Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 2004-06-21 - Special Meeting 135 City Council, Special Meeting Council Chambers 777 Cypress Avenue Redding, California June 21,20046:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pohlmeyer with the following Council Members present: Cibula, Kight, Stegall, and Mathena. I Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant Manager Starman, Assistant City Attorney Frediani, Assistant City Attorney DeWalt, Development Services Director Hamiton, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Assistant City Clerk Sherman. At the hour of 6:00 p.m., Mayor Pohlmeyer announced that the City Council would adjourn to closed session to discuss the following: Closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957: PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT Title: City Attorney (A-050-050 & P-l 00-060-000) Closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(c) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation One (1) case (L-I00) At the hour of 6:45 p.m., Mayor Pohlmeyer reconvened the Special Meeting to open session and advised that there was no reportable action. I RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY - To acquire property from Shasta County Tanglewood Village Homeowners Association, Marilyn M. Clark Family Trust, Evelyn F. Sills, Irene A. Ottman, and Lucille D. Goulart Trust 1992, for permanent right-of-way easements in, across, and to Buckthorn Drive (C-070-01O) Assistant City Attorney Frediani provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated June 15,2004, incorporated herein by reference, recalling that the Tentative Subdivision Map S-2-02 for Vista Ridge Estates, Unit 2 by Opus Development was approved by the City Council on January 7,2003. Approval was granted to create 13 single-family residential lots and 11 duplex lots on 5.79 acres located west of and adjacent to the Vista Ridge Estates Subdivision, Unit 1, and north of and adjacent to the Tanglewood Planned Development. I Ms. Frediani explained that Condition 6 of the Conditions of Approval associated with the Tentative Map for Vista Ridge Estates Subdivision Unit 2 required that a second public street access be provided to the subdivision at the time of development by: 1) dedication of a public right-of-way across Buckthorn Drive between the project and Tanglewood Drive, 2) construction of a public-street connection between Street "B" (which is a cul-de-sac) and Buckthorn Drive, matching the pavement, curb, and gutter section of Buckthorn Drive, and 3) a 4-foot-wide sidewalk on the east between Street "B" and Tanglewood Drive. She stated that the basis for requiring this condition is in the City's General Plan Health and Safety Element Polices HS4J and HS4 requiring residential neighborhoods with 50 or more dwelling units to provide at least two points of public-street access and that cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets not exceed 600 feet in length. Vista Ridge Estates Subdivision Unit 1 contains 67 single-family residential units with a single exit and the addition of 35 units to the proposed subdivision triggers the necessity for a secondary access. She added that a fire in 1999 forcing evacuation ofthe residents of the area emphasized the public safety issue and the need for the secondary ingress and egress. Ms. Frediani noted that the developer and the City made offers to purchase the necessary property. Ms. Frediani explained that the Resolution of Necessity must contain: 1) a statement of public use, 2) authorizing statutes, 3) a property description, and 4) certain findings as follows: a) that the public interest and necessity require the project, b) the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, and c) the properties are necessary for the proposed proj ect. 6/21/2004 136 Although not required, Ms. Frediani advised that the following additional findings should be made: 1) Governm~nt Code S7267.2(a) together with the accompanying statements and summaries of the basis for the amounts established as just compensation, were made to the owner or owners of record, and that offers and accompanying statements/summaries were in a form and contained all of the factual disclosures provided by Government Code S7267.2(a); 2) all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain ("the right to take") to acquire the properties described. herein have been complied with by the City; and 3) the City has fully complied with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project. Ms. Frediani summarized the elements which satisfied the various findings and the rationale for needing Buckthorn Drive for the secondary access. Assistant City Attorney Frediani related that, in opposition to the project, attorneys for the Tanglewood Homeowners Association Susan Hin~s ~d Walt McNeil have submitted documents alleging that the City has withheld information, that the process is illegal and improper, and the project has changed. She advised that the project has not changed and has always included Buckthorn Drive as a public street in conformance with ConditiQn 6 of the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map for Vista Ridge Estates, Unit 2. They further maintain that the property owners were not identified; however, Ms. Frediani clarified that it is standard procedure not to identify property owners on a tentative map until a survey is completed and title reports obtained indicating the owners of specific properties. She clarified that the final map does not show a dedi~ation of a public right-of-way across Buckthorn Drive between the project and Tanglewood Drive because the developer does not own the property and therefore, Condition No.6 of the Conditions of Approval have not been waived as alleged by the opposition's attorneys, but obviously, the developer cannot dedicate property he does not own. She indicated that the developer provided a written request to the City to initiate eminent domain proceedings in the fall of2003, after unsuccessful attempts to purchase the necessary property. I In response to Mr. McNeill, Ms. Frediani clarified that a Public Records Act request was received from him on Jun~ 14, 2004. On June 18, 2004, she attempted to contact him by phone to discuss the request and, to date, Mr. McNeill has not returned the phone call. She added that no ad~itional documents have been located pursuant to Mr. McNeill's request, although it was determined that so~e did not exist or had not yet been prepared. I Assistant City Attorney Frediani refuted the assertion that a Resolution of Necessity cannot be approved because a proper CEQA environmental review has not been conducted. She pointed out that the project is not new and CEQA review was previously performed for the project which included conversion of Buckthorn Drive from a private to a public street. Ms. Frediani related that the assertion that the City Council cannot direct the Planning Commission to amend the Planned Development (PD) Plan for Tanglewood Planned Development to facilitate conversion of Buckthorn Drive from a private to a public street is also incorrect. The PD Plan for Tanglewood Planned Development depicts Buckthorn Drive as a private street and if the City Council adopts the Resolution of Necessity, it will direct the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the Pp Plan for the Tanglewood Planned Development division to change the designation of Buckthorn Drive from a private to a public street. Ms. Frediani stated that the Code of Civil Procedures Section 1245.235a requires that the governing body compensate and give notice ofthe hearing to each person whose property is to be acquired by eminent domain and whose name and address appears Qn the tax rolls. She advised that the attorneys for Tanglewood Homeowners suggested that all property owners in the Tanglewood Planned Development should be compensated, but the law is very clear regarding who shall receive compensation. I In response to the allegation by the Tanglewood Planned Development attorneys that the Government Code Section 7267.2a offer was not proper, Ms. Frediani stated that it was incorrect because offers of just compensation were made on May 27, 2004, and none were accepted. Assistant City Attorney Frediani recommended adoption of the Resolution of Necessity making required findings to acquire property from Shasta County Tanglewood Village Homeowners Association, Marilyn M. Clark Family Trust, Evelyn F. Sills, Irene A. Ottman, 6/21/2004 137 and Lucille D. Goulart Trust 1992 for permanent street right-of-way easements in, across, and to Buckthorn Drive and directing the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the Planned Development Plan for the Tanglewood Planned Development pursuant to Redding Municipal Code Section 18.53.090 to facilitate conversion of Buckthorn Drive from a private to a public street. I Susan Hinz, attorney for the Tanglewood Homeowners Association, claimed that minimal due process by the City in notifying the surrounding homeowners was not sufficient for eminent domain proceedings because the conversi~n of Buckthorn Drive from a private to a public street will impact all Tanglewood residents and amending a planned unit development is a loss of rights to all those associated with the planned development. In response to Council Member Cibula, Ms. Hinz asserted that Buckthorn Drive was developed as a private street to service only the Tanglewood Planned Development and never intended to be a public right-of-way. She acknowleged that while development plans envisioned a through street, it was only meant to service other potential Tanglewood development. Ms. Hinz advised she had not seen the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and asked to view the document prior to its execution. I Attorney Walt McNeill, representing property owners of the Tanglewood Planned Development, alleged that because Buckthorn Drive does not have an assessor parcel number as part of the common area of the Planned Development, notification of property owners from tax rolls was not sufficient and that a survey (as indicated by Ms. Frediani) was unnecessary for notification purposes. He asserted that adding curbs to the right-of-way and acknowledging the need for an amended ordinance making Buckthorn Drive a public street are new elements that now necessitate further environmental review. Mr. McNeill opined that installing streets through a portion of a planned development is not lawful. He added that pursuant to his Public Records Act request, he had not received a copy of the Subdivision Agreement or bonding documents. In response to the assertion that public streets are never included in planned developments, Council Member Mathena pointed out that Whetowl Drive (in the Tanglewood Planned Development) was a private street that became a public street. Mr. McNeill observed that it was dedicated as a public street in the original documents of 1977. The following individuals spoke in opposition of acquiring Buckthorn Drive for use as a secondary access to and from Tanglewood Planned Development and Vista Ridge Estates Subdivisions citing increased traffic, hazardous roadway conditions, limited on-street parking, inadequate drainage, devaluation of adjacent properties, safety issues, alternate access roads, and the claim that Tanglewood Development is a gated community: Lucille Goulart, Irene Ottman, Evelyn Sills, Marilyn Clark, Kim Robinson, Phil Cantrell, Orpha Matthews, Dan Matthews, Dale Wright, and Sandy Wright. I Jeff Swanson, attorney for Opus Development (Opus) (Vista Ridge Subdivision), advised that Opus preferred to utilize a breakaway gate or similar feature for emergency access or escape purposes that would accommodate the public safety needs and generate the least amount of conflict, but Opus attempted to acquire Buckthorn Drive in order to accommodate the concerns ofthe Fire Marshal. If eminent domain proceeding continue, he concurred with City staff that Buckthorn Drive is the more obvious choice for secondary access because there is an existing open road. He maintained that the traffic impacts will not be as significant as feared by Tanglewood residents given that only 33 additional homes will be constructed and with the opening of the Browning Street extension, much of Tanglewood Drive traffic is diverted to that area. Mr. Swanson also pointed out that Tanglewood Planned Development is not a gated community because all roads in the Development are open and accessible. In response to Council Member Stegall, Mr. Hamilton explained that wooden barriers were originally placed at the end of Buckthorn Drive indicating that the road was not complete. He added that the normal turn around area found in cul-de-sacs is absent, indicating that Buckthorn Drive was always planned as a through street. Additionally, original documents depict Buckthorn Drive continuing to the north as a part of another Tanglewood development, but the property was sold by the Tanglewood developer and ultimately purchased by Mr. Knighten. 6/21/2004 138 Council Member Mathena questioned why a stop sign would be necessary on Tangl~wood Drive at Buckthorn Drive since traffic ha~ diverted to the new Browning Street extension. City of Redding Land Development Manager Otrel11ba ~esponded that a stop sign assigns right-of-way at intersectio~s and should not be us~d ~qr traffi~ calming. He continued that drivers, over a period of time, begin to ignore a stop sign if they ~ee no reason to stop, reducing its effectiveness. He suggest~d that some type of traffic mOll~toring device be put in place and adjustments made as necessary. Council Members Kight and Stegall re<;:alled that lengthy discussions have been held many times with the Planning Commission and City Council regarding issues such as approval of the Vista Ridge Estates II Project, traffic circulation, and the possibility of eminent domain I proceedings, and noted that construction of the connection ofBuckt40rn Drive is complete. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kight, seconded by Council Member Stegall, adopting Resolution of Necessity No. 2004-102, a resolution ofthe City Council ofthe City of Redding to acquire real properties by eminent d()main for permanent right-of-way easements for a second public-street access pursuant to General Plan Health. and Safety Element Policies HS4J and HS4 from property owners: Shasta County Tanglewood Village Hom~owners Association, Maril~ M. Clark Family Trust, E~elyn F. Sills, Irene A. Ottman, and Lucille D. Goulart Turst 1992; and making findings: 1. that the public interest and necessity require the project, 2. the proposed project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public gooda.p.d the least privat~ injury, 3. the properties are necessary for the proposed project, 4. in accordance with Government Code S7267.2(a), together with the accompanying statements of and summaries of the basis for the amounts established as just compensation, offers were made to the owner or qwners of record, which offers and accompanying statements/summaries were in a form and contained all of the factual disclosures provided by Government Code S7267.2(a), 5. all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain ("the right to take") to acquire the properties described herein have been complied with by the City, and I 6. the City has fully complied with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project. And further, directing the Planning Commission to initiate an amel!dment to the Planned Development Plan for the Tanglewood Planned Development Subdivision in accordance with Redding Municipal Code Section 18.53.090 to facilitate the conversion ofBuckthom Drive from a private to a public street. The Vote: AYES: Council Members - Cibula, Kight, Mathena, Stegall, and Pohlmeyer NOES: Council Members - None ABSTAIN: Council Members - None ABSENT: Council MelTIbers - None Resolution No. 2004-102 is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - Vista Ridge Estates Subdivision Unit 2 (S-2-02) (S-100-778) Development Services Director Hamilton provided an overvi~w of the Report to City Council dated June 14, 2004, incorporated herein by reference, ~elating that the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity for Vista Ridge Estates Subdivision Unit 2 (S-2-02), developed by Hilltop Development (Hilltop) (formerly Opus Development), located north of I Tanglewood Village Planned Development, completes the necessary requirements and the developer has met all the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map. He pointed out that Hilltop has installed the infrastructure and has deposited the appropriate securities to fund partially completed improvements. Mr. Hamilton recommended that the City Co~nci1 approve the final map, authorize the Mayor to execute the subdivision agreement, and authorize the City Clerk to record the final map. Walt McNeill, representing Tanglewood Planned Development homeowners, expressed concern regarding the execution ofthe Subdivision Agreement. He contended that the City Council is being asked to approve the final map and eventually execute the Subdivision 6/21/2004 139 Agreement at some later time. He referenced Government Code Section 66462 relating to a time limit to require a subdivider to enter into either an agreement that provides for the necessary completion of the improvements at the subdivider's expense. I In response to Council Member Cibula, Mr. Hamilton clarified that the action as set forth in the Report to City Council, approves the final map, authorizes the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement and the City Clerk to file the Final Map with the Shasta County Recorder at such time all conditions are satisfied or appropriate securities are in place and the Subdivision Agreement is signed. Assistant City Attorney DeWalt advised that the City Council can proceed with action as set forth in the Report to City Council. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kight, seconded by Council Member Stegall, approving the final map for the Vista Ridge Estates Subdivision Unit 2 (S-2-02),by Hilltop Development (formerly Opus Development), located north ofTanglewood Village Planned Development, authorizing the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement, and instructing the City Clerk to record the Final Map with the Shasta County Recorder upon notification that improvements have been completed and/or securities deposited to complete the improvements. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes At the hour of 8:50 p.m., Mayor Pohlmeyer declared the meeting in recess. At the hour of 8:58 p.m., Mayor Pohlmeyer reconvened the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal by Robert P. Blankenship of approval of Tentative Subdivision Map, S-9-03 and Planned Development Plan PD-3-03, Memory Park Subdivision (L-OI0-21O & S-101-059) Mayor Pohlmeyer advised he will abstain from discussion and voting on this matter due to a personal and family relationship to one of the attorneys representing one of the parties in the matter. I . The hour of 6:30 p.m. having arrived, Vice Mayor Stegall opened the public hearing regarding the appeal filed by Robert P. Blankenship of approval of Tentative Subdivision Map (S-9-03) and Planned Development Plan PD-3-03, for Memory Park Subdivision, located at 5609 Kofford Lane, developed by Duprey Investments. The following documents are on file in the Office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing City Clerk Strohmayer advised that a letter was received from Judy Lampton, Mortgage Account Executive for the Bank of America, in support of the Memory Park Subdivision. Development Services Director Hamilton advised that the project proposes to construct seventeen 2-bedroom units on 4.8 acres on Pioneer Lane including an additional lot for storm drainage and a homeowners association will be formed. Because the development includes a planned development overlay and infill lots, the developer is allowed 2 additional residential units above the General Plan zoning for 15 units. I Mr. Hamilton related that the appeal is based on issues relating to density, neighborhood compatibility, traffic, and drainage. Mr. Hamilton recommended denial of the appeal by Robert P. Blankenship and that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission approval of Tentative Subdivision Map (S-9-03) and Planned Development Plan PD-3-03, for Memory Park Subdivision. City Manager Warren pointed out that the project area is rural and the surrounding neighborhood enjoys that type of setting and atmosphere. He expressed concern that the alleyways proposed for the garage areas of the project face surrounding homes and impact adjacent properties, particularly on the east side of the project. He also expressed concern regarding the zoning for the property because the underlying zoning permits a maximum of three units per acre or a total of 15 lots. However, if the City Council is not concerned with density, up to 17 units can be approved under the planned development and infill 6/21/2004 140 'designations. He suggested that the City Council could, approve less units, and he supported sound barrier fencing on the east side and elimination of the east side alley. . . ' . Mr. Warren explained that during the General Plan update, the property in question was considered special because of the surrounding area, and was given planned development overlay with the expectation of an upscale project, similar to that proposed by Ms. Kibler. Jeff Swanson, attorney representing the appellant Robert Blankenship, expressed concern regarding the Memory Park development. He alleged that staff did not adequately address California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) concerns specifically the drainage issues and proposed detention basin which he believed inadequate to prevent flooding impacts. He felt I the proposed project was a poorly-designed planned development and pointed out several topographical features such as the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) ditch and a bam which were not shown on the map. Mr. SW3;nson indicated that guidelines were general at best and the plan did not comply with the zoning ordinance. He further stated that the proposed project density is not compatible with the surrounding rural neighborhood. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the Memory Park development citing density issues, incompatibility with the character pf t~e surrounding neighborhood, inadequate notification to property owners when the Planned Development Overlay designation was assigned to the property, substandard infrastructure to support development, drainage and flooding issues, increased traffic and substandarq roadways: Wade Ellenberger, " , Robert Blankenship, Darrell Burrell, Barbara Young, Gina Carrel, Oscar Johanson, Susan Graveal, Kim Humphreys, Hewlett Todd, and Donna Brashears. Barbara Stone, Judy Lampton, and David Kibler supported the project citing the need for more affordable housing in Redding, the upscale quality ofthis smaller-homes development and its suitability for seniors. Beverly Kibler, Memory Park developer, described the project and amenities of the development and her attempts to design the project to save as many trees as possible. She explained that the proposed dispersal of storm water was designed by a hydrologist and believed it will prevent flooding impacts. She related that the project proposes a privacy fence that has the texture of oak wood on the east side of the property, and 3-foot picket fences between the homes. She stated that the project is only 500 feet from Farmhouse Road (a City-improved road) and 980 feet from ~ast Bonnyview Road both of which contain significantly higher densities. Ms. Kibler believed misinformation had been dispersed throughout the neighborhood regarding the project which prompted opposition, and she urged approval of the project as proposed. I Vice Mayor Stegall determined that no other individual wished to address this matter and closed the public hearing. Council Member Kight supported the project noting that it was well planned and would be wonderful in other parts of the City. He was concerned, however, with the project's density and consistency with the General Plan. He observed that a portion of the General Plan states that the existing character and fabric of a community should be preserved and the development of a liveable and cohesive neighborhood should be promoted. Council Member Kight believed the density was too invasive for a rural neighborhood and preferred eight to ten units for the development. In his opinion, elimination of the alley and sound screening were appropriate. Council Member Cibula applauded Ms. Kibler for her visionary project but did not believe I the area was appropriate for that type of density. He encouraged her to proceed in some fashion but did not support the project as currently proposed and asked that neighborhood concerns and issues of compatibi.lity be addressed. Council Member Stegall congratulated Ms. Kibler on a very creative project. However, she believed compromise would be appropriate in this situation because the density does not seem compatible with the neighborhood. She believed that the zoning and planned development overlay placed on this property was somewhat arbitrary and did not appear to be well thought out. Ms. Stegall suggested that the density be reduced and thatinstallation of a masonry wall could possibly allow the alley on the east side to remain as proposed. 6/21/2004 141 After hearing comments by the City Council, Assistant City Attorney DeWalt summarized that approval of Alternative No.2 ofthe Report to City Council would uphold the appeal and allow modifications, as discussed by the City Council, to the Conditions of Approval without overturning the entire project. He further suggested that staff be directed to prepare the appropriate findings to support Council's decision. Mr. Hamilton interjected that a resolution could be prepared regarding findings and returned for consideration at the meeting of July 20, 2004. I MOTION: Made by Council Member Kight, seconded by Council Member Cibula, upholding the appeal by Mr. Blankenship and denying Planned Development Plan PD-3-03, for Memory Park Subdivision as proposed. The Vote: AYES: CouncIl Members - Cibula, Kight, Mathena, and Stegall NOES: Council Members - None ABSTAIN: Council Members - Pohlmeyer ABSENT: Council Members - None There being no further business, at the hour of 10:23 p.m., Mayor Pohlmeyer declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED I ATTEST: ~~'1 City Clerk f I 6/21/2004