Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY OF SAN LEANDRO <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT <br /> <br />APPROVED AND <br />FORWARDED <br />TO CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />February 20, 2007 <br /> <br /> <br />TO: John Jermanis, City Manager (/J/) <br /> <br />FROM: Uchenna Udemezue, Director ~~ <br />En gi ncering and Transpo rtation 'Departmen ( <br />--; ~ ,-,,'~' <br />BY: Keith R. Cooke, Principal Engineer rljj;;/t/7 <br /> <br />SUBJECT PROJECT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ! <br /> <br />RESOLUTION SUMMARILY VACATING TWO PORTIONS OF A PUBLIC UTILITY <br />EASEMENT ON BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE; 1) APPROXIMATELY 14 FEET LONG AND <br />3 FEET WIDE, AND 2) TRIANGULAR IN SHAPE OF APPROXIMATELY 3 SQUARE <br />FEET, PORTIONS OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. (APN) 079A-0591-002 <br /> <br />SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />A resolution has been prepared to summarily vacate two portions of a public utility easement <br />(PUE) along the western portion of APN 079A-0591-002 on Business Center Drive. <br /> <br />Staffs review indicates that these portions of a public utility easement are not needed for present <br />or prospective public utility purposes. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Bayside BC, L.P. is the fee owner of the subject property, as well as several other parcels in the <br />vicinity along Business Center Drive and Business Center Place. Construction of a commercial <br />building on Lot 3, APN 079A-0591-002 and 005 of Tract 7382, encroached upon the 10-foot <br />wide PUE in two areas. The owner of this property is requesting that these portions of the PUE <br />be quitclaimed by the City to eliminate the encroachment. <br /> <br />Analysis <br /> <br />The process of right-of-way summary vacation requires one resolution and no public hearing, <br />and is more cost effective than the longer but more commonly used vacating procedure. Per <br />Chapter 4 of Part 3, Division 9, Section 8334.5 of the State of California Streets and Highway <br />Code, a public service easement may not be summarily vacated if there are in-place public <br />utilities currently in use that would be affected by the vacation. Letters were sent out in <br />November 2006 to inform PG&E, AT&T, and Comcast of this proposal to allow them to provide <br />objections. None of the utility companies expressed any opposition to the vacation of these <br />portions of the public utility easement. EBMUD was not notified since its facilities are located <br />within its own separate easement in this area, which was unaffected by the construction of the <br />commercial building. <br />