City Council
MEETING DATE: 11/16/2015
TITLE:
Title
Public Hearing to Vacate Certain Streets, Alleys, Public Highway Easements and Utility Easements - Vacation No. 2015-02
End
FROM:
Tami E. Scott, Administrative Services Director
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the Resolution, conditionally vacating all or portions of Lot “V” (“B” Street), Lot “W”(“A” Street), and Lot “X”(alley lot), as shown on the map of Cathedral City, filed in Book 13, at Pages 24 through 26, inclusive, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California, together with the public highway and/or public utility uses on portions of Lots 132 and 133, as shown on said map of Cathedral City, all located within the East half of Section 33, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Meridian, at the Southeast quadrant of East Palm Canyon Drive and Van Fleet Avenue; and approve the sale or disposal of certain surplus public property parcels resulting from the above vacations, to the abutting parcel owners, at a price or other consideration as approved by the City Manager; and approve the use of the sample Resolution attached as Exhibit “C” to the Vacation Resolution, as outlined herein, for the vacation of the above streets, alley and easements in portions or segments, as the conditions of their vacation are met.
Body
BACKGROUND:
The former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Cathedral City acquired a number of properties south of East Palm Canyon Drive and east of Van Fleet Avenue, in order to remove blight and to consolidate land for future mixed use development.
In 2006, the majority of these lots were consolidated into a single parcel by the Redevelopment Agency by the recordation of Parcel Map No. 32932, for a planned hotel development. That project did not proceed.
In January, 2008, this parcel was conveyed to the City Urban Revitalization Corporation (CURC), and in March of 2015, CURC entered into a sale and development agreement with the Saxony Group for the construction of a hotel on the land. Saxony has subsequently submitted a Planning Department application for the hotel, under Design Review Case No. 2015-004.
The sale agreement contemplates the developer’s possible acquisition of several privately owned parcels in the vicinity of the proposed hotel. The development of the hotel as now proposed will require the vacation of the remaining public streets and alley in the vicinity, south of Palm Canyon and east of Van Fleet, especially if the additional private parcels are acquired by the developer.
Consequently, in order to begin the process of vacation of the referenced streets, alley and easements, the City Council, on October 14, 2015, adopted Resolution of Intention No. 2015-56, announcing its intention to vacate a number of streets, alley and highway easements in the area of the proposed hotel. That Resolution set Monday, November 16, at 6:30 p.m., as the date and time for the required public hearing to consider those vacations.
DISCUSSION:
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
State law requires the preparation of a written report on the proposed vacation, covering various aspects of the vacation and making certain required findings:
Present or Prospective Public Use:
The streets and easements to be considered for vacation are located south of East Palm Canyon Drive and east of Van Fleet. Most of the parcels in this area were acquired by the former Redevelopment Agency in an effort to consolidate the lots for development and have since been purchased by the City Urban Revitalization Corporation prior to the dissolution of Redevelopment.
The surrounding land is predominantly vacant. The portions of “A” Street and “B” Street proposed for vacation are local streets, which have been dead-ended by previous street vacations, and are only partially improved. Since the recent acquisition of the Angel View properties by CURC in mid-October, “A” and “B” streets, east of Van Fleet, now provide street access to a single office building parcel located on the small block between Palm Canyon and “A” Street.
These streets and the alley between them are not required for efficient traffic circulation in the area. Since the abutting lots are, except for one parcel under uniform ownership, and the goal for the area is for lot consolidation and development, the best use for these streets and alley is their vacation and consolidation of the vacated rights of way with the adjoining vacant land.
Therefore a finding is made in the attached Resolution that the streets and alleys and highway easements described in the Resolution are not needed for any present or prospective public use. Pursuant to the State Streets and Highways Code, this is a mandatory finding to be made.
It should be noted that if the hotel developer is unable to acquire the last privately owned parcel, then the portion of “A” Street providing access to that parcel will not be vacated.
This fact is noted in the conditions of approval of the street vacations, contained in the Resolution.
Non-Highway Transportation Facility:
The streets, alleys and highway and utility easements described in the Resolution are not shown on any bicycle or recreation trail route in the General Plan or in CVAG’s adopted Non-Motorized Transportation Element. Therefore, a finding is included in the attached Resolution that the streets and alleys to be vacated are not useable for any non-motorized transportation facility (bicycle trail) as defined in Sec. 887 of the State Streets and Highways Code. This is a mandatory finding to be made per Section 892 of the Streets and Highways Code.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
The streets, alleys, and highway and public utility easements proposed to be vacated are narrow and carry very low traffic volumes. The surrounding land along these streets and alleys is predominantly vacant, and since this area is proposed for consolidation and development in larger blocks, these streets and easements are not needed and at this time provide little or no public benefit. Removal of the paving and closure of the streets and alleys will occur only after the vacation conditions are met, as outlined in the following sections, and when plans for commercial development of the consolidated lots and vacated streets are further along. At this time, the vacation is a “paper” action only.
Therefore, Staff believes this vacation action would fall under the CEQA “General Rule”, Sec. 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the vacation may have a significant effect on the environment, the action is not subject to CEQA.
Upon vacation and consolidation, any future development plan for the land and vacated streets will require its own environmental review.
Compliance with City Council Minute Order No. 867:
In 1988, the City Council adopted criteria for the consideration of alley vacation requests in the Downtown-Cove areas of the City. There is one short alley between A and B Street in this vacation request. This Minute Order was adopted when the Redevelopment Agency was in effect, so some of its questions may not pertain today.
1. Is the alley in or out of downtown or Highway 111 Corridor Redevelopment Study Area, any other Redevelopment Area or area covered by Specific Plan? The alley is in the downtown area, is within the former RDA Area 1, and is within the area covered by the Downtown Design Guidelines.
2. Does the subject alley have the likelihood of being in a future expansion of the Redevelopment Area? No, since the Redevelopment Agency is defunct.
3. Does the alley provide access to the abutting properties? The answer is yes.
4. Are there existing public facilities in the alley? Yes, there are utility facilities, which are covered by the conditions in the Resolution.
5. Is the alley needed for emergency access? No. The alley is only 100 feet long, and all abutting land is vacant.
6. Is the alley needed for police patrol, access and surveillance? No. Since all adjoining land is vacant, there is good vision and access.
7. Is the alley useable for non-motorized transportation facilities? No. This is covered above under the mandatory findings on non-motorized transportation facilities.
8. Will alley be closed, barricaded, fenced, walled, etc., and if so, how? The alley, once vacated, with be consolidated with adjoining properties and developed as a larger development.
Based upon the above answers, Staff feels that the proposed alley vacation meets the intent of the criteria, primarily because the alley will be consolidated with adjoining parcels and will be part of a larger commercial development.
Conformance with General Plan:
Every vacation is supposed to have a finding that it is in conformance with the adopted General Plan. The proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan because the streets to be vacated are local streets only, which are not shown or mapped in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Similarly, the alley to be vacated is not shown in the Circulation Element. This finding is included in the Vacation Resolution.
Compliance with “Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law”:
Pursuant to law, on October 28, 2015, Notices of the proposed public hearing and vacation and a copy of the Resolution of Intention were properly posted along the streets and alley to be vacated. Notice of the Public Hearing was also properly published twice in the “Desert Sun”, on October 30, 2015, and on November 6, 2015, and copies of the Notice of Public hearing were also posted on the City web-site, and in the required public places.
Disposal of Surplus Public Property:
Most of the streets, the alley and the public highway and utility easements to be vacated are held by the City as easements, and upon vacation, ownership of the land covered by the easements will revert to the ownership of the abutting property owners. However, there is one portion of "A" Street which was dedicated in fee simple for street widening to the County, when the abutting land was developed. This right of way, described in Exhibit "A" of the Resolution as Vacation Area #4, is now owned in fee by the City through incorporation.
Once the street use of this City-owned parcel is vacated, the parcel will remain in City ownership. Upon vacation, the parcels will have no public use and will be surplus to the needs of the City, and will be of value only to the abutting property owners. The State Government Code, Sections 37350 and 37351, and the Streets and Highways Code Section 8355 state generally that the City may dispose of surplus property for the common benefit, upon the terms and conditions as approved by the legislative body. It will be to the common benefit of the City to dispose of these small surplus parcels once the conditions of vacation, as outlined below, are met.
Staff therefore recommends that City Council find that the disposal of this surplus parcel will be for the common benefit, and approve the disposal of them to the abutting owners, once the conditions of the their vacation are met. Again, it should be noted that if the last privately owned parcel on the north side of "A" Street is not acquired by the developer or the City, then that portion of "A" Street required to access said parcel will not be vacated.
Utility Reservation:
All utility companies were sent notices and asked if they had any present or planned facilities in the area to be vacated. All such companies were given the minimum of 30 days for a response after receipt of the request for comments. It was found that Southern California Edison, Time Warner, Verizon, and Desert Water Agency all have overhead and underground facilities in and along the streets and alley and easements to be vacated.
Therefore, a condition requiring the reservation of public utility easements from the vacations, covering the areas where utilities are located, has been added to the vacation Resolution. This reservation will not be required for any portion of the streets, alley or easements where there are no existing facilities, or where the utility facilities are removed, relocated, or otherwise cleared from the areas to be vacated.
Conditions of Vacation:
The streets, alley and easements to be vacated will all be included in the proposed hotel development. Any removal or relocation of existing utilities in the streets will not be at City expense. Therefore, a condition has been added to the vacation Resolution which directs the City Clerk NOT to record any final vacation resolution until such time as he/she receives a written certification from either the City Engineer and/or the City Manager, notifying the Clerk that one of the following conditions have been met:
(a) that suitable utility easements have been reserved by the City to protect existing utility facilities in any portion or segment of street, alley or easement to be vacated; or
(b) that suitable utility easements have been granted to the appropriate utility company by the abutting owner or other party who will take or has taken ownership of the vacated street, alley or easement upon its vacation; or
(c) that the utility facilities within the portion or segment of street, alley or easement being vacated have been removed, relocated or otherwise cleared, or that financial arrangements have been made with the utility company by a developer or abutting owner to guarantee their removal or clearance, such that the utility owner no longer requires the utility reservation.
Vacation in Portions or Segments:
It is likely that the area surrounding the streets and easements to be vacated may be developed in phases over time, or by more than one developer, and that not all the existing utility lines and facilities in the streets and easements will be removed or relocated at the same time.
To accommodate future phased or multiple developments, it is recommended that Council approve the vacation of the streets, alley and easements described in the Resolution in multiple portions or segments, as they meet the conditions of the vacation, by the approval and recordation of copies of the sample resolution attached as Exhibit “C”.
As portions or segments of the streets, alley and easements become available for formal vacation, a copy of the Exhibit “C” Resolution would be filled out with a description of the portion of street or easement to be formally vacated. It would then be signed by the City Manager and City staff, without the need for another Council meeting, and then recorded. Numbering of the Exhibit “C” resolutions would be similar to the resolution number assigned to the Vacation Resolution passed after the present Public Hearing, if so approved.
Recordation of Resolution:
Upon recordation of any of the Exhibit “C” Resolutions, the vacation of whatever portion or segment of street, alley or easement is described in that Resolution becomes effective.
Final Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council hear the Staff report on this vacation proposal, open the public hearing, listen to any testimony or comments from interested parties, and then after the close of the hearing, make the findings contained in the Resolution, and adopt the attached Vacation Resolution, subject to the conditions contained therein.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct financial impact as a result of the passage of this Resolution. There will be a very minor savings to the City in maintenance and upkeep of the vacated streets, alley, and easements once they are formally vacated
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution of Vacation, with
Exhibit A: Legal description of Segments of Streets, Alley and Easements to be vacated;
Exhibit B: Vicinity sketch, showing streets, alley and easements to be vacated.
Exhibit C: Sample Resolution for subsequent recordations
Minute Order No. 867: Downtown-Cove area alley vacation criteria