Laserfiche WebLink
From:Stephen Burns <br />To:GRP-City Council; Council-Elmer MartinezSaballos; Council-Kaia Eakin; Council-Isabella Chu; Council-Jeff Gee; <br />Council-Diane Howard; ATTY-Veronica Ramirez; CLK-Yessika Castro; MGR-Patrick Heisinger <br />Subject:[Alert. Email sent from outside the United States.] Public Comment Follow-Up — Stephen Burns, 2455 Carson <br />Street <br />Date:Monday, February 9, 2026 7:01:12 PM <br />Dear Mayor and Council Members, <br />Thank you for the opportunity to speak during public comment this evening. I apologize for <br />exceeding the time limit. I was unable to finish my remarks before being cut off. I wanted to <br />share my complete statement so that each of you has the full picture. <br />My full statement is below: <br />Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Stephen Burns. My wife Sharon and <br />I own our home at 2455 Carson Street. We're here because the City is demanding we surrender <br />our private property without legal authority and without compensation, in violation of the <br />California Constitution. <br />Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution says private property cannot be taken for <br />public use without just compensation. Yet for over three years, the City has blocked our <br />building permits and is now demanding we tear down our wall and surrender the corner of our <br />property, land that lies outside any recorded easement. The City has never filed a <br />condemnation action. The City has never offered compensation. The City has never even <br />produced a recorded document granting it rights to our land. <br />The City claims authority under a "Public Utility Easement" that appears only as dotted lines <br />on a 1950 subdivision map. But California Government Code Section 66475 is clear: public <br />utility easements grant rights to utility companies like PG&E, not to cities. The California <br />Court of Appeal confirmed this in County of Sacramento v. PG&E: PUEs "do not extend <br />rights to the public in general or to the County in particular." The City Attorney's Office says <br />our interpretation is incorrect, but has not explained why or cited a single case to the contrary. <br />Here's what actually happened. In 1971, the City installed a fence and gate on our private <br />property, outside any recorded easement, without permission. Now the City demands we <br />preserve that illegal encroachment. Engineering staff required us to obtain professional <br />surveys and structural engineering reports. We spent over $6,000 to comply. They ignored <br />both, including the engineer's own conclusion that our wall is structurally sound and outside <br />the easement. In 2023, Senior Civil Engineer Linda Chang in Public Works approved a <br />reasonable solution: move the gate 31 inches to align with the recorded creek easement, the <br />same way every other property on this creek provides the City access, from the sidewalk. New <br />staff reversed that decision without explanation. <br />This three-year dispute has cost us tens of thousands of dollars in carrying costs and <br />professional fees. But beyond the financial harm, we cannot make basic repairs to our own <br />home. Our permits are frozen. We are living in a house we cannot improve or maintain <br />because of a claim the City cannot substantiate. The stress this has placed on our family has <br />been enormous.