Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-Staff Report and Resolution (ex. 1).pdf 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 19 , 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: City Attorney’s Office DIRECTOR: John Cherbone (Andrew Schwartz & Heather Minner) ____________________________ SUBJECT: Hearing to Consider Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity (Eminent Domain) for Acquisition of an Additional Easement in Pacific Gas & Electric Right of Way for Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of Necessity making the appropriate findings and authorizing an amendment to the complaint in eminent domain proceedings for Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza (the “Project”) to acquire an Additional Easement necessary for the Project. SUMMARY: The Project requires the City to acquire an easement in Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) right of way for a pedestrian and bike trail extending approximately 1.6 miles in a generally northwest/southeast direction from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Saratoga Avenue in the City of Saratoga (“Joe’s Trail Easement”). On October 3, 2007, the Saratoga City Council approved the Project. On October 2, 2008, the City filed an eminent domain action to acquire the Joe’s Trail Easement (the “Eminent Domain Action”). The City and PG&E are currently in negotiations to settle the Eminent Domain Action. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (“SCVWD”) owns facilities in close proximity to Joe’s Trail. After the Eminent Domain Action was filed, it was determined that construction of Joe’s Trail will require relocation of a SCVWD trash rack and acquisition of an additional, 1,150 square foot easement for SCVWD to access and maintain its relocated trash rack (“Additional Easement”). A judgment in the Eminent Domain Action would convey the Additional Easement to the SCVWD. On April 19, 2010, the City sent PG&E a letter offering to purchase the Additional Easement from PG&E for $450. The City subsequently sent PG&E a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity. PG&E does not oppose the City’s exercise of eminent domain to acquire the Additional Easement. 2 BACKGROUND: The Resolution of Necessity is needed to acquire the Additional Easement by eminent domain for the Project. The City is authorized to amend the complaint in the Eminent Domain Action and to acquire the Additional Easement under California Constitution Article 1, section 19; California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, and 40404; California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1230.010 et seq., including, but not limited to sections 1240.010 through 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.140, 1240.150, 124.220, 1240.350, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, 1250.340; and other provisions of law. The Resolution of Necessity requires four “yes” votes by the Council to pass. FINDINGS: To adopt a Resolution of Necessity, the Council must find that: 1. The public interest and necessity require the Joe’s Trail Project (“Project”). 2. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 3. The Additional Easement is necessary for the Project. 4. An offer to purchase the Additional Easement has been made to the record owners of the property as required by Government Code section 7267.2; and, 5. The City has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. The following discussion addresses each of the above-referenced findings. 1. The public interest and necessity require the Project. The Project was originally envisioned as part of a larger regional trail extending along the Union Pacific Railroad right of way through the cities of Campbell, Saratoga and Cupertino, and in the Town of Los Gatos. The Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan, adopted in 1995, designated the railroad corridor trail as a Regional Connector Trail between the Los Gatos Creek Trail and the San Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. In March 2000, the Saratoga City Council passed a resolution supporting the creation of the Union Pacific Railroad Trail Task Force, which oversaw the preparation of the Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study (“Feasibility Study”). The Feasibility Study summarized user needs, recommended various alternate alignments, and provided suggestions on design, trail implementation, maintenance, management, and funding. The Conceptual Plan for the Project was refined in 2004 and 2005 based on input from community groups, Saratoga residents, and City staff, and was approved by the City Council for environmental review. On October 3, 2007, the Saratoga City Council approved the Project. 3 The Project is designed to meet the following goals and objectives: • Expand open space in Saratoga; • Mitigate potential impacts of the trail on adjacent residential properties and neighborhoods; • Improve regional trail connectivity to Bay Area open space and trail networks; • Create a safe, multi-use community asset; • Honor the historic legacy of Juan Bautista de Anza and the early exploration of California; and • Reduce automobile use to benefit regional air quality. The Saratoga City Council previously found that the public interest and necessity require the Project when it adopted the Resolution of Necessity to acquire the Joe’s Trail Easement by eminent domain on July 16, 2008. 2. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. As noted above, the Feasibility Study evaluated various alignments. It found: With the exception of a few minor encroachments in the PG&E right of way immediately to the north and south of Cox Avenue, the absence of constraints in this area allows for location of the trail on the west side of the tracks, setback a minimum of 25 feet from track centerline. In much of this segment, the Union Pacific right of way can be avoided completely by routing the trail in the PG&E right of way. Available room within the corridor is sufficient for a significant planting buffer to be placed within the trail and the tracks. Utilizing the extra width in the PG&E right of way, the trail layout should avoid removal of significant vegetation. In addition, the Project and the Additional Easement will not infringe on PG&E’s use of the property for high voltage transmission lines. The Project would be constructed on an easement acquired from PG&E and would involve no actual land acquisition by the City. PG&E does not oppose the Project or the City’s acquisition of the two Easements. Nevertheless, the City has decided to use its power of eminent domain to acquire the Easements because otherwise the California Public Utilities Commission would have jurisdiction over the purchase agreement. If the City were to enter into a voluntary purchase agreement with PG&E, the CPUC could delay the transaction and could condition or deny the sale. On the other hand, the CPUC has no jurisdiction if the City uses its power of eminent domain. Funding requirements for the Project require moving forward with acquisition promptly. Therefore, a voluntary purchase is not desirable. The Saratoga City Council previously found that the Project is planned and located in the manner that will be compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury when it adopted the Resolution of Necessity to acquire the Joe’s Trail Easement by eminent domain on July 16, 2008. 4 3. The Additional Easement is necessary for the Project. The Project requires an additional access easement in PG&E’s property for the SCVWD. The SCVWD owns pipes and a culvert within Rodeo Creek and a trash rack to protect those facilities from flood debris. The bridge crossing Rodeo Creek for Joe’s Trail will be located in close proximity to the trash rack and will prevent the SCVWD from accessing and maintaining its trash rack. Accordingly, the trash rack must be relocated upstream, further away from the bridge. The SCVWD’s current access easements, however, are insufficient to provide access to the trash rack at its relocated position. Accordingly, the Additional Easement is necessary to provide the SCVWD access to its relocated trash rack. If the City did not relocate the trash rack or acquire the Additional Easement, the safety and usefulness of Joe’s Trail would be compromised by SCVWD measures to access and maintain the trash rack in its current position. 4. The City has made an offer to purchase to the record owners of the property as required by Government Code section 7267.2. Pursuant to Government Code sections 7267.2 et seq., the City of Saratoga obtained a fair-market value appraisal of the Joe’s Trail Easement from Chris Carneghi, MAI, of Carneghi-Blum & Partners, Inc (the “Appraisal”). Although not required by law, the City also obtained a review appraisal from David Tattersall & Co. The review appraiser agreed with the appraiser’s determination of the fair-market value of the Joe’s Trail Easement. The City set just compensation as the fair market value. The Additional Easement is 1,150 square feet and overlaps the Joe’s Trail Easement by 850 square feet. On September 21, 2009, the City deposited the fair market value for Joe’s Trail Easement with the State Treasurer in the sum of $190,000. This amount includes the fair market value of the 850 square foot portion of the Additional Easement that overlaps the Joe’s Trail Easement. The City’s offer of $450 to PG&E for the Additional Easement is the fair market value of the 300 square feet of the Additional Easement that does not overlap the Joe’s Trail Easement already condemned in the Eminent Domain Action, as reflected in the Appraisal. The Appraisal values the Joe’s Trail Easement at $1.50 per square foot. Because the additional 300 square feet of PG&E’s property necessary for the Additional Easement is adjacent to and identical in all respects to the PG&E property the City condemned in the Eminent Domain Action, the City’s offer for the additional 300 square feet is based on the same price per square foot as determined by the Appraisal for the Eminent Domain Action and is the full amount of the Appraisal. On April 19, 2010, the City of Saratoga sent a letter to PG&E by certified and electronic mail offering to purchase the Additional Easement for $450, the full amount of the Appraisal based upon a calculation of $1.50 per square foot of land area for 300 square feet. On April 20, 2010, the City of Saratoga mailed and faxed to PG&E a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity. Copies of the City’s offer letter and Notice of Intent are attached to this Report. 5. The City has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. The City circulated an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project for public review and comment from April 17, 2007 to May 18, 2007. On October 3, 2007, the City adopted the Mitigated Declaration and approved the Project. 5 In connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, City Staff has reviewed all environmental documentation prepared for the Project. City staff has concluded that the Additional Easement does not constitute a substantial change in the project requiring further environmental review. City staff has also concluded that since the approval date, there have been no substantial changes in the Project or the circumstances surrounding it, nor has the City obtained any new information requiring further environmental review. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: In addition to other materials made a part of the administrative record, the following documents are incorporated in this Report and are included in the administrative record: 1. The Offer to Purchase letter sent to PG&E. 2. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity sent to PG&E notifying it of the time and place of the hearing on the Resolution of Necessity. 3. This Agenda Report (including attachments). ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL; ALTERNATE ACTION(S): Should the City Council make the findings required in the attached Resolution of Necessity, the City may authorize amending the complaint in the Eminent Domain Action to acquire the Additional Easement by adopting the attached Resolution of Necessity. The Resolution of Necessity requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the City Council, which equates to four votes because the Council consists of five members. The City Council has the discretion to: (1) Adopt the Resolution of Necessity; (2) not adopt the Resolution of Necessity; or (3) request additional information. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Resolution of Necessity to authorize amending the complaint. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the acquisition of the Additional Easement comes from a grant from the Valley Transportation Authority, funded through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and an anonymous donor. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Necessity 2. Legal Description 3. Survey Map 4. Offer to Purchase, attaching the Summary Appraisal Valuation Statement 5. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity // 1 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC USE AND NECESSITY OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL EASEMENT IN PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC RIGHT OF WAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLANNED JOE’S TRAIL AT SARATOGA DE ANZA; AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND PROSECUTE AN ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN TO FINAL JUDGMENT TO ACQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL EASEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE DEPOSIT OF FUNDS LAWFULLY AVAILABLE TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA FOR THE PROJECT FOR POSSESSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EASEMENT. The planned Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza (“Project”) includes the development of an approximately 1.3-mile bike and pedestrian trail extending over PG&E property along an approximately 1.6-mile easement that is approximately 75 feet wide (“Joe’s Trail Easement”). The trail will extend in a generally northwest/southeast direction from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Saratoga Avenue in the City of Saratoga. On October 3, 2007, the City of Saratoga adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the Project. On October 2, 2008, the City filed a complaint in eminent domain to acquire the Joe’s Trail Easement. It was subsequently determined that the Project requires acquisition of an additional easement in PG&E’s property to provide the Santa Clara Valley Water District (“SCVWD”) with access to maintain its trash rack facility in Rodeo Creek, which must be relocated for construction of Joe’s Trail (“Additional Easement”). The Additional Easement is 1,150 square feet and runs between Rodeo Creek and the boundary of PG&E’s property, which eventually connects to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, a public road. The City Council of the City of Saratoga, by a vote of 4/5ths majority or more of its members, finds, determines, declares and resolves that: Section 1. The City of Saratoga is a municipal corporation in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Section 2. The Additional Easement is to be taken for public use for the Project and all uses necessary, convenient, or appurtenant to the Project pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City of Saratoga to acquire property by eminent domain by California Constitution Article 1, section 19; California Government Code sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, and 40404; California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1230.010 et seq., including, but not limited to sections 1240.010 through 1240.050, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.140, 1240.150, 124.220, 1240.350, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, 1250.340; and other provisions of law. 2 Section 3. The Additional Easement is a 1,150-square foot area of land located along a Pacific Gas & Electric utility transmission corridor, and consisting of portions of APN 386-53- 018. The legal description of the Additional Easement is attached as Exhibit “A” to this Resolution. The Additional Easement is depicted on the survey map attached as Exhibit “B” to this Resolution. The Additional Easement is required for the construction and maintenance of the Project. Section 4. The Additional Easement is required to carry out and make effective the principal purpose of the Project. A general description of the Project is set forth in the Agenda Report dated May 5, 2010. The Agenda Report and the evidence, reports, and documents cited in that Agenda Report are incorporated in the Administrative Record for this Resolution. Section 5. The City Council of the City of Saratoga specifically finds and determines that: A. The City has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. with regard to the Project. The environmental effects of the Project were evaluated in the MND prepared by the City of Saratoga (State Clearinghouse Number 2007042079), adopted by the Saratoga City Council on October 3, 2007. No revisions to the MND are required for the acquisition of the Additional Easement due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects because of substantial changes in the Project, substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken, or significant new information. B. The public interest and necessity require the Project. C. The Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest good and the least private injury. D. The Additional Easement is necessary to carry out and make effective the principal purpose of the Project, including, but not limited to, protection and preservation of the safety and usefulness of Joe’s Trail. The Additional Easement is further necessary to provide access from a public road to SCVWD’s property, which otherwise would have been cut off as a result of the Project. E. The City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Additional Easement, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take the Additional Easement by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Government Code section 7267.2(a). Section 6. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based on the record before the City Council on May 19 , 2010, when it adopted this Resolution, including the Agenda Report dated May 5, 2010, all documents referenced and incorporated in the Agenda Report, the testimony at the hearing, and the records and documents prepared in connection with the Project, all of which are incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. 3 Section 7. The City Council of the City of Saratoga authorizes and directs the City Attorney’s Office and City Staff to take all steps necessary to amend the complaint in the eminent domain action City of Saratoga v. PG&E et al., No. 1-08-CV-124267 (Sup. Ct. Santa Clara County), and prosecute those legal proceedings to acquire the Additional Easement by eminent domain. Section 8. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to deposit lawfully available funds of the City of Saratoga for the Additional Easement with either the court in which the eminent domain proceedings are litigated or the State Treasury Condemnation Fund, in the amount required by law for the maintenance of a proceeding in eminent domain and for immediate possession of the Additional Easement. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 19th day of May, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _________________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk Date