HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 2, 1982 (32)What would be pursued in the quiet title action would be a
request for a court determination that the alley, where it
was actually constructed, was in fact the true alley. The
City will be claiming an prescriptive easement for the public over
the alley that was actually constructed. This is pursuant to
Civil Code Section 1009(3) (d) which reads to wit:
"Where a governmental entity is using private
lands by an expenditure of public funds on
visible improvements on or across such lands
or on the cleaning or maintnance related to
the public use of such lands in such a manner
so that the owner knows or should know that
the public is making such use of his land, such
use, including any public use reasonably related
to the purposes of such improvement, in the absence
of either express permission by the owner to
continue such use or the taking by the owner of
reasonable steps to enjoin, remove or prohibit
such use, shall after five years ripen to
confer upon the governmental entity a vested
right to continue such use."
Again, it is to be noted that the survey of 1939 shows that the
alley was constructed 10 feet north in its present location, so
obviously, the five-year period has long passed.
A copy of a map showing the Hutchins Street Alley as it was
originally deeded to the City and as it was actually constructed
was presented for Council's perusal. It was noted that_the
Hutchins Street Alley as deeded to the City, lies south of where
the alley was actually constructed. It is to be noted that,.the
Cit
. y obtained a grant deed from* the Hutchins family on October 16,
1908 for the alley, and a survey dated October 1939 shows that
the alley was not constructed within the right=of-way,`)..dt`
approximately 10 feet north of the originally deeded alley.
Also addressing Council on the matter were:
a) Mr. Don Campbell, 412 West Walnut Street, Lodi
b) Mr. Justis Brand, 408 West Walnut Street, Lodi
C) Mr. Maurice Ray, Jr. 801 South Fairmont Avenue, Lodi
A lengthy discussion followed with questions being directed to
Staff and to those persons who had given testimony.
On motion of Councilman Pinkerton, Murphy second, Council
deferred action on this matter to the regular Council meeting of
June 16, 1982, and added to the agenda for the, Special Meeting
of Monday, June 7, 1982 at 7:30 a.m., an on-site inspection
of the Hutchins Street alley site.
CITY OF LODI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
DATE: May 28, 1982
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
SUBJECT: Hutchins Street Ailey Review - Background Data
In addition to the attached information given to the City Council earlier
by the City Attorney, the following information is also pertinent to this
agenda item.
Exhibit A shows the property ownership in the area. The parcel in red is
the portion actually deeded to the City for alley purposes by the Hutchins
in the early 1900's. The heavy black line generally shows the 20 -foot
occupied alley. The existing curb returns at the alley are also shown.
The map was prepared -from field information by Baumbach b Piazza, Civil
Engineers.
Exhibit B is a copy of a map submitted to Mr. Campbell showing out latest
attempt to resolve the alley location with Mr. Campbell. Based on the
Council's previous action, .it is felt that this proposal provides advan-
tages to both Campbell and Ray properties and is the best solution. The
limits of tho new 25' alley under this proposal are painted in the field.
Exhibit C is a map prepared by this office showing the conditions under
which Mr. Campbell would be willing to sign a deed for any property
within the sha ed area to which he holds title.
Jack . Ronsko
ftbii Works Director
Attachments
JLR:GER:dmw
cc: City Attorney
�A
APPROVED:
HENRY A. CLAVES. City Manager
FILE NO.
f®
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
From: City Attorney
Ree Hutchins Street Alley Quiet Title Action
Date: May 5, 1982
Attached hereto for your consideration is a copy of a map
showing the Hutchins Street Alley as it was originally
deeded to the City and as it was actually constructed.
You will }rote that the Hutchins Street Alley as deeded to
the City, lies south of where the alley was actually con-
structed. It is to be noted that the City obtained a
grant deed from the Hutchins family on October 16, 1908
for the alley, And a survey dated October 1939 shows that
the alley was not constructed within the right-of-way,
butapproximately 10 feet north of the originally -deeded
alley.
In approximately September 1978, Maurice Ray purchased
the lot on the south side of the alley from the Lodi
Unified -School District and in January 1979, the City
Council filed notice of intent to abandon the alley at Mr.
Ray's behest. Mr. Ray intended to build an office building
on his parcel. In February of 1979, the abandonment was'
denied by the Council because of Mr. Campbell's'objections..1
In March 1979, Mr. Ray offered to rent a portion of the'
alley and the Council authorized a quiet title .suit to:ob
tain the property on the north side of the alley. Said
quiet title action was to be paid for by Mr. Ray. Attached
hereto are copies of the Council Minutes of March 24 1979.
Since March of 1979, the City Public Works Department and
the City Attorney's offic have attempted to workout an
agreement between the property owners on the north side. of
the alley for the deeding of the alley as it was constructed.,-..,:.
Unfortunately, the City has reached somewhat of an impasse
and at this time is interested in direction from the Council
as to the pursuing of the quiet title action.
What would be pursued in the quiet title action would be,a
request for a court determination that the alley, where. it,
161
was actually constructed, was in fact the true alley. The
City will be claiming an prescriptive easement for the
public over the alley that was actually constructed. This
is pursuant to Civil Code Section 1009(3)(d) which reads to
wits
"Where a governmental entity is using private
lands.by an expenditure of public funds on
visible improvements on or across such lands
or on the cleaning or maintenance related to
the public use of such lands in such a manner
so that the owner knows or should know that
the public is making such use of his land, such
use, including -any public use reasonably related
to the purposes of such improvement, in the
absence of either express permission by the
owner to continue such use or the taking by the
owner of reasonable steps to enjoin, remove or
prohibit such use, shall after five years ripen
to confer upon the governmental entity a vested
right to continue such use."
Again, it is to be noted that the survey.of 1939 shows that
the alley was constructed 10 feet north in its present
location, so obviously, the five-year period has'long passed.,
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel
free to call upon me.
RONALD M. STEIN
CITY ATTORNEY
RMSsvc
attachments