|
|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
|
County Manager's Office
|
|
|
DATE:
|
September 13, 2005
|
BOARD MEETING DATE:
|
October 4, 2005
|
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
|
None
|
VOTE REQUIRED:
|
Majority
|
|
|
TO:
|
Honorable Board of Supervisors
|
FROM:
|
Steve Alms, Manager, Real Property Services Division
|
SUBJECT:
|
Quitclaim of interest in slope easement encumbering Schram Property in El Granada
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Board President to execute a Quitclaim Deed granting any interest the County may have in a slope easement over property owned by Richard Warren Schram (or his successors or assigns) in El Granada and identified as assessor’s parcel 047-192-360 and further authorizing the County Manager or designee to execute any documents necessary to complete the transfer.
|
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT:
|
Commitment: The transfer keeps the commitment of Responsive, Effective and Collaborative Government.
|
Goal(s): 20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.
The transfer contributes to this commitment and goal by removing an unnecessary governmental restriction from private property.
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
The County obtained a variable five to ten-foot wide slope easement over a portion of the Schram property (covers approximately 637 square feet) in 1964 when the immediate area was being developed. The easement was intended to provide lateral support for a portion of El Granada Boulevard. The Schram property is now vacant and for sale. The owner would like to clear this unnecessary encumbrance from title.
|
Schram Slope Easement
September 13, 2005
Page 2.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
The County obtained a small number of such easements during the early 1960s when the El Granada Highlands area was subdivided and developed. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the matter and determined that the Schram easement is no longer necessary. The County has vacated and quitclaimed similar easements over property in this neighborhood since 1988. It appears that road funds or other County funds may have been expended in the acquisition of the easement but there are no records available at this time to confirm this. Based on the size and type of easement it is reasonable to conclude that any cost to the County would have been nominal. No public rights of access or use ever accrued to the easement area. Further, the Real Property Services Division has determined that the easement has a nominal value that is below the $25,000 threshold, which allows the County to convey its rights pursuant to Government Code Section 25526.5. This section does require posting of public notice for a period of five working days prior to effecting transfer.
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
There is no fiscal impact to the County.
|
cc w/enc:
|
D. Penny Bennett, Deputy County Counsel
Joe Napoliello, Real Property Services Division
|
cc:
|
Neil Cullen, Director, Public Works
Steve Alms, Manager, Real Property Services Division
|