To: Board of Supervisors
Department or Agency Name(s): Permit Sonoma
Staff Name and Phone Number: Jonathan Olin, (707) 565-7385
Vote Requirement: Majority
Supervisorial District(s): Fifth
Title:
Title
9:40 AM -Right-of-Way Vacation of a portion of Church Street as shown on the “Plan of the Town of Occidental” filed May 18, 1877, in Book 5 of Maps at Page 18. Sonoma County Records; RWV22-0001
End
Recommended Action:
Recommended action
Hold a public hearing to adopt a resolution (1) finding the project exempt from the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA), and (2) ordering vacation of a portion of Church Street between Second Street and Third Street in the Town of Occidental, California (Fifth District)
end
Executive Summary:
The application is a petition to vacate (permanently abandon) a portion of Church Street. Adoption of the resolution would authorize the vacation. The vacation would not take effect until County staff records the attached resolution following satisfaction of certain conditions by the petitioner.
Discussion:
Adobe Associates, Inc. submitted the application (Petition), on behalf of the Petitioner, Tina and Gerald Wolsborn, to the Permit and Resource Management Department (Permit Sonoma), on June 13, 2022. The County owns a right-of-way easement, over Church Street, in the unincorporated County. The Petitioner owns lands adjacent to Church Street and requests the County vacate the easterly 14.50 feet of Church Street lying between Second Street and Third Street. The right-of-way vacation would add square footage to the adjacent parcels. The Petition requests that the Board vacate the subject portion of Church Street (Vacation Petition Area). Attachments 1 and 2 respectively, are general and specific maps of the Vacation Petition Area.
Vacation is the complete or partial abandonment of the public right to use a street or public service easement. Under State statutes and applicable case law, the Board may vacate any public street, highway, or public service easement within its jurisdiction, provided the Board makes the following findings:
(1) the interest proposed to be vacated is unnecessary for present or prospective public use;
(2) the proposed vacation is in the public interest;
(3) the proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan; and
(4) the road proposed for vacation is not useful as a non-motorized transportation facility (bike trail).
County survey staff reviewed public records and the materials submitted on behalf of petitioner to determine the nature of the County’s interest in the right-of-way easement requested to be vacated, which is a portion of the 50-feet wide right of way of Church Street as shown on the “Plan of the Town of Occidental” filed May 18, 1877, in Book 5 of Maps at Page 18, Sonoma County Records. Staff verified that the County has a public right-of-way interest in the Vacation Petition Area. Sonoma County Public Infrastructure (SCPI) has determined the described Vacation Petition Area is unnecessary for present or prospective public transportation use.
Permit Sonoma Planning Division staff conducted a field review to verify the facts presented in the petition. Staff did not observe any present public use of the Vacation Petition Area.
The proposed vacation is in the public interest because the proposed parking improvement plan will increase safety and orderly movement of traffic along Church Street.
Planning Division staff also prepared a General Plan Consistency Analysis, as required by Streets and Highways Code Section 8313 and Government Code Section 65402 and determined that the proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan and with the County’s Complete Streets Policy.
The Vacation Petition Area is not useful as a bike trail because Church Street has never been identified as a regional bikeway of any type in any county plan. The proposed partial road vacation will still allow local bicycle and pedestrian access between Second and Third Streets.
Survey Staff referred the Petition to all County Departments and Public Agencies with a potential interest in the Vacation Petition Area, including SCPI, Emergency Services, Law Enforcement, and Sonoma Water. Staff did not receive any objections.
Staff notified all public and private utilities with potential interest in the Vacation Petition Area. Staff did not receive any objections.
Notice was given to all owners of neighboring parcels located within 350 feet of the parcels containing the Vacation Petition Area. Staff received a letter dated June 24, 2022, via email from Ray Carlson, PLS, to Frank and Barbara Gonnella in which Mr. Carlson pointed out several items to question. Mr. Carlson stated that the previous vacation of a portion of Third Street lying east of Church Street did not remove the private rights of the parties on each side of Third Street in this area, and the proposed vacation of Church Street which includes the south half of Third Street also does not remove the private rights of the parties on each side of Third Street. Staff received an objection via email on August 10, 2022, from Ms. Vela Millen who resides at 3622 Church Street. Ms. Millen stated strong opposition to the proposed vacation. Ms. Millen stated concerns of the validity of the Traffic Study, safety concerns over narrowing the right-of-way, negative affect on adjoining property values and loss of public parking among other issues.
During a site visit on April 28, 2023, Ms. Millen noticed the County insignia on the vehicle staff drove, introduced herself to staff and voiced her opposition to the proposed vacation. In response to a second round of noticing, Ms. Millen sent a similar objection letter on May 15, 2023, via email. Staff received an objection letter via email on May 24, 2023, from Pastor Daniel Flores who expressed concern over losing parking, most importantly for congregants who are not able to walk up the hill from the business parking located on Bohemian Highway. On May 26, 2023, Ms. Millen sent another email stating the names of four other people that were against the proposed vacation: (1) Bryce Millen, 3622 Church Street, Occidental
(2) Henry Baker, 3622 Church Street, Occidental (3) Laurel Urenia, 2411 Tanuda Road, Sebastopol (4) Glen Daniels, 3115 Westwood Lane, Occidental.
The proposed vacation is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the “common sense exemption” of CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3), which provides that CEQA applies only to projects that have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed vacation would terminate a portion of a road easement. The proposed 14.50 feet wide vacation area will be graded and paved to provide perpendicular parking for The Inn At Occidental and would be considered Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15301 Class -1 Existing Facilities which provides for minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features.
At the request of SCPI, the proposed resolution will include a condition that the County Surveyor will not undertake recordation of the Resolution with the County Recorder until such time as the applicant has completed construction of all improvements shown on the approved plans for encroachment permit ENC22-0252, and the improvements have been inspected and approved by Permit Sonoma and SCPI staff. There is no possibility that the proposed vacation area may have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore the project is exempt from CEQA.
Staff concludes that the Board may make all the required findings to approve the Petition.
(1) The described Vacation Petition Area is unnecessary for present or prospective public use.
(2) Granting the vacation will serve the public interest by returning land not needed for public use to private ownership, thereby eliminating any potential County liability related to the subject portion of the right-of-way easement.
(3) The requested vacation is consistent with the General Plan.
(4) The Vacation Petition Area is not useful as a non-motorized transportation facility (bike trail).
Strategic Plan:
Racial Equity:
Was this item identified as an opportunity to apply the Racial Equity Toolkit?
No
Prior Board Actions:
Not Applicable
Fiscal Summary
|
Expenditures |
FY 22-23 Adopted |
FY23-24 Projected |
FY 24-25 Projected |
|
Budgeted Expenses |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Additional Appropriation Requested |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total Expenditures |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Funding Sources |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
General Fund/WA GF |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
State/Federal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Fees/Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Use of Fund Balance |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Contingencies |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total Sources |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts:
Not Applicable
Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):
Not Applicable
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Assessor’s Parcel Map
Attachment 3: Resolution
Attachment 4: Resolution Exhibit A
Attachment 5: Resolution Exhibit B
Attachment 6: Staff PowerPoint
Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:
Not Applicable