Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2025-07-22_10a Supplemental 2 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 additional 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: Raciel Catacutan <Raciel@ammcglaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 12:43 PM To: Caren Ray Russom <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org> Cc: Ty Green <green@ammcglaw.com>; Isaac Rosen <isaac.rosen@bbklaw.com>; Brian Pedrotti <bpedrotti@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Guthrie <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>; Jamie Maraviglia <jmaraviglia@arroyogrande.org>; Aileen Loe <aloe@arroyogrande.org>; Kate Secrest <ksecrest@arroyogrande.org> Subject: July 22 Agenda Number 10 a./Tentative Parcel Map 23-001 IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from this sender Raciel @ ammcglaw.com Good Afternoon Mayor Russom: On behalf of Thomas "Ty" Green, please see attached correspondence dated today's date regarding the above-entitled matter. Thank you, Raciel Catacutan Legal Assistant to Thomas D. Green & Natalie Frye Laacke Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green LLP All Mail: PO Box 3835, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3835 Location/Deliveries: 6633 Bay Laurel Place, Avila Beach, CA 93424 Main: (805) 543-0990 Fax: (805) 543-0980 Email: raciel@ammcglaw.com www.ammcglaw.com This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by the reply email and destroy all copies and the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator. A DAMSKI M OROSKI M ADDEN C UMBERLAND & G REEN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Post Office Box 3835  San Luis Obispo, California 93403-3835 T 805-543-0990  F 805-543-0980  www.ammcglaw.com July 21, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL The Honorable Caren Ray Russom Mayor, City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Email: crayrussom@arroyogrande.org Re: Tentative Parcel Map 23-001 July 22 Agenda Number 10 a. Dear Mayor Russom and members of the City Council: This firm represents Jeanne Helphenstine and Bruce Vanderveen, owners of the property located at 444 Lierly Lane. Ms. Helphenstine and Mr. Vanderveen are the applicants for Tentative Parcel Map 23-001 in which they seek to create a four-lot subdivision with a remainder parcel over a 1.31-acre site. There are three points of access to the subject property. The first is from Cherry Avenue along the unpaved road which has traditionally been referenced as Lierly Lane. Lierly Lane would serve as primary access. There are two other access points that would provide emergency access by way of two 20-foot access roads from Myrtle Street to the boundary of the subject property. These emergency roads were dedicated to the City as a condition of approval for Tract 2653. Both are shown on the Tract Map and both were obviously intended to provide emergency access for the subject property and, ultimately, for the five other residences who also use Lierly Lane for access. Attached as Exhibit A is an aerial photograph depicting the subject property, the three access points and the five residences whose sole access is over Lierly Lane. Processing of this application has been delayed because of issues relating to access. These issues have been extremely frustrating for the property owners because, prior to purchasing the property, they met with City Staff in a pre-application meeting to make sure that the existing access was adequate to support the proposed subdivision. The result of that meeting is set out in an August 3, 2023 email from Patrick Holub a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. The relevant portion of that email reads as follows: “I was able to meet with our Staff Advisory Committee today and we came to the conclusion that proposed access will be sufficient with the access point from Myrtle being used only for emergency access… Private access will continue to be from East Cherry. The portion of the street Page 2 July 21, 2025 (“Lierly Lane”) out of your client’s control may stay at the existing width, however the road will need to be widened to 16’ along the project frontage.” (Emphasis added) In reliance on the August 3 email from Mr. Holub, Ms. Helphenstine and Mr. Vanderveen closed escrow on the subject property. When their application first came to the City Planning Commission, the Staff Report accurately reflected the position in Mr. Holub’s August 3 email regarding access and recommended approval. At that point, however, residents of Tract 2653 objected to the use of the emergency access roads despite those emergency access roads having been a condition of approval for their development and were clearly shown on their tract map. Nevertheless, those objections seemed to have some effect on both the Planning Commission and ultimately, Planning Staff. The result is that, although there was absolutely nothing changed from the pre-application meeting, City Staff suddenly raised objections regarding access that are directly contrary to the August 3 email on which the applicants relied. In short, access that had been acceptable on August 3, 2023, suddenly became inadequate. There seems to be no justification whatsoever for this change of position except in response to the neighboring property owners who did not want to honor their obligation to provide emergency access. Suddenly, without any legitimate explanation, Lierly Lane became too narrow, and, for some unstated reason, use of the dedicated emergency access roads was taken off the table. Obviously, the property owners are concerned about the damage they will incur because of the City’s arbitrary about-face and refusal to exercise rights over the existing emergency access roads in Tract 2653. Nevertheless, rather than argue about the legal merits and the potential for this matter to eventually enter the legal arena, Ms. Helphenstine and Mr. Vanderveen, for now, have chosen to take a broader look at the Lierly Lane, Cherry Avenue and Tract 2653 situation and attempt to come up with a solution that will benefit everyone. With the City’s cooperation, which will come at no cost to the City, we have come up with just such a solution. In considering the solution, we consider the four specific issues existing in the immediate area that should be of significant concern to the City: 1. Lierly Lane. Lierly Lane, at least ostensibly, provides primary and legal access for five existing residences and the proposed subdivision. Lierly Lane was created in 1892 by a handwritten deed which contains a legal description of the road. (Exhibit C) Lierly Lane, which is eight feet in width, seems to have been created with horse and buggy travel in mind. There is no record that Lierly Lane has been enlarged or that its original location has been moved. Page 3 July 21, 2025 The problem is that Lierly Lane, as described in the deed, is not the actual road providing access to the existing properties. In fact, the eastern boundary of Lierly Lane is actually the western boundary of the existing access road. Lierly Lane itself is unusable without significant expense because the City has constructed a fire hydrant directly in the middle of Lierly Lane at the Cherry Avenue junction. The postal service and PGE have also constructed their own improvements with the deeded roadway, making Lierly Lane, as deeded, impassable. In short, there is no usable deeded access for the five homes that have been constructed along Lierly Lane and for which the City has issued building permits. (Exhibit A) With Lierly Lane completely unusable, somehow over the years, the City and the property owners have simply created an alternative access road alongside the deeded portion of Lierly Lane. That road is located almost entirely on the Estes property located to the east of Lierly Lane. (Exhibit A). To our knowledge, there is no recorded or dedicated right allowing either the City or the Lierly Lane property owners to use the existing road. The problem this presents is obvious. Both the City and the existing property owners have no perfected legal access. Therefore, it would be possible tomorrow for the owner of the Estes parcel to construct a fence across or on a part of the existing road and render it unusable and creating a safety hazard for City residents and potential liability for the City. Certainly, this could be remedied in the short run if the City files a quiet title action and seeks an injunction to restore use of the road. But this approach has two drawbacks. The first is cost. Prosecuting a quiet title action is costly and time consuming. The second problem is the ultimate scope of use of the existing road after the quiet title action. It is certainly possible that a court would find a public dedication but only to the extent of historical use. In short, while there is a partial solution to this problem which, after significant time and court costs, will likely result in deeded access. However, that access does not address the fire safety issues which exist even with the use of the current access road. 2. Fire Safety. Even assuming a legal right is acquired to use the existing access road, the situation will still be inadequate to address current fire safety issues. We retained Rob Lewin, former Fire Chief for CalFire, to conduct a site visit and evaluate the current situation. (See Exhibit D) Mr. Lewin’s opinion is that the current width and configuration of the existing access road presents a significant risk to life and property and must be corrected in the interest of public safety.1 The responsibility to make this 1 We refer to the road which is actually in use and not the unusable Lierly Lane. Obviously, the deeded portion of Lierly Lane meets no fire safety standards. Page 4 July 21, 2025 correction lies with the City which has issued building permits for five residences that have inadequate fire safety access.2 3. Tract 2653 Objections. We want to be clear that the residents of Tract 2653 have no grounds to complain about the use of the two emergency access roads through their development. Those access roads were part of the conditions of approval for the Tract and are clearly shown on the map. Further, given that emergency access, by definition, is rarely used, one would question whether the residents’ concerns are, at heart, a veiled attempt to simply stop development on the neighboring property. However, taken at their word, it is obvious that they misapprehend that emergency access roads are seldom used. Nevertheless, even though the residents’ objections are unfounded, if the City accepts our suggestion as set out below, the residents will have nothing to complain about. If Lierly Lane access is adequate, chances of emergency access ever being used are virtually nil. It is difficult to imagine a condition under which there is a need to take emergency access through Tract 2653. In fact, with adequate access through Lierly Lane, would City Fire even require Tract 2653 emergency access as a condition of approval of the proposed subdivision? 4. Fairness to Applicants. We understand that mistakes are made and believe that the August 3, 2023 email was sent by the City in good faith. We have no intent to throw City Staff under the proverbial bus. That said, however, if the situation is not adequately addressed, the parties who stand to suffer because of the City’s mistake are the property owners who relied on the City’s representation. Place yourselves in the applicants’ shoes and ask if you would have done anything different than they did. In considering purchasing and developing the property, the applicants recognized that access could be an issue. Acting in a prudent manner, they met with the City Planning Staff to determine whether there would be sufficient access for their proposed development. City Staff, also acting prudently, took the proposed access to the Staff Advisory Committee and the City Fire Department to review the access issues in more detail. The result was the August 3, 2023 email in which City Staff concluded that there was no issue with project access. Only after undertaking this process, one that the City itself encourages through pre-application meetings, did the applicants decide to invest in purchasing the subject 2 We recognize that at least some building permits were issued when Fire Code requirements were less stringent. This fact, however, does not absolve the City of responsibility to make that correct particularly when, as will be discussed below, there will be no cost to the City. Page 5 July 21, 2025 property. Now, they are being told “oops”, that City Staff was simply wrong and that their investment, prudently made after consulting with the City, is worth only a small fraction of what they paid. There is no question that, left unresolved, Ms. Helphestine and Mr. Vanderveen are the victims here. Moreover, in some respects, City Staff was actually correct. Based on the conditions existing on August 3, 2023 and today, we believe that the access is adequate. This is because, as Planning Staff and City Fire believed when reviewing the preapplication, there is adequate access to the project site considering the existing access road and the two 20-foot dedicated emergency through Tract 2653. The problem is that, despite having full knowledge of the emergency access roads, the residents of Tract 2563 don’t like it. It seems that, because of the objections of the residents of Tract 2653, it seems that the City is unwilling to allow the use of the very emergency access roads they required as a condition of approving Tract 2653 to address the very problem we now face. Such is the nature of politics, but it is patently unfair that the burden of pleasing the Tract 2653 residents, who again purchased their properties with full knowledge of the emergency access roads, falls on the shoulders of the applicants. Because we have a very simple solution, set out below, to all four of these problems, we will refrain from making an argument as to the potential liability of the City if the present project is denied. Instead, we focus on a solution that solves all four problems without illegally impacting the rights of property owners. Solution. It is clear that the solution to the problems presented is for the City to take action to (i) “replace” the unusable Lierly Lane with a dedicated road to serve the existing residents and proposed subdivision; (ii) create an access road that meets fire safety requirements, protects existing and future residents and protects the City from liability for past approvals; (iii) render the need to use the emergency access roads through Tract 2653 thereby addressing the stated objectives of those residents; and (iv) allow Ms. Helphenstine and Mr. Vanderveen to complete the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with both the representations made by the City and the City Municipal Code and to honor the legitimate, realistic and reasonable investment backed expectations of the property owners when they purchased the property. In practical terms, this solution requires the acquisition of a small area along the boundary of the Estes property. The vast majority of the area to be acquired is almost Page 6 July 21, 2025 certainly already encumbered by the existing road either through public dedication or prescriptive rights. That portion of the acquisition will have no physical impact on the Estes property; the road is already there. The remainder of the property to be acquired is a 4-6 foot strip to widen the existing road, which as set forth below, will have an insignificant impact on the Estes property. There are two ways that the necessary property could be acquired in the near future. First, the applicants could privately acquire the property and dedicate it to the City. The applicants are perfectly happy to do so but have not been able to gain the cooperation of the property owner, Ms. Estes. It’s not that Ms. Estes, an elderly absentee landlord, necessarily says no. (In fact, as we note below, the acquisition would benefit her property). Rather, it seems more in the realm of “please don’t bother me”. The second path to acquisition is for the City to acquire the property either in lieu of eminent domain or, if necessary, through the exercise of eminent domain. We fully understand and respect the City’s long-time reluctance to exercise the power of eminent domain for the benefit of another property owner. However, that is not the case here. While certainly the acquisition of the small strip would benefit applicants, it would also provide a series of public benefits by establishing a road that everyone, including the City, thought already existed and, more important, creating a safe ingress and egress point for existing and future residents and the first responders serving those residents. Moreover, it would alleviate the concerns of Tract 2563 residents regarding use of the dedicated emergency access roads. This is precisely how eminent domain should be used. In fact, much of the traffic circulation throughout the County and State was acquired through the exercise of eminent domain. In fact, everyone reading this letter has traveled, in the last 24 hours, over a road, likely many roads, acquired through eminent domain. We also want to emphasize that the owner of the Estes property would be compensated for the acquisition of her property as required by the US and State Constitutions and the statutory eminent domain law. We note that, on top of the compensation to be paid to Ms. Estes, the acquisition would actually benefit her property in a number of ways. First, in its current form the Estes property has a cloud on its title because of the undocumented access road. Until that situation is rectified, neither Ms. Estes, her successors nor the City knows the exact status of the access road. Completing the acquisition and establishing the road with proper legal documentation solves that problem for her and the public. Second, Ms. Estes’ property is recognized in the Page 7 July 21, 2025 neighborhood plan as supporting future division and development. It is almost certain that somewhere in the future there will be an application to subdivide and develop the Estes’ property. If that happens, the City will undoubtedly condition any such approvals on the dedication of the very portion of her property which we urge the City to now acquire. If that portion of the property is acquired by eminent domain now, Ms. Estes will receive some compensation whereas, in the future she will receive none. It would be unwise of the City to prolong solving the current series of problems by waiting for a development application on the Estes property. It seems apparent that Ms. Estes is not interested in becoming a developer now and, wishing her many more years, it might be many years before there is any application. In the interim, the listed problems persist and place the City in a vulnerable legal position. Moreover, the acquisition would have virtually no impact on the use or enjoyment of the Estes property. Right now, there is a single residence located on the property which is well removed from the existing access road. Adding 4-6 feet of width on this lightly traveled road will have no significant impact on the Estes’ property. The status quo of the property will be virtually unchanged. (Exhibit E) Finally, the solution to these problems will be at no cost to the City. The applicants are willing to pick up the costs of acquiring the area required to make Lierly Lane safe and viable. Request. We request that the City approve the proposed subdivision with the condition that the offsite area (Lierly Lane) be acquired and dedicated to public use. Under the Subdivision Map Act, if the applicant cannot acquire the property, the City would be in a position to either waive the offsite improvements or exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire those improvements. (Government Code Section 66462.5). We would certainly not expect a waiver of the conditions, so eminent domain, at the applicant’s expense, would follow. Our real hope would be that, once this process is in place, Ms. Estes will focus her attention on the matter and we will be able to reach an amicable solution. [SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] Page 8July 21,2025Respectfully Subm itted,ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDENCUMBERLAND & GREEN LLPTHOMAS D. GREENAttachments as referencedCc: Kate Secrest, Mayor Pro TemAileen Loe, CouncilpersonJamie Maraviglia, CouncilpersonJim Guthrie, CouncilmanBrian Pedrotti, Community Development DirectorIssac Rosen, City Attorney EXHIBIT A E.-. nderveen Application EXHIBIT B From:lo:Cc:Subject:Date:Attachments:Patrick HolubKerrv Maroasonbruce vanderveenRE: Lierly AccessThursday, August 3, 2023 2:08:54 PMimaoe002.onoemaillooo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5fl78edoba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111111.on9HighImportance:Kerry, I wanted to provide an updated regarding access and utilities for 444 Lierly LaneI was able to meet with our Staff Advisory Committee today and we came to the conclusion that theproposed access will be sufficient with the access point from Myrtle bein3 used only for emergenryaccess with gated access and FCFA being provided a key to the gate. Private access will continue tobe from East Cherry. The portion of the street out of your client's control may stay at the existingwidth, however, the road will need to be widened to l-6' along the project frontage.Regarding sewer, our Utilities Manager confirmed that no sewer mains will need to be extended.Connecting laterals at the manholes in the emergency access roads will be sufficient. We will neec toverify that there are easements from each of the properties to the connection points. We would a solike to obtain a public sewer easement through the portion of the fire department road to benefitfuture development on the east side of Lierly. lf future development proposals come in, they wouldbe able to use the easements to extend the main at that time. We will also want to see the existinghome connected to the sewer, with any necessary easements dedicated rn the map.Give me a call if you would like to discuss any of this. lf not, l'll start putting the draft conditions ofapproval together and should be able to send that your way next week. Thank you,CITY OFPotrick HolubAssociate PlannerCommunity Development, City of Arroyo GrandeTel: 805-473-5426 | www.orroyogronde.org300 E. Branch St I Arroyo Grande I CA | 93420City Hall Business Hours: M-Th B;00 am - 5:00 pm; Fridays g:00 am - 12:00 pmThe information contained in this emait pertains to City busrness and is inten,Jed sotely forthe use of th=irtdividual or entity to whom f ls addresse d. If the reader of thrs messa ge is not an intended recipient, o;the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you havereceived fhis message in error, p/ease advise the sender by repty email or phone and detete the/nessage. Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, atong with attachmer.ts,may be subiect to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unlessothenuise exempt by law. EXHIBIT C |}lli,. Iii^':' :\" :lt\rilIllrt ,'t{t .,,rlilx I-11l;i ,lLt.,i,ll' . ,[ ' ll:r:lliilf.._.@ tll 'l" l:." ''[,' l]| -u nil oilI U,t''., 'l r':|l t\ "tllr ''Jl.r,lIlr'll:lx" dIt""lv$svryvrvfu *v@ F - a: n'7'r-n7""'o'4ryLry".V'24) ..r'au?-712e DEEDS BOOK17PAGECii.1_)l)jji-'Ii,i11iI't;o.'i!'iit. ttl:i:!ill,tiltiiDili!'iri!1'tit:!'l:i.i;-.li.il'Ii!"tt.t,itIi!n.,!:ull'illtI,{ 1tiI-4/-L, -l-zu.iA,u'4tl:il'itlIt' (i€SEAL.a-/*'u4Le./.rd, art *Lrc4.a.?.14,G.t.,e,/[,il:,1il.'!ilt'li1Ilt,,iil"ti.ilI"rtil'rt' EXHIBIT D RResolute Associates LLCFROM VISION TO ACTIONJuly 16, 2025Ty Green, Attorney at LawAMMCG Law6633 Bay Laurel PlaceAvila Beach, CA93424Subject: Steele Subdivision, Parcel #007-571-011, Fire Access Road, Leirly Lane, ArroyoGrande, CADear Mr. Green,As the Fire Safety Specialist and Principal atResolute Associates I have done an analysis ofLeirly Lane to determine what improvementswould be needed to meet fire regulationrequirements for the current and futuredevelopment accessed by Leirly Lane.Backgroundln conducting the analysis, I made a site visitand reviewed parcel data and easement mapsfor the six parcels that are accessed by LeirlyLane off E Cherry Road. I observed that thereare eight homes on the six parcels thatcurrently utilize the existing approximate 14- to18-foot-wide gravel road. This road is notlocated on the existing antiquated 8-foot roadeasement that runs parallel to the gravel LeirlyLane which does not have an easement or aroad agreement, nor is the road a City publicroad.,r,a2Visibly located above ground in the center of the 8-foot road easement are a PG&E distributionpowerline that runs the length of Lerily Lane, a single City fire hydrant near the intersection ofLeirly Lane and E Cherry Road, and a USPS community delivery mailbox also at theintersection.There are currently eight homes located on the six parcel and the Steel Property is proposing asubdivision with four additional lots. As stated, the current access road is on private propertywith no known road maintenance agreements or easements. The road does not appear to haveany discernable grade and would be considered flat. The road length from E. Cherry Rd. to thelast driveways is under approximately 450 feet. The existing gravel road appears to have goodcompaction and could possibly be considered an all-weather road. The road has been utilizedas the primary access since at least March 1, 1959, according to the status date on the Countyparcel assessment information. 1https:i/propertvinquirvportal.slocountv.ca.qov/#/propertv-inquirv?q=00757101 1i",.t^'14^((\o,(4.-t-"1332 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 I am unaware of the circumstances that created a private road outside of the recordedeasement and why the road easement contains utilities that would preclude the use of theeasement as the primary road location.Fire Code Requirementsfhe2022 California Fire Code has been adopted with amendments by the City of ArroyoGrande under Municipal Code Chapter 8.04.The homes on Leirly Lane rely on this non-conforming road as their only fire apparatus accessroad and the City had issued several building permits since the establishment of the road,allowing the construction of most of the existing homes.The parcels accessed off Leirly Lane are not in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and therefore donot need to comply with the Wildland Urban lnterface fire regulations.Despite the actual fire apparatus access road being located on private property without any roadagreements or easements, the fire code prohibits the obstruction of a fire apparatus accessroads in any manner. Therefore, the road must remain at a minimum in its current condition untilan improved road is installed that meets the current fire code requirements.Fire Apparatus Access RoadLeirly Lane with approximate location of legal road easement and the non-conforming fire apparatus access road.To meet the California Fire Code minimum requirements the road must have thefollowin g req u irements:1. Required access roads from every building to a public street shall be all-weather hard-surfaced (suitable for use by fire apparatus) rightof-way not less than 20 feet in width.Such right-of-way shall be unobstructed and maintained only as access to the publicstreet.22 CFC 503.2 SpecificationsPage 2 of 31332 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401' :-l 'iResolute Associates LLCRBRINOINO ACTION TO VISION 2. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposedloads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather drivingcapabilities.33. No parking will be permitted on the road unless an additional I feet is provided for eachside of the road that permits parking.4. A fire apparatus turnaround is required if the dead-end road exceeds 150 feet.5. Fire hydrants must be located on a dead-end road so that the maximum distance fromany point on the road in 150 feet.RecommendationFor the safety of both the existing homes and the proposed subdivision, it is myrecommendation that the City of Arroyo Grande bring the existing non-conforming road intocompliance with the California Fire Code. This requires that all or part of the area where thenon-conforming road is located be purchased through negotiation or eminent domain in theinterest of correcting the currently unsafe conditions as well as providing access to the proposedsubdivision in compliance with the Fire Code. No parking signs be posted on the road. That atleast one additionalfire hydrant be installed to ensure a fire hydrant is located within 150 feet atany point on Leirly Lane.Respectfully Sub/*Robert LewinPrincipalResolute Associates, LLCRobertLewi n@ Resol uteAssoc. com(805) 801-35693 503.2.3 SurfaceResolute Associates LLCPage 3 of 31332 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401RBRINGING ACTION TO VISION EXHIBIT E