California Surveyors Forums

I am looking for some help finding examples of where a private person, or municipality owns the right-of-way, but there is still a public street.

As I understand the Streets & Highways Code vacation process, this is to be done when the road is to be abandoned completely and no longer in use. However, for a County to relinquish the control of the right-of-way, they could complete a quitclaim deed and transfer control to another entity. Now what if the County quitclaims the control of the right-of-way to the entity that is the underlying fee owner. Would this extinguish the easement due to a merger of title? Would the County Road still exist since it hasn't been vacated per the Streets & Highways Code?

I am working with an entity that is the underlying fee owner, but wants a County right-of-way, because the right-of-way isn't maintained/lights timed to the underlying fee owners' standard. Now the entity cannot just maintain the right-of-way, because it is under the control of another jurisdiction, and to maintain another entities right-of-way would be considered a diversion of funds.

My solution is for the County to quitclaim the road, but not complete the vacation process, as both the County and entity would like the road to remain. The entity is trying to avoid an agreement, because too much control would still remain with the County (traffic closure plans, encroachments, etc...).

According to the County's Real Estate department, they has always processed a quitclaim with a vacation. By proceeding with the vacation, the process is more drawn out, but also completely eliminates the road.

Am I wrong in understanding that transferring control of a right-of-way is a separate process than a road vacation? Can anyone provide either an example or a better method to gain control of the right-of-way from the County.

Does 8340(d) of the Streets and Highway Code help with your solution?

The County and your agency can enter into an agreement for maintenance of the improvements within the public right of way. The Board of Supervisors and your Board of Directors would adopt resolutions authorizing the Chair of each to sign. The right of way remains public, and the franchise public utilities still maintain their own facilities.

CalTrans does this through Cooperative Agreements for local agencies to maintain the surface of overcrossings within State right of way.

Macdonald - we are not trying to vacate, but take all responsibility from the County and burden ourselves, so we can improve it/beautify it/repave it at our discretion. We do not feel the vacation process is necessary as we still want the road.

Warren-we'd want more than maintenance, and are the holder of the aerial & subsurface rights. We want the road to stay open, and not have an agreement. Right now the County doesn't want to pay for up keep, and we can't pay to up keep the whole portion (fund diversion). We've reviewed Caltrans agreements, but those don't seem like the best mechanism. We are not trying to close the road, or vacate the easement. We want to keep the County easement as originally described in full effect, except for now, we are the party responsible and liable for the right-of-way.

It appears our only means to acquire title to this road easement, is to try and completely vacate the road.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts and comments

It sounds like some form of agreement here will be unavoidable. Your entity is already the owner in fee, so ownership is not the issue. If the road is used by the public, vacation does not seem appropriate or even possible, as that would require a finding that the road is not necessary for public use, which it seems to be. The issue seems to be one solely of control and maintenance.

It would seem that your entity needs to take over control and maintenance of this public road from the county. I would think there would be a way of accomplishing this that would work for everyone. In effect, of taking this road off the list of ‘county maintained roads’ altogether, but still satisfying their interest in ensuring the operation of the road, signals, etc. will continue to integrate with their system.

This smells like ‘agreement’ to me, but curious to hear what others say.