Laserfiche WebLink
REPORT <br /> To the Honorable Mayor and City Council <br /> From the City Manager <br /> <br />February 11,2002 <br /> <br />Subject <br />Summary Vacation of a portion of the Underground Public Utility Easement on 3636 & <br />3642 Haven Avenue - Engineering File No. 702-06 <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Adopt a Resolution to vacate a portion of a 20-foot wide underground public utility <br />easement on 3636 & 3642 Haven Avenue. <br /> <br />Background <br />In October 2001, a parcel map was recorded to combine 3636 Haven Avenue (APN# <br />055-162-050), and 3642 Haven Avenue (APN# 055-162-060)into a single lot (Lot No. 1 <br />of Parcel Map No. 2001-3). At the same time, the owner of these properties, Carrera <br />PRB Company, a Limited Partnership Company, requested that the City terminate the <br />public right to ingress/egress a portion of the existing 20-foot wide public utility easement <br />located on the properties for the purpose of installing and maintaining public utilities. <br /> <br />The easement runs across the entire width of the newly formed Lot No. 1, as described <br />in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B". <br /> <br />The purpose of combining the properties and vacating the existing public utility <br />easements, is to construct a new car dealership with sales and repair facilities, as well <br />as an associated parking lot. <br /> <br />The City and other utility companies do not have any utilities and facilities in this 20-foot <br />easement, nor have any interest in preserving the easement for future public use. <br /> <br />According to California State and Highway Code - Part 3 of Division 9, Subsection <br />8333(a): "The City may summarily vacate a public service easement if it has not been <br />used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years <br />immediately preceding the proposed vacation." <br /> <br />Alternative <br />Do not vacate the easement and the developer would have a restricted use of his <br />property, while the City, or any other public agency that is entitled to use the easement, <br />would not have benefit of the existing easement either. <br /> <br /> <br />