The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 4.2 U-Haul ROW PM 3000 (2).., ~ ~ ~ CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Recission of Rejection and Acceptance of Right-of-Way and Easements, Parcel Map 3000 (U-Haul Property) Report by Public Works Director Lee Thompson EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Resolution 2) Dublin Boulevard Specific Plan map (also showing location of Parcel Map 3000) 3) Map showing Specific Plan for connector road between Scarlett Court and the Dublin Boulevard Extension 4) Copy of Government Code Section 66477.2(a) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt resolution rescinding rejection of right-of-way ~~I~~ and access and public utility easements and accepting said right-of-way and easements. 2) Direct City Clerk to record this resolution with the Alameda County Recorder. ~ FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The City will incur street sweeping•costs of approximately $200 per year and other street maintenance costs such as patching, slurry seal, and eventual overlay. DESCRIPTION: In October of 1981, the County of Alameda rejected the offer of dedication of a 33-foot wide strip of land ending in a cul-de-sac on Parcel Map 3000 (U-Haul property). The dedication was made for right-of-way purposes and as an access and public utility easement. The County's rejection was specified as being subject to the right of the County, its successors and/or assigns, to accept the offer of dedication at a later date, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66477.2(a). At this time, City Staff is proposing that the City Council accept the offer of dedication, as this property is needed for the proposed road along the Chabot Channel which connects Scarlett Court with the Dublin Boulevard Extension. This alignment was established as a Specific Plan together with the Dublin Boulevard Extension on April 25, 1988. It is proposed to later remove the cul-de-sac bulb and extend the improvements through to Dublin Boulevard along with the Dublin Boulevard Extension project. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution rescinding the rejection of the offer of dedication and accepting the right-of-way and easements. a:(corres)\nov\agst3000 ITEM N0. COPIES T0: U-Haul Co. of East Bay CITY CLERK ---------------------------------------------- ----------- -Fit~- -- ~0 ~~ ~~ r~ ~ ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 115-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESCINDING REJECTION OF OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS, PARCEL MAP 3000, AND ACCEPTING OFFER OF DFiDICATION AND EASEMENTS WHEREAS, on October 23, 1981, the County of Alameda Planning Director did reject the offer of dedication of right-of-way, access easement, and public utility easement shown on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map 3000" filed November 3, 1981, in Book 131 of Maps at Pages 22 and 23, records of Alameda County, California; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has succeeded Alameda County in interest regarding the offer of dedication; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin now requires said street right-of-way for public street purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to the authority of Section 66477.2(a) of the Government Code of the State of California, that the City Council hereby rescinds the previous rejection of the offer of dedication of right-of-way and access and public utility easements in Parcel Map 3000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the offer of dedication made by U-Haul Company of East Bay, a California Corporation, dated July 28, 1981, on the aforesaid map of Parcel Map 3000 be, and the same is hereby accepted; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded at the office of the Recorder, Alameda County. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November, 1991. AYES: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt, and Mayor Snyder NOES: None ABSENT: None ~ • ~- Mayo ATTEST: c_ C Ci lerk a:\nov\reso3000 ~x~~bt~~ ~. --~ ~~ - (~ DU~LIN []OULL~/AR~ L-XTENE310N ~~» ...a r,y ~ ~ ' OOUGHeti7'TY ROAO TO OOIITH~~7N PAGV'~ R/W u.a o.. o~t •~~• . ' ' ~ ~ ~ oAT^~ r~l~. i., 1^^^ .... A~ ~~,~ . -Aoo~ - • . ,. ,.. ,.. .,. ... '~ ~u~1Nr~c ~ ~ ~-~ - ` ni~nn,~ ~n+. 10 u~ ~~ •~ Jc . ~s n 1e ~o ~o ln p V c ~~5~~~ , "Ti~l' SfIOWtNC ItICII'C-OI~-wnY LI1~~S ~ [~Olt I;X'fLNSION Ol~ UUULIN I30ULGVARD Tniar +o~a ~o ~ j UL'I'Wl;IsN ll0UC11GRTY RO~D ANU ' ::;:;:;:; ti:::;;: :~:::: '' ::::::::::::::~:~:::~:::::~ :~::: • SOU'I'IIL;ItN I'AC~[rIC ftICIIT-Or-~IAY." :u,,t .,•. • •.~.~. , . , ~ ~ , ~ , ~ . 1 2 ~ { • ~. . - - o ~ ~ o.o::o : a . ~ • ~~~~~~ ~ jl •~~• • ~ ~ O ~,~~~ •~~ 'P •~~^ •~• ~ \^,•/ ~ ~ ~ •~• ` ~ ~ u 2t ~ \ ~ ~~ o V ~ ,Y~ ~4 ~ 0~4~~. ~L C'" . ` • ~ O : A ...~ ~' .• 1J . S, • . ~ ~'';' 4~ ' •.• ~A u ~ ~ ... . i ., ~ ,9 ~ sz I ' O •..r 1= .... O O • ~~y il . ~.. ... ~ .. ,. ~ O O • i . .. . ::; •-•~ Q ~ ~~~~N ' .... 2~ IC . ;ar• u~• •~r• . ~ , ..- . ••~. , ~ . ~a. •~~• O ~ ~.'a . . . ~I ~ ~~ 'Rl6N'r OF WI~Y • ' ~~ ~ 'P+~~~~ ~ . . ~~ , , ~ ~ . ~ . ~zo~n ~: ~~Mnr s~iowzrrc -zzcu'C-Or-4~AY Lztrc~ P'OIZ STRLI;'f CONNI'sCf~NC llUI3LIN i30ULGVARU ~XTf:NSIOP! WITII SCAItLL;T'f COUR'I'" OUOUN DOULL~/ARO L'}CT~NaON OOUOII~f1TY f70A0 TO 60UTNt~1N PAGti'10 P~~N o~Tn ~~.. 1~, ~..• ~ • ~~ ~.• ~.~ ~u ~~~ ` . A "~~ ~,~. ~~~,• .ra44.. ~~+f:t"'?~~ . :.k..'r Di~ [REMENTS § 66477.2 I. In general City may constitutionally require dedica- tion of ]and for widening of existing etreet as condition of ite approval of eub- division, wLere such condition is reasona- bly related to increased traffic and otlier needa of subdivieion and it is no defen that fulfillment of conditions will ' n- tally also beuefit city ns a wL Feople v. Curtis (1967) 63 Cal. . 138, 255 C. A.2d 37,3. Provi:iions the former Subdivision Map Ac Bus. ~ Prof.C. § 11551 ( re- pe , see, now, §§ 66451, 66473) sup- Notes of Decisions ies to require tl~nt all created pur- suant to a subdivis' r land project de- termine lot bo ry linea: 56 Ops.Atty. Gen.105 -73. g of a subdivieon map delinenting u reet tLerem~ is nu offer to dc~licnte, und use of the land by the puUlic for over a reasonable period of time conetitutea an acceptance of tLe offer so made without any formal actiona in relation thereto by governmeutal autl~ority, and if it precedes revocation of tl~e offer, the dedication be- cocnes effectuul and irrevocable. Mc- Kinney v. Ruderman (1962) 21 Ca1.Rptr. § 66477.2. Offer of dedication; contuiuation after rejection; tennination (a) Street, paths, a,lleys, public utility ea.sements, rights-of-way for local transit facilities, storm drainage easements. If at the time the final map is approved, any streets, paths, al- leys, public utility easements, rights-of-way for local transit facilities such as bus turnouts, benches, shelters, landing pads, and similar items, which directly benefit the residents of a subdivision, or storm drainage easements are rejected, subject to Section 771.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the offer of dedication shall remain open and the legislative body may by resolution at any later date, and without further action by the subdivider, rescind its action and accept and open the streets, paths, alleys, rights-of-way for local transit facilities such as bus turnouts, benches, shelters, landing pads, and similar items, which directly benefit the residents of a subdivision, or storm drainage easements for public use, which acceptance shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder. (b) t~ccess to coastline bay shoreline, waterway, river, ervoir; time for acceptance. In the case of any subdivision fronting upon the n coastline or bay shoreline, the offer of dedication of p access route or routes from public highways to land below ordinary high water- mark shall be accepted within three s after the approval of the final map; in the case of any ivision fronting upon any public waterway, river, or strea e offer of dedication of public access route or routes fro ic highways to the bank of the waterway, river, or strea the public easement along a portion of the bank I of the wa ay, river, or stream shall be accepted within three years ; afte e approval of the final map; in the case of any subdivision ~ nting upon any lake or reservoir which is owned in part or entire- ; 311 --------- ----- - . ~. _ ~ ~ ~ ~~P k ~~~ i ~ iP~l~