HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2025-07-22_10a Supplemental 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a. – July 22, 2025 City Council Meeting
Continued Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Denying Appeal
Case 24-002; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce
Vanderveen
DATE: July 22, 2025
Attached is public comment received prior to 2 p.m. for the above referenced item.
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Director of Community Development
City Attorney
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
From:Ingrid kovacs
To:public comment
Subject:Public Comment – Lierly Lane Development Appeal (444 Lierly Lane)
Date:Monday, July 21, 2025 10:45:14 AM
IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from
this sender
Public Comment – Lierly Lane Development Appeal (444 Lierly Lane)Dear Mayor Russom and Members of the Arroyo Grande City Council,My name is Ingrid Kovacs, and I reside at 307 Myrtle Drive. I am writing to express my strongopposition to the appeal Case No. 24-002, which seeks to overturn the Planning Commission’sunanimous denial of the proposed subdivision at 444 Lierly Lane.
Key Concerns1. The proposed access easement is only eight (8) feet wide — far below the City’s minimumrequirement of 24 feet for private roadways, as outlined in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code16.20.050(E) and Engineering Standard 7010. This substandard width would not support safeaccess for emergency vehicles or regular passenger traffic.2. The developer does not own or control enough land to widen the easement. The gravel roadin use today is not aligned with the recorded easement and crosses over private property notcontrolled by the applicant. This makes any assumption of future alignment speculative andunenforceable.3. The proposed emergency access is, in fact, a privately owned and maintained drivewayshared by only three homeowners—myself and two neighbors. None of us have agreed to itsuse in this capacity. Assigning emergency access without consent places unfair legal, financial,and maintenance burdens on us, and opens the door to misuse and traffic on a driveway neverdesigned or permitted for public utility.4. The project fails to meet six of the nine mandatory findings required for parcel mapapproval, including consistency with the General Plan and adequacy of infrastructure andpublic safety access. The project as proposed jeopardizes safety, violates zoning anddevelopment standards, and was rightly denied.
ConclusionThe Planning Commission was right to reject this proposal. The project is not ready, andrepeated delays have shown that the developer has not resolved fundamental safety andaccess issues. I respectfully request that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’sdecision and deny this appeal.Thank you for your time and consideration.Sincerely,Ingrid Kovacs307 Myrtle DriveArroyo Grande, CA 93420702-768-1935
From:Susan Evard
To:public comment
Subject:7/22 Agenda item 10a, 444 Lierly Lane
Date:Tuesday, July 22, 2025 9:55:45 AM
Dear City Council Members,
I live around the corner from the proposed development at 444 Lierly Lane. I am
writing to express to support for the staff recommendation to deny the project for the
following reasons, among others:
1.
There is no existing public road access to the proposed development.
2.
The proposed Emergency Access is on a private driveway on Myrtle Dr. This is
a narrow, private driveway, not a road.
3.
“Dirt Cherry” is in dire need of paving and improvements to accommodate the
current number of cars driving to the existing housing, much less handling a
significant increase in traffic.
I am fully supportive of adding much needed housing to our community. However, I
feel strongly that any new development should follow City codes regarding road
width, circulation, paved streets, as well as, installing curbs and gutters. It is essential
for public safety and long term development. The current proposal does not meet
those standards and so I urge you to deny the application.
Sincerely,
Susan Evard