HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - SOLEDAD CANYON RD VACATE (2)0
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: January 8, 1991
SUBJECT: NORTH SIDE OF
ALLEY VACATION
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
BACKGROUND
0
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager App
Item to be prese:
John E. Medina
CANYON ROAD BETWEEN RUETHER AND FURNIVALL
At the hearing of January 9, 1990, the City Council ordered staff to provide
additional information regarding the request by Mr. David Blatt, Property
Manager for the Soledad Plaza Development, to vacate the subject alley - see
attached map.
Mr. Ivan Cohen, previous owner and developer of the Soledad Plaza, had made
arrangements with the County of Los Angeles to vacate the alley with the
condition that he improve and rededicate a 30 -foot extension to the alley. The
improvements were completed and approved by the County in May, 1988, but were
turned down by the City Council as a result of an objection by Mr. Larry
Bloomfield and Larry Bloomfield, Jr. during the public hearing of September 8,
1988.
Mr. Blatt and Mr. Cohen feel that the Council's decision was based on testimony
presented only by the Bloomfields. Therefore, they contend that a fair
opportunity was not offered them to present their case because they were not
given adequate noticetoattend the hearing. Only a newspaper public notice and
a posted notice at the construction site was made. They allege that a
notification was never mailed to them by the City (this could not be
confirmed). Consequently, they were not present when the Bloomfields objected
and the Council ruled against the vacation.
The Bloomfields requested that the subject alley be reopened so that they can
get access to the existing signal at Ruether or that a new traffic signal be
installed at the corner of Soledad and Furnivall. But, the City has no plans
for construction of such signal in the foreseeable future, nor will Mr. Blatt
commit himself to the expense of installing another one. His development has
already paid for the installation of the signal at Ruether.
Reopening the alley would create an extraordinary expense in terms of the loss
of some required parking spaces, leasable restaurant space, and required
landscaping. It would also render the dedicated 30 foot alley extension useless
as a building site if the east/west alley is reopened. The applicant estimates
that he spent in excess of $100,000 to make these improvements.
Furthermore, our traffic engineering staff finds that the vacation of the alley
would not have an adverse effect on the traffic on Soledad Canyon Road, or on
the adjacent secondary streets, as approved by the County.
Continued To: i 9 Agenda ftem:—i4L
E
The City Attorney is of the opinion that the City is not legally obligated to
honor the County's approval to vacate the alley. However, staff feels that
Council should rehear the case so that both parties may express their concerns
and the matter reevaluated.
The City Council set January 29, 1991 for a hearing on the vacation.
ATTACHMENT
Map
/tw
FU RNIVALL
AVE.
APPROX. LOCATION OF
THE BLOOMFIELD
BUSINESS
e
I1/UN/rr ,w.4p
NO ca e
OVERHEAD—
STRUCTURE
RUETHER
LANDSCAPING
AVE.
0
Q
t�
U-1
J
O
w
NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED
ALLEY
EXTENSION
Kal
OF
SIGNAL