City Council
MEETING DATE: 6/13/2018
TITLE:
Title
Vacation of Drainage Easement over Lot “S” in the Dream Homes neighborhood, located south of Diamond Road between San Joaquin Drive and Dia Place
End
FROM:
John A. Corella, P.E. - City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and adopt a Resolution summarily vacating a drainage easement over a portion of Lot “S” in Palm Springs Country Club Estates (Dream Homes); and, authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a Quitclaim Deed on behalf of the City as successor to the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Cathedral City, for a portion of Lot “S” to the adjoining property owner, Valley Property Ventures, LLC.
Body
BACKGROUND:
The first subdivision map for Palm Springs Country Club Estates (Dream Homes) was recorded in 1947, Lot “S” was shown on that Subdivision Map as a 40-foot-wide lot, running east-west across the north end of the Subdivision. Lot "S" was offered for dedication to the County of Riverside as a drainage easement.
The County of Riverside rejected the offer at that time, but in 1970, adopted a Resolution accepting the offer of the Drainage Easement. Shortly after their acceptance, the Board of Supervisors assigned the Lot “S” easement to the Coachella Valley County Water District (now the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)).
In 1993 the City Redevelopment Agency acquired Lot 78 in the northwest corner of the subdivision for future housing development. In 1995, the Agency acquired the adjoining Lot 518, also for future housing development. A portion of Lot “S” abuts the north line of Lot 518.
The Redevelopment Agency later proposed a small subdivision of its two lots, along with a couple of adjacent lots to the east. As part of this Project, the Agency obtained a City Attorney opinion in 2005 which stated that the Redevelopment Agency was the fee owner of the portion of Lot “S” which abutted Lot 518, apparently by virtue of being the abutter. Therefore, in order to clear title to the abutting portion of Lot “S”, the Agency requested CVWD to quitclaim its Drainage Easement on Lot “S” to the City, so that it could be vacated. CVWD accepted this request, and executed a quitclaim deed to the City for the Lot “S” Drainage Easement which was recorded on February 23, 2006, as Instrument No. 2006-0133530.
The Agency’s small subdivision and vacation of the Drainage Easement did not proceed. The City Redevelopment Agency was subsequently dissolved and the two residential lots, Lots 78 and 518, owned by the Housing Successor Agency were subsequently sold to Valley Property Ventures, LLC, in January 2018. Valley Property Ventures is now in the process of subdividing the two residential lots, Lots 78 and 518.
DISCUSSION:
This brought back the question of ownership of the portion of Lot “S” abutting Lot 518 because if it did belong to Valley Property Ventures, then it could be included in its proposed subdivision.
A title report commissioned by the new owner shows the City of Cathedral City as the fee owner of Lot “S”. It’s not clear whether this opinion is based on Lot 518 being the abutter to a portion of Lot “S”, or whether this title company interprets the past acceptance and subsequent assignment and quitclaim of the Lot “S” drainage easement as fee ownership transactions.
So, it appears there may be two opinions of ownership of the portion of Lot “S” which abuts Lot 518 now owned by Valley Property Ventures. The first opinion is that Valley Property Ventures owns its portion of Lot “S” by virtue of abutting Lot “S”. The second opinion is that the City owns fee interest in Lot “S” by virtue of the past County acceptance and quitclaim deeds being interpreted as conveying fee interests.
Recommendation: While either opinion could be correct, only a legal quiet title action could determine ownership for sure. However, this could be avoided by two actions:
1. Assuming the first opinion is correct, that the City, as the Housing Successor Agency, quitclaim any and all interests it may have or had in the portion of Lot “S” abutting Lot 518 to Valley Housing Ventures; and
2. Assuming the second opinion is correct, that the City of Cathedral City quitclaim any and all interests it may have or had in the portion of Lot “S” abutting Lot 518 to Valley Housing Ventures.
In addition, since there is the presumption of a Drainage Easement on Lot “S”, that the City summarily vacate the Drainage Easement over the portion of Lot “S” abutting Lot 518.
Summary Vacation: The State Streets and Highways Code provides a method for summary vacation of easements under certain circumstances. In this case, the drainage easement on Lot “S” has never been used as a drainage easement for the five-year period immediately preceding this request for its vacation. Also, it has never been improved with drainage facilities and is not needed now or in the future for drainage purposes. Lastly, there are no public utility or public services within the portion of the Drainage Easement on Lot “S” proposed to be vacated.
Therefore, pursuant to Sections 8333(a) and 8333(c) of the State Streets and Highways Code, this Drainage Easement may be summarily vacated.
The attached Resolution contains all the findings required to be made under these sections.
Because this matter qualifies for Summary Vacation, and as such, the Streets and Highways code does not require a public hearing, posting of the property, publication of any notices or the adoption of a Resolution of Intention.
CEQA Review: This Vacation affects an unimproved and unused Drainage Easement which was first accepted in 1970, some 48 years ago.
Staff has determined that due to the minor nature of the Vacation, it is exempt from CEQA under Sec. 15061 (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” A finding to this effect is included in the Resolution.
Other Findings: Typically a vacation requires a finding that it is in compliance with the General Plan. But the General Plan has no Element defining existing drainage easements or their disposition.
Therefore, Staff has determined that that this vacation is exempt from such a finding since it Is not covered in the General Plan. A finding to this effect is also in the attached Resolution.
Staff therefore recommends the adoption of the Resolution of Summary Vacation. The Vacation becomes effective upon the recordation of the Resolution of Summary Vacation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the City as the result of this action.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity sketch of portion of Drainage Easement to be vacated
2. Vicinity sketch of area to be quitclaimed
3. Resolution of Summary Vacation