Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 3 ALLEY ABANDON 11-20-89TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: PUBLIC ALLEY ABANDONMENT/VACATION RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND: The discussion pertaining to the abandonment/vacation of the public alley located southerly of Linda Lane, easterly of Yorba Street and westerly of Rosalind Drive was agendized for the City Council meeting of October 16, 1989. At that meeting, Mr. Ralph Westrum requested that the item be. continued to a later date. The previous staff report dated October 6, 1989 has been attached for the City Council's reference. 'DISCUSSION: In the previous staff report dated October 6, 1989, it was noted that nine responses to the letter questionnaire had been received as follows: * In favor of the pr6posed abandonment/vacation of the alley .......... ~ ~ ~ ~A~AmeAt,_~ ~~"~ .......... 3 , opposed to the proposed ca on of the alley ....................................... 6 - 3 * No response ........................................ Total 12 On October 13, 1989, one additional response was received in opposition to the proposed abandonment/vacation, changing the results to 3, 7 and 2 for .~hose in favor, opposed, and no response, respectiVely. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:mv DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1989 TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PUBLIC ALLEY ABANDONMENT/VACATION ,, , , RECOMMENDATION: That the subject alley remain as a public facility which would require no action by the City Council. , J BACKGROUND: At their meeting of September 5, 1989, the City Council discussed the potential abandonment/vacation of a public alley located southerly of Linda Lane, easterly of Yorba Street and westerly of---Rosalind Drive'' As a part of this discussion, staff .was directed to send a letter question- naire to the twelve affected property owners abutting the subject alley to determine their preference regarding the subject alley abandonment/ vacation. A~ copy of the letter and questionnaire is attached for the - City Council's reference. These letters were mailed on September 14, 1989 with a response date of no later than October 4, 1989. DISCUSSION: As of 5:00 p.m. October 4, 1989, nine responses have been received as follows-. * In favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley ...................................... 3 * Opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley ...................................... 6 * No response ....................................... 3 Total 12 Following are comments which accompanied two of the questionnaires opposing the abandonment/vacation-of the.alley. * Only if the "no parking" signs are removed. We have lived here over 20 of the 27 years without "no parking" signs in the alley. * Not all homes backed to the alley need to use it for access to their garage. This would be unfair to them. Do you think there should be "no parking" signs on one side of the alley way? Preferably the west side. PUBLIC ALLEY ABANDONMENT/VACATION OCTOBER 6, t989 PAGE 2 Attached for the City Council's reference is a copy of the previous staff report dated August 29, 1989. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:mv Attach. september 14, 1989 Department of Public W~,rks/Engincering AP No. 395-264-03 Mr. Roger C. Treichler 17552 Laurie Lane Tustin, CA 92680 'Re!.. Public Ai!'~ Abandonment/VacatiOn Dear Mr. Treichle~: At the Tustin City Council' meeting held on September 5, 1989, the council discussed the potential abandonment/vacation of a public alley located southerly of Linda Lane, easterly of Yorba Street and westerly of Rosalind Drive. As.a part of this discussion, staff was directed to send a letter questionnaire to the twelve prop~rty.Dwners abutting.the · 'subject'alleY'to d~te~mine'their preference as to whether the alley should be abandoned/vacated or left in its current, condition as a public alley. · In the event the alley would be abandoned/vacated, each abutting" property owner would assume ownership to the centerline of the alley and would be responsible for the maintenance of that portion of the alley. Also, reciprocal 'easement~-b'etween e~ch of the abUtting property owners would have to be executed .so that access could be~' maintained for each property utilizing the alley for access to their garage structures or backyard areas. It is requested 'that each property owner respond to the attached questionnaire below by returning one copy marked with their response either in favor of, or opposed to, the proposed abandonment/vacation.of the.alley located southerly of Linda:'Lane, easterly of Yorba Street .and westerly of 'Rosalind Drive. A self-addressed and ~tamped envelope has been included for your convenience. It is requested that your response be returned no later than Wednesday, October 4, 1989. . In the event there are any questions. Fggarding this questionnaire, please'call either'M~hda Buckley (544~8890, ext. 292) or me at 544-8890, ext. 281. Very truly yours, Bob L~dendecker Director of Public Works/City 'Engineer 300 Cenlemdal Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 AP 395-264-03 Roger C. Treichler 17552 Laurie Lane Tustin, CA .92680 · , QUESTIONNAIRE- I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation the alley 'southerly of Linda Lane. I, we, 'ar'e" 6pp0se'd""t'~' the'-Proposed aband'0n~e~t/vacation .of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. , Comments: ' ... · · . DATE: AUGUST 29, 1989 ~ AAA~& -- ~,,t~J~A . I TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC 'WORKS DEPAq{TMENT/EN'GYNEERING DIvIsIoN.. CITIZEN COMPLAINT -'ALLEY SOUTHERLY OF LINDA LANE AND EASTERLY OF YORBA STREET AND REMOVAL OF STREET SWEEPING SIGNS ON. WESTERLY SIDE OF YORBA STREET . . RECOMMENDATION: . ... ' ...parking Receive and'"file.~ ' No ·action will allow "no "restrictions'to remain in effect. BACKGROUND: ' . · ' ' ' ' At the August 21, 1989 city council meeting, a concern was raised.by Mr. Ralph Westrum, 13651 Rosalind Drive, regarding the status of the alley lying southerly of Linda Lane and westerly of Yorba Street. ·This'alley' is delineated on the attached portion of a copy of Tract Map' No..' 4014 marked as attachment A. Also attached and marked as attachments ~, .C, D and E are copies of deeds for Lo'ts 27, 31, 32 and 36, respectively. Mr. Westrum's. concern involved the prohibition of parking within the al·lay and whether the alley was either a public or private facility. ..' DISCUSSION: ' ' A review of the original Tract Map No. 4014 (reference Attachment A) shows the alley to be a separate facility and not a part of any..of the twelve lots adjoining the alley. Attachments B, ~,D and E are copies of deeds to four lots Nos. 27, 31, 32 and 36..'' These deeds do not reflect any. ownership of any part of the alley.~ Staff reviewed only four.deeds' out of a total of twelve lots abutting the alley but considers them as being representative of all affected lots with respect to ownership of the alley. ' ..... ~ . If the alley was uhder private ownership,there would, be some type of an easement document.granting access across each of the private properties to the owners of all lots.located'southerly of Lots 31 and-32. Staff was unable to locate any such easement document and attachments B, C, D and E contain no %anguage to that effect. As a result of the above-mentioned review, it is staff's opiniqg...~hat the subject alley is 'a public alleyU "'.. ' ......... _ . Section 5332F of the Tustin City Code provides for the following: No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle for any purpose other than loading or unloading of persons, materials in any public or dedicated alley and any private alley as stipulated by spec.ial ...ordina31ce ........ - · CITIZEN COMPLAINT - ALLEY SOUTHERLY OF LINDA LANE, EASTERLY OF YORBA AND REMOVAL OF STREET SWEEPING SIGNS, W'LY SIDE.OF YORBA AUGUST 29, 1989 ~' PAGE 2 Unless this code is modified by the city council, the existing "No'l Parking Anytime" signs within the alley should remain' in place '"and' unbagged to prohibit parking on both sides of the alley. As previously discussed, the alley in question 'is twenty (20) feet' in width. If parking were to be allowed on both sides of. the alley and vehicles were parked opposite each]~other, the alley-could be blocked for through access. The Orange County Fire Department indicated that alleys should have a clear minimum width of twenty (20) feet, an all-weather surface, and a clear vertical clearance of 13'6" per Section 10209 of the Uniform Fire Code. As a result of this requirRment, it is recommended that.the "no parking,, restrictions, on both sides of the alley remain in effect within the subject public alley. , The subject of abandonment of" the alley surfaced at the last city counqil meeting and is a possible solution wkth concurrence of. all .of the residents? .... I.~ the.~ ~ll~y were.to be abandoned.,, the following are so~' areas that should be resolved prior to commencement of the abandonment proceedings: 1. Concurrence from the twelve (12) affected'property owners'that they desire said abandonment. 2. Willingness from all the affected property owners to grant ..... reciproca. 1.... acc~sS...easements to each of 'the affected, property . ......... owners. 3. Review and comment, from the Orange. CountY Fire Department and other agencie~ 'providing emergency services that such an abandon- ment would not impede their ability to provide services to the affected properties. Once it has been determined that the alley abandonment would be formally initiated, the following procedures are required- Week one - City council adopts a' resolution of i'ntention to abandon/ vacate the alley and sets t'ime and place for a public hearing. Week five - City council holds public hearing, receives testimony on proposed abandonment and takes an action based upon testimony received. CITIZEN COMPLAINT - ALLEY SOUTHERLy_OF LINDA .LAN~, ~fLY OF YORBA STREET "AND R~MOVAL OF' STREeT. swEEPING SIGNS, W'LY SIDE OF YORBA AUGUST 29, 1989 PAG~ 3 Attached for the city ceuncit's information is a copy of a letter sent ' to Mr. Westrum regarding the removal of "No Parking During S~ree~ · Sweeping Hours" signs on the westerly side of Yorba Street. As you will note, the petition presented by Mr. Wes=rum' at the August 21, '1989 meeting contained a handwritten addition for the west side of Yorba but no signatures of property owners adjacent ~o the"wes'~ side either for or against said sign removal. , Bob Le~en~eCker ' '- Director of Publi~ Works/City Engineer BL:mv AP No. 395-264-08 Mr. Ralph J. Westrum 13651 Rosalind Drive Tustin, CA 92680 '[USIlN PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE I I- I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of ~inda Lane. ' I, we, are opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. Comments: AP No. 395-264-07 (13671 Rosalind Drive, Tustin, CA) Mr. Michael Stone 9612 Bryn Mar Drive Villa Park, CA 92667 ...,° EP 1 .,.8. 1o~,'' ....... QUESTIONNAIRE · . · I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. ... .. I, we, are opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. Comments: AP No. 395-264-11 (13682 Yorba Street, Tustin, CA) Mr. Michael Stone ..... 9612 BrynlMar Drive Villa Park, CA 92667 s£p 1 8 1989 TUSTII~ PUBLIC ~OR~ DEPT. QUESTIONNAIRE I, we, are~ in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. · , I, we, are opposed to the proposed.abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. · . Comments: AP No. 395-264-13 (13702 Yorba St., Tustin, CA) La Jolla Trust Company Attn: Trust Department P.O. Box 22508 San Diego, CA 92680 QUESTIONNAIRE I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. I, we, are opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. Comments- · · AP No. 395-264-12 Mr. William D. Fiyn~ 13692 Yorba Street Tustin, CA 92680 QUESTIONNAIRE I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. I, we, .are opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of Comments: the alley southerly ~Linda Lane. AP. 395-264-03 Roger C. Treichler 17552 Laurie Lane Tustin, CA 92680 QUESTIONNAIRE I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. I, we, are opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. .. Comments: AP No. 395-264-06 (13681 Rosalind') Mr. John D. Chaconas 10522 Grove Oak Dr Santa Ana~ CA 92705 OCT TUS/IN PUBLIC I~/OI~K$ Di~PI. QUESTIONNAIRE I, we, are in favor of the proposed, abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. Comments: I, we, are opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. ' AP No. 395-264-14 (13712 Yorba St., Tustin, CA) Se~ am, o Saying~; and 3~22~ars~ S~ et .//. QUESTIONNAIRE I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. I, we, 'are" oppos~- to the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. AP No. 395-264-04 Mr. Hugh T. Jones 13701 Rosalind Drive Tustin, CA 92680 0CTU 1989 TUSI'IH I,'U~LiC ,~'ORKS DEPL QUESTIONNAIRE I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. I, we, are opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linda Lane. ., Comments: O~ ~,,,\ ',,.~ ~,. AP No. 395-264-05 (13691 Rosalind Drive) Mr. Philip J. R°cco 1962 McLean Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 OCT 1;~ 1989 TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. QUESTIONNAIRE I, we, are in favor of the proposed abandonment/vacation of the alley southerly of Linde Lane. I, are opposed to the proposed abandonment/vacation of we, the alley southerly of Linde Lane. Comments: ..~--~~ _~ . ~..,-"~--~~/' ~ /3 ?× '