The California Streets and Highways Code provides for property owners to file a petition with the County requesting the Board of Supervisors to conduct a public hearing to consider the vacation (abandonment) of a street. A petition was filed in 1995 and then resubmitted in 1998 requesting vacation of an unused portion of Alpine Road in the unincorporated area near Menlo Park. The original petition requested the Board vacate an unused portion of Alpine Road right-of-way that crosses 6 parcels and consists of land varying in width from 26 feet to 38 feet between Bishop Lane and Wildwood Lane. Much of the land is a slope that falls away from the existing roadway path. Six structures, including three single-family residences encroach into this right-of -way. In 2000, your Board denied the vacation on a 3-2 vote. At the time, two Board members asked staff to pursue other alternatives.
In July, 2001, after negotiations between the parties broke down, the Petitioners took legal action against the County stating that the County had never formally acquired fee title to the portion of the property that was the subject of the vacation request. Issues regarding title are not clearly defined. There is ample historical reference to the County's right-of-way, but there is no recorded document. Additionally, conflicting land surveys were done in the 1800's creating discrepancies in the various deeds and, ultimately, in the description of the plaintiff's subdivision. In lieu of proceeding with the court action, the parties entered into a settlement of the litigation to resolve their differences (the "Settlement Agreement"). |
The Settlement Agreement would grant to the County clear title to a 35' right-of-way easement measured from the centerline of Alpine Road. That easement is adequate to accommodate one vehicle lane and shoulder (the shoulder can be used as a bike lane), and a multi-use trail. A cross-section showing the road improvements that can be accommodated within the 35' easement is shown in Attachment B. Vacation of the County's interest beyond the 35' easement will eliminate any encroachment into the newly defined right-of-way by the existing homes. The 35' dimension was established after consultation with the Director of Public Works and staff of the Department of Parks and Recreation. Also included in the settlement are conditions to facilitate development and construction of a multi-use trail, and to prevent future construction by homeowners within the newly established easement. The first resolution presented for Board action will accomplish the requested vacation.
One parcel that is surrounded by property owned by the Petitioners is not part of this petition. The owners of that single parcel, Bradford and Ursula Jeffry, are currently involved in litigation with their title company. The Jeffrys have indicated a desire to have the County, under the same terms and conditions as are contained in the Settlement Agreement, vacate the portion of the current right-of-way that affects their property, but only if they are able to first resolve the dispute with their title company. The area affecting their property is shown in green on Attachment A. Vacation under the same terms and conditions would ensure uniformity among all contiguous parcels. The second resolution presented for Board action will accomplish this vacation, but it is conditioned on a final resolution of the Jeffrys' current dispute.
The 35' dimension of the right-of-way easement has been established as a compromise in recognition of the uncertainty of title caused by property transactions and inconsistent surveys that stretch over a period of 150 years. Although the dimension of the easement is not optimal, it accommodates potential trail improvements. Given the risk involved in litigating title to the area in dispute, the compromise is reasonable. This situation is unique, and the compromise reached is not a precedent for title conflicts that might arise in other locations.
As part of the Settlement Agreement, if the Board determines it is necessary to modify the configuration of the proposed vacation, the County will provide the Petitioners an opportunity to review and approve the suggested changes. If the Board of Supervisors does not approve the request to vacate, or if the Petitioners do not agree to configuration changes made at the recommendation of the Board, all provisions of the settlement agreement shall become null and void, and the Petitioners may resume the legal action against the County.
As part of the original petition, public utility companies and property owners in the immediate area, public agencies, County departments and other interested individuals were notified. The petition was then submitted to the Planning Department for a determination of whether the vacation conforms to the General Plan. In 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the vacation request and found that it would conform to the General Plan if adequate area were included for future widening of the existing path.
When the Board heard this matter in 2000, objections were received from 2 property owners in the area, members of the County Trails Committee, the Town of Portola Valley and the City of Menlo Park. The main objections related to concern that the vacation would affect the ability to use the existing path on the southerly side of the road. Concerns were also expressed about the ability to widen the path (for both expanded recreational and safety issues) if the area is vacated. In negotiation of the Settlement Agreement, these issues have been addressed and resolved.
PG&E, Pacific Bell and Cal Water have requested reservation of a public utility easement. If the vacation is approved, the description of the vacated area will include reservation of easements for all existing utilities, and any new requirements will be met within the County's 35' right-of-way.
The County's Street Vacation Policy specifies that the Board of Supervisors may approve a vacation request if it concludes that: (1) the area being vacated is not necessary for street purposes; and (2) the vacation is in the public interest; and (3) the area to be vacated is not used for access by the public and is not needed for future use.
Under the proposed settlement and vacation, adequate right-of-way will continue to exist for street purposes, and it will be possible to accommodate a bike path and a multi-use trail.
County Counsel, The Director of Public Works and the Director of the Environmental Services Agency concur in this recommendation. |
The vacation of a portion of Alpine Road keeps the commitment of responsive, effective and collaborative government and goal number 20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or gain. The vacation contributes to this commitment and goal by clearing the current encroachments of the homes for the property owners while also providing the access for the benefit of the public which will allow for a vehicle lane, bike lane and a multi-use trail. |
