Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC - 3B - Rosemead Declaring Its Intention To Vacate A Portion Of Alley North Of Garvey Ave.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2002 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF ALLEY NORTH OF GARVEY AVENUE (DEL MAR AVENUE /196.46 FEET WEST SOUTHWEST OF DEL MAR AVENUE) AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION The City received a request from the developer of a property that currently straddles the subject alley to consider vacating the alley as a public roadway. The request was made to allow the property to be consolidated into a single parcel, in preparation for future development. The alley only serves the property straddling it, and is fenced off within the property. Upon reviewing the site, it has been determined that it is no longer necessary for the city to retain the alley right - of -way. Streets and Highways Code Section 8300 -8349 provides means for the City to vacate street right -of -way. Government Code Section 65402 requires that the Planning Commission make findings that the proposed alley vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City may vacate a street or an alley if the City determines the need for the general public to travel upon it, or the City to operate and maintain it, or utilities to place their facilities within it, no longer exists. The street or alley would then become private. The City may partially vacate the street or alley by retaining easement rights to construct or maintain facilities within the area such as sewers, storm drains, etc., if such needs would continue to exist. COUNCIL. AGENDA FEB 26 202 ITEM No. =2 February 20, 2002 Page 2 The 10- foot -wide, and approximately 196.5- foot -long alley to be vacated currently exists more as a private driveway and parking area rather than a full public road or alley. It also serves as the drainage easement for an existing Los Angeles County Flood Control District underground storm drain. It does not provide through access and only serves the property adjoining it. The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan does not show the alley as an essential roadway for circulation purposes, nor does it appear that the proposed vacation will result in a diversion or modification of existing traffic patterns. The first part of the alley vacation proceedings requires that the City Council adopt a resolution declaring its intention to vacate this portion of alley, and setting a date and time at which interested persons may support or object to the proposed vacation. The attached resolution sets this date as March 26, 2002, at 8:00 p.m. After a full analysis by staff, the police and fire departments, affected utilities, and the Planning Commission, and at the conclusion of the scheduled public hearing on March 26, 2002, the City Council may decide to vacate this alley as requested or retain it as a public roadway. Commission Review On December 3, 2001, the Rosemead Planning Commission made the finding that the proposed vacation was consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan per Government Code Section 65402. Public Notice Process Notice of the public hearing will be provided in accordance with Section 8322 of the Streets and Highways Code. This code requires publication of the notice of public hearing at least two times and posting of the street at least 15 days prior to the hearing. In addition, notices will be sent to the police and fire departments, and all affected utilities. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2002 -12 declaring its intention to vacate a portion of alley north of Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and 196.46 feet west southwest of Del Mar Avenue. RESOLUTION No. 2002 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF ALLEY NORTH OF GARVEY AVENUE (DEL MAR AVENUE /196.46 FEET WEST SOUTHWEST OF DEL MAR AVENUE) AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemead has been requested to vacate a portion of alley north of Garvey Avenue (Del Mar Avenue /196.46 feet west southwest of Del Mar Avenue); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemead is responsible for maintaining a transportation and traffic circulation system for the City of Rosemead; and WHEREAS, that portion of alley north of Garvey Avenue (Del Mar Avenue /196.46 feet west southwest of Del Mar Avenue) as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" is not an essential or integral part of said transportation network; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead found on December 3, 2001, the proposed vacation of a portion of alley north of Garvey Avenue (Del Mar Avenue /196.46 feet west southwest of Del Mar Avenue) in conformity with the Circulation Element of the adopted General Plan of the City of Rosemead as required by Section 65402 of the Government Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 : The City Council does hereby elect to proceed in vacating a portion of alley north of Garvey Avenue (Del Mar Avenue /196.46 feet west southwest of Del Mar Avenue) in the manner as prescribed under Chapter 3, Part 3 of the Streets and Highway Code. Section 2 : The City Council does hereby declare its intention to vacate a portion of alley north of Garvey Avenue (Del Mar Avenue /196.46 feet west southwest of Del Mar Avenue) in the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. Section 3 : A map of the proposed vacation is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Rosemead. Reference is hereby made to said map for particulars as to the proposed vacation. Section 4 : Notice is hereby given that on the 26'" day of March, 2002, at the hour of 8:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California, the City Council will hear all persons interested in or objecting to this proposed vacation. Section 5 : The City Clerk shall conspicuously post Notices of Street Vacation, together with a copy of this Resolution attached thereto, along the line of those certain streets proposed to be vacated. Said notices shall state the fact of passage of this Resolution and shall state the time and place of hearing. Section 6 : The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute this Resolution on behalf of the City Council of the City of Rosemead and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto. Section 7 : The City Clerk shall forthwith cause this Resolution to be published as required by the Streets and Highway Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead on this 26"' day of February 2002. 113YO ATTEST: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PORTION OF ALLEY TO BE VACATED A portion of that certain 10 foot wide alley lying between Lots 5 and 6 of Tract No. 1495, in the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 26 Page 51 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, bounded as follows: Easterly by a line parallel with and 5.00 feet westerly of the easterly lines of said Lots 5 and 6; Westerly by the northerly prolongation of the westerly line of said Lot 6. Prepared under my supervision: OVA, Q D � 2 ���� (6rL David O. Knell PLS 5301 Date . 5301 C:lwpdo krosemead%deimar- alley.doc Exp.. 12 -3 February 18, 2002 s n I� Jtl O ` s CITY OF ROSEMEAD T o v T y O AREA OF PROPOSED VACATION cl o� 60 N pO. lcb Im pr ys� G s c7 loc — 1'-- L- -- -- -^ Jed - - -- .. Eo - ---- - - A 3Q3 nt a! m m 3o9r M Z N e D n o S 3 0 7 7 ailJ W O ti _ P rz 450 sn jf,J /a l / 30.72 a © 3c �3 Ln z OO `� o u -- =Cs! - - -- �Rm I a �ani3 /!C J! /6C d5 4 7 92 25 °g 30 1 I � �,> O sow e— zt — � N O RI 60 s 3 CD � d5 L7 92 2S 25 J � I LP D 8 GARV EY 0 AV E i I� S 'ar t r � I VIE - o G 0 .r� t Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tern Bruesch stated that there is $500,000 difference in the reallocation budget. Lisa Baker, Grants Coordinator, explained that the carryover is from unexpended funds from the prior fiscal year that has to be accounted for, plus program income. III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $693,845.50 NUMBERED 36778 THROUGH 36903 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Council Adopt Resolution No. 2002 -11. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. ..w,,$. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-12 - VACATING A PORTION OF ALLEY NORTH OF GARVEY AVENUE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: CCMIN:2 -26.02 rage *3 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF ALLEY NORTH OF GARVEY AVENUE (DEL MAR AVENUE/196.46 FEET WEST SOUTHWEST OF DEL MAR AVENUE) AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked if the Auto Auction is asking for this vacation. Mr. Nunez was assured that this alley vacation has nothing to do with the Auto Auction. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002 -12 declaring its intention to vacate a portion of alley north of Garvey Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and 196.46 feet southwest of Del Mar Avenue. Before vote could result, more discussion ensued. Councilman Taylor asked why the City is not vacating the other half of the alley between the two residential homes? Mr. Taylor stated that he would like the abandonment to include both ends of the alley. Ken Rukavina, City Engineer, stated that he excluded the other residential properties as various properties are landscaped. Fence fines would have to be moved because property lines would shift. Councilman Taylor stated that since the City is giving 10' to the developer on the other side of the alley, why not clean -up this area and give 10' to the homeowners on this side. The City does not need a property that is dead - ended. Mr. Rukavina stated that if the City did that, the property line would shift to the middle of the 10' area causing the fence line to shift toward the white house in the photo. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, stated that the property owners could be approached to ascertain if they are interested in taking the property. Mayor Pro Tern Bruesch added that this would be the only section of the alley not vacated. W. Bruesch stated that it be given to the homeowners, at no cost to the City. Councilmember Clark requested clarification on the property lines and asked if the alleyway is where the fences in photograph are. Mr. Rukavina explained that a portion of the alleyway is closer to the house. CCMW:2.26.02 Page a4 Councilmember Clark verified that the property owner presently has grass growing on City property. Ms. Clark stated that by vacating the alleyway, it would be putting more of a burden on the property owner by having to move their fence. Councilman Taylor stated that the property owners will acquire the additional property and if the owners can move their fences if they so choose. Mr. Tripepi stated that the easement would still have to be retained. Ken Rukavina explained that L.A. County Flood Control requires that the City hold the easement for drainage purposes. Mr. Rukavina stated that the County often allows building over a storm drain. The City would not own jurisdiction over the storm drain, but the County would have easement rights over it. Councilman Taylor stated then that no action be taken tonight pending what the developer plans for those lots. Mr. Rukavina explained that the developer wants to acquire the four parcels, three on the south side of the alley and one on the north side. Councilman Taylor stated that he is in favor of consolidating those small dilapidated parcels. Mr. Taylor continued that in that case, he is in favor of continuing with this item tonight. Councilmember Clark asked if the developer is going to build over that portion? Mr. Rukavina replied no. The developer's intent is to consolidate all four parcels into one parcel. Mr. Rukavina continued that the developer is planning to build on the southern half nearly up to the storm drain and the north side would consist of parking. Councilmember Clark verified that the storm drain would continue to exist. Mr. Rukavina stated that the developer wants the vacation in order to consolidate those parcels into one piece of property, and cannot do that if the parcels are bisected by a public-right- of-way. Mr. Rukavina confirmed that the storm drain is underneath the concrete swale. Councilman Taylor stated that his Motion still stands as originally made. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CCMIN:2 -2"2 page o5