09/22/2000 217 I Mr. Boggs requested that the City Council consider whether or not it is necessary to take the property located north of Shasta View Investments' finished lots and west of Clover Creek which has been designated for a park facility. He opined that this would not be required in order to mitigate the flood issues with Clover Creek or the issue of the lawsuits. He suggested that the remaining 43 acres of his company's property would satisfy these needs. If the City does wish to construct a park in this area, he favored placing it on the property located east of Clover Creek which does not have a vested tentative map or a development agreement. Mr. Boggs addressed the quality ofthe proposed development on the Oak Meadows property. He explained that the plan for the size of the homes within the proposed subdivision has been 1,200-1,380 square feet. If the City Council decides to utilize the property to the east, his company's current plan is to build much larger homes by increasing the minimum size to approximately 1,700 square feet. At the request of Council Member Cibula, City Attorney Wingate discussed the effects of the tentative map and the development agreement with respect to these proceedings. Mr. Wingate acknowledged the fact that the development agreement and tentative map on file do have some effect on value, as do all of the costs of development. However, the issues of valuation cannot to be considered at this time. Bill Livaich, Desmond, Miller & Desmond, law firm, 1006 Fourth Street, Sacramento, California, representing Shasta View Investments/C. Boggs, Inc., commented on the short period of time provided for review of the notice of hearing and documents applicable to these proceedings. Mr. Livaich stated for the record the following objections to the eminent domain proceedings: I 1. The offer made to the owner included an inadequate statement for the basis regarding the amount of the offer made to the property owner. 2. The proposed project will not subject all of the land to public use, all of the land will not be used properly, and acquisition by and in of itself is not permitted, based on Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.010. 3. This proposed project, as worded, does not meet the requirement of public interest and necessity, based on Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.030. 4. The proposed project is not planned or located in the manner that has the least private injury while giving the public the greatest benefit. He maintained that alternatives, different configurations, and different uses are available. 5. The acquisition of the entire property is not necessary for the proposed project, as required. p. The project does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. 7. The property will not be devoted to the stated purpose in the proposed resolution of necessity, as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1250.360. I 8. It has not been illustrated that the property will be devoted to the stated purpose within a reasonable time (seven years under most circumstances). 9. The resolution of necessity does not show a date beyond seven years for which this land would be used under the stated purpose, as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.220. 09/22/2000 218 In response to Mayor Anderson, City Attorney Wingate advised that these objections would not change staff s recommendations. , Maureen Robison, 20049 Lairpin Lane, supported omitting the Oak Meadows property from these proceedings, and suggested that the City .offer a fair price to Mr. Boggs. She also agreed with proceeding with this project. However, Ms. Robison expressed concern that the storm water pollution prevention program required by the Regional Water Quality Board has not been developed by Mr. Boggs. Mayor Anderson determined that there were no additional individuals present wishing to speak on the is~ue. I City Attorney Wingate noted that this is ajoint City/Redevelopment Agency project, and is designed to benefit the property owners who live within the SHASTEC Redevelopment Project area, which is a cooperative program between the City of Redding, Shasta County, and City of Anderson Redevelopment Agenci~s. The SHASTEC Redevelopment Project area will administer development ofthe project should the City Council choose to approve this proposal. Mr. Wingate pointed out that this project is still in the design phase, but staffhas determined that the actual size of the detention basin with the series of ponds at differing elevations dictates the necessity to acquire a substantial portion of Shasta View Investments property. This is also necessary if the levy or berm is to be maiI?-tained at a level that does not require substantial compliance with certain federal and state regulations relating to dam safety. At the hour of 12:51 p.m., Mayor Anderson declared the meeting recessed. At the hour of 12:55 p.m., Mayor Anderson reconvened the meeting to regular session. City Attorney Wingllte requested that the maps presented by Assistant City Engineer Russell also be made part of the record. Mr. Wingate explained that all of the necessary findings have been included in the resolution. I MOTION: Made by Council Member Pohlmeyer, seconded by Council Member Kight, that Resolu~ion No. 2000-159 be adopte.d, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding tq acquire real property by eminent domain for the Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project, Shasta View Investments property, Asessor's Parcel . " . No. 110-150-02,3705 Shasta View Drive, 10catedattheendofVenus Way and Galaxy Way. V oting was as follows: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Cibula, Kight, Pohlmeyer, McGeorge, and Anderson Council Members - None . Council Members - None Council Members - None Resolution No. 2000-159 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. At the hour of 12:57 p.m., Council Member Cibula left the meeting due to a family emergency. . Einard Diaz, representing Thomason Development, 4277 Pasatiempo Court, expressed his clients' support of this project, and recognized its necessity for property owners located I downstream, as well as its benefit to the community. However, Mr. Diaz requested that the City Council ~ontinue any action regarding the Thomason parcel for at least 30 days, explaining that this would allow the Thomasons time to have an appraisal prepared. It would also provide the Thomasons with an opportunity to follow up on discussions with the City to resolve certain issu~s. Mr. Diaz pointed out that his clients do not wish to jeopardize the project from moving forward. To that end, the Thomasons are willing to enter into an agreement stipulating that the City may proceed with any design and testing on the property necessary . 09/22/2000 219 Mayor Anderson asked staff if there would be adequate time for the Thomasons to obtain an appraisal and complete negotiations before any legal proceedings begin. City Attorney Wingate confirmed that adequate time is available, because staff will not begin proceedings until the end of October. While Mr. Wingate hoped that a settlement with the Thomasons could be reached prior to any action being filed, he stressed the importance of moving forward with the process in order to give the City the legal option to file the action. Mr. Wingate reiterated that all of the necessary findings are included in the staff report and can be found in the resolution. I MOTION: Made by Council Member Pohlmeyer, seconded by Council Member McGeorge, that Resolution No. 2000-160 be adopted, resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding to acquire real property by eminent domain for the Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project, Thomason property, Assessor's Parcel No. 110-160-06,3901 Airport Road, located between Airport Road and Clover Creek, South of Forest Hills Drive. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Kight, Pohlmeyer, McGeorge, and Anderson Council Members -None Council Members - Cibula Council Members - None Resolution No. 2000-160 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. I RESOLUTION Determining to Carry Out Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project, and Directing the Filing of the Notice of Determination (S-060-150-165) City Attorney Wingate related that the determination to carry out the project and file the Notice of Determination is the formal step which completes the California Environmental Quality Act process for the Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project. It is the recommendation of City Attorney Wingate that the City Council adopt a resolution determining to carry out the Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project, and directing the filing of the Notice of Determination of the completion of the environmental review process. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kight, seconded by Council Member Pohlmeyer, that Resolution No. 2000-161 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding determining to carry out the Clover Creek Flood Protection and Environmental Enhancement Project, and directing the filing of the notice of determination. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Council Members - Kight, McGeorge, Pohlmeyer, and Anderson Council Members - None Council Members - Cibula Council Members - None Resolution No. 2000-161 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (S-060-150-165/S-070-100-700) Tina Hitchcock, 2503 Castlewood Drive, disagreed with the manner in which the City developed the Clover Creek property citing a highly congested area with heavy and. dangerous traffic. Ms. Hitchcock maintained that the additional houses generated by Mr. Boggs's subdivision would negatively impact the area. Lee Torres, 4035 Aspen Spring Court, spoke in support of moving forward with the Clover Creek project as quickly as possible. She suggested that the size of the lots and homes in the Boggs subdivision should be improved. Ms. Torres also encouraged the completion of the Shasta View Drive improvements. 09/22/2000 220 Mark Turgal, 3420. Capricorn Way, supported the Clover Creek project, and stressed the need to complete the Shasta View Drive improvements in order to alleviate unsafe traffic conditions. ' ~en Green, 3965 Capricorn W'!-y, cited unsafe traffic conditions on Shasta View Drive. He suggested that the improvements to Sh~lsta View Drive should take precedence over the Clover Creek project. Phil Roberts, representing his daughter who lives at 2603 Galaxy, ~ddressed the unsafe traffic condit~ons on Shasta View I?rive. He requested that Shasta View Drive be pompleted from Ga.1axy to Leonard Street in order to remedy traffi~ issues. I Ro bert Griffith, 3517 Leonard Street, recommended that barricades be constructed to prevent motorists from cutting across Galaxy to Shasta View Drive. In his yiew, unsafe traffic cqnditions will only increase as new development,s are added. City Manager Warren pointed out that it is the developer's r~sponsibility (Mr. Boggs) to complete Shasta View Drive as the subdivision is constructed. When the City acquires that property, the responsibility will shift from Mr. Boggs to the City. In anticipation of this change, staffhas obtained from the designer of the detention basin an estimate of cost for the completion of Shasta View Drive at approximately $250,000-$300,000. Ms. Hitchcock and Mr. Roberts further expressed opposition to the use of barricades in this area citing ineffectiveness. Mayor Anderson directed staff to return to the City Council with a status report on the Shasta View Drive improvements, in<(luding a time frame for the completion of the work. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 1: 16 p.m., Vice Mayor McGeorge declared the meeting adjourned. I APPROVED a~ ' ~ . Vice M~ ATTEST: &#/b~1 City Clerk ( _u - - I 09/22/2000