Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1990-338 - Adopting findings in response to written objections on adoption of the amended redevelopment it • 111 I I RESOLUTION NO. Yo-53 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING ADOPTING FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ON ADOPTION OF THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MARKET STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. !r WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq. ) , the Redding Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") prepared and submitted to the City Council of the City til;. of Redding (the "City Council") a proposed Amended Redevelopment Plan (the "Amended Plan") for the Market Street Redevelopment Project (the "Project") ; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on June 19, 1990, on adoption of the Amended Plan and on certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the Amended Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all written comments received and all 'I evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Amended Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that before adopting the redevelopment plan, the legislative body shall make written 1f findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity and shall respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council has considered all evidence and testimony on the adoption of the Amended Plan and has responded in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing. O lu • Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the written findings in response to each written objection of affected ! p property owners and taxing !i entities attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 3rd day li'i of July , 1990, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following 1 vote: 'III AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Arness , Fulton, Moss, Dahl NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None J1 ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None I�. ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffum MIKE DAHL, Vice Mayor City of Redding H! ATTEST: 111. !' 414(4•10.,104e44,• ETHEL A. NICHOLS, City Clerk FORM APPROVED: RAN ALL A. HAYS, it,7Attorney I h I' I I' ll ', 1., - 2 - ',II 1 , EXHIBIT "A" RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MARKET STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Written Protest No. 1: Mrs. Elsa Fleischer is concerned about her property at 951 State Street being condemned and acquired by the Redevelopment Agency. She relies on the income from the rental and suggests that, rather than demolishing the structure, the house be moved to a new location. Response No. 1: Although the Redevelopment Agency has the power of eminent domain to acquire property in the Project Area, the proposed Market Street Redevelopment Project envisions little or no acquisitions of, or alterations of, properties that might result in the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, or others during the course of project implementation (Section 310 of the Amended Redevelopment Plan) . A review of the proposed projects described in Section V of the Report to Council reveals that none of the projects directly involve Mrs. Fleischer's property. Shortly after receiving Mrs. Fleischer's letter, the staff responded (see attached letter dated June 11, 1990) and advised her of these facts. Written Protest No. 2: Mrs. Harrison writes to advise the Redevelopment Agency of the asking price for her property located at 3012 Railroad Avenue (corner of Roanoke Avenue and Railroad Avenue) . Response No. 2: See response No. 1 and Section 310 of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Although one of the proposed projects identified in Section V of the Report to Council is the widening of Railroad Avenue to four lanes, it is presently unknown if the widening will require the acquisition of adjoining property. If acquisition is necessary it is expected to be minimal since the existing right-of-way width in this area is 80 feet (the standard width for a four-lane arterial is 84 feet) and may be adequate to accommodate four travel lanes in a modified configuration. In the event that the project were to result in the displacement of existing Project Area occupants, Sections 313, 314, 315, 329 and 330 of the Amended Redevelopment Plan outline the policies to be implemented by the Redevelopment Agency. I ' • I' Written Protest No. 3: Includes a letter and petition from residents in the Van Diver Lane area protesting the purchase or condemnation of their property by the Redevelopment Agency. The letter from Carolyn Baker also expresses concern regarding the growth inducing impacts of the Project. Response No. 3: The implementation of the proposed projects identified in Section V of the Report to Council will not require the purchase or condemnation of property along Van Diver Lane. Regarding the concern of growth inducing impacts, Section 5 of Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-2-89 for the Amended Market Street Redevelopment Project observes that while the Project is intended to stimulate and accommodate intensified residential and commercial use of the Project Area, it must be done in conformance with the Redding General Plan. The Redding General Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies to provide for environmental quality, a sound economic base, efficient and fiscally sound public services and facilities, and social balance, equity and housing opportunity. Any growth that occurs is already planned for by the Redding General Plan. Written Protest No. 4: Ferol Boucher owns property located in Block M of the Boardman Addition (Fern Subdivision) and objects to a proposed project identified in Section V of the Report to Council that would have the Redevelopment Agency acquire ownership of the subdivision for the purpose of reverting it to acreage and re- subdividing it. Response No. 4: 1 Under the discussion of non-structural blight in Section IV of the Report to Council, the Fern Subdivision is identified as being bordered by West Street on the east, Linden Avenue on the north, Laurel Avenue on the south, and Olive Avenue on the west. This subdivision is comprised of 70 lots as subdivided in the late 1930's, and was designed without regard to the existing moderate-to- steep topography in a gridiron pattern. Substandard lots, unpaved streets, poor lot configuration, a lack of utilities, and steep street grades have made it economically infeasible to develop this subdivision. To develop the area to modern standards requires the abandonment of the paper streets and re- subdivision of the area. In order for City emergency vehicles to access the lots in this subdivision, paved streets must be in place. City staff feel that an assessment district is the best method of bringing this about. For this to happen, the street system and lots would have to be redesigned, resulting in the need to acquire several of the existing substandard lots. The proposed redevelopment project would fulfill this need by allowing the Agency to acquire ownership of the area in questions, revert it to acreage and re-subdivide it or sell it as one or two single large parcels. Steep slope areas would be set aside as open space and streets would utilize flattern grades. 44 � 4 li Written Protest No. 5: Mr. John Kenny has submitted a letter on behalf of Phyllis, Thomas, and Ramona Fisher requesting that their properties in the vicinity of South Bonnyview Road and Eastside Road be excluded from the Project Area. The letter asserts that the Redevelopment Plan grants the Agency a wide range of powers without describing how those powers would be applied to alleviate blighted conditions. Further, that having their property subject to the application of these powers without ascertaining how the property will be affected is very unsettling. Response No. 5: Section IV of the Report to Council documents in detail the existence of blight in the Project Area and Section V identifies the proposed projects for implementation to eliminate many of these local blight characteristics. The proposed redevelopment actions are stated in the Amended Redevelopment Plan, and include: 1. The acquisition of certain real property; 2. The demolition or removal of certain buildings and improvements; 3. Providing for participation by owners and tenants presently located in the Project Area and the extension of preferences to business occupants and other tenants desiring to remain or relocate within the redeveloped Project Area; 4. The management of any property acquired by and under the ownership and control of the Agency; '; 5. Providing relocation assistance to displaced Project occupants; 6. The installation, construction or reconstruction of streets, utilities and other public improvements; 7. The disposition of property for uses in accordance with this Amended Plan; 8. The redevelopment of land by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in accordance with this Amended Plan; 9. The rehabilitation of structures and improvements by present owners, their successors and the Agency; and 10. The assembly of adequate sites for the development and construction of (residential/commercial/industrial) facilities. The parcel owned by the Fisher's most likely to be impacted by the Redevelop- ment Project is Assessor Parcel No. 048-320-06, which fronts on South Bonnyview Road. This parcel is in the vicinity of the north leg of the I proposed Eastside Road realignment with South Bonnyview Road (Figure 14 in Section XVII of the Report to Council) . The purpose of the Project is to eliminate the blighting influence of traffic circulation deficiencies in the area by improving traffic flow and traffic safety, and reducing traffic congestion. This project is also identified in the Circulation Element of the Redding General Plan (Exhibit C of Appendix B) and is shown on the Traffic Impact Project Fee list of the City. The plan line for this alignment was established in March 1981 and the project is proposed in the 1990/91 City budget, thus it is not likely to be a redevelopment project. LM/TEA:RESPONSE.MKT