HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2025-07-22_10a Appeal of 444 Lierly Lane65501.00002\43948303.9
Item 10.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development
BY: Patrick Holub, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of
Tentative Parcel Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant –
Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne Helphenstine; Representative – MBS
Land Surveys
DATE: July 22, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 24-002 and denying with prejudice
Tentative Parcel Map 23-001; and
2) Determine that denial of the Project is exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because CEQA does not apply to the
disapproval or rejection of projects by a public agency. (Pub Resources Code, § 21080,
subd. (b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a).). There will be no subdivision
or construction as a result of the denial of this application for a subdivision, and therefore
the denial has no potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect,
physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3);
15378.).
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
No financial impact is projected.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This summary provides the Council with a briefing of the issues relating to this appeal
and then provides the timeline of events.
Brief of the Issues
Tentative Parcel Map Application 23-001 seeks to subdivide a 1.31-acre parcel on Lierly
Lane into four lots, with one remainder parcel (the “Project”). The Planning Commission
(the “Commission”) denied the Project, and the applicant has appealed.
Page 392 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 2
At issue with the Project is the proposed eight-foot easement for private road access from
Lierly Lane to East Cherry Avenue. Such access is inconsistent with Section CT1-1 of the
General Plan Circulation Element, Section 16.20.050(E) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code (AGMC), and the City Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards, which,
collectively, require a 24-foot access easement for private roads. Complying with the 24-
foot minimum requirement for private roads is necessary to ensure adequate vehicular
traffic and to allow sufficient access for emergency response vehicles. The proposed
eight-foot easement itself contains multiple impediments to access, including utility poles,
a fire hydrant, and privately owned fences and hedges. While one can observe an existing
eighteen-foot (18’) gravel roadway on Lierly Lane at its intersection with East Cherry
Avenue, that built roadway does not align with the access easement on record with the
County of San Luis Obispo (the “County”), meaning the majority of that gravel roadway is
private property outside the applicant’s control.
On October 29, 2024, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted a
resolution denying the Project due to the insufficient width of the access road. The
Commission’s resolution made negative findings as to: (A) the Project’s consistency with
the General Plan, (B) the site’s suitability for the type of development proposed, (C) the
site’s suitability for the proposed density of development, (D) the likelihood that the design
of the Project would not cause serious public health problems , and (E) that adequate
public facilities and services exist or will be provided as a result of the Project.
The applicant has appealed to the City Council, arguing that staff had previously
indicated, in an email sent in 2023, that the existing primary access was sufficient. The
appeal argues that applicant would not have moved forward “if not for the . . .
determination of staff.” However, staff’s determination was non-binding, was based on
preliminary information, and staff lacks authority to approve subdivisions of land, let alone
approve subdivisions with substandard access. The City Council instead has, by the
express terms of the municipal code, delegated authority to approve tentative parcel
maps to the Commission. The applicant did not provide additional basis for appeal of the
Commission’s decision.
Brief Timeline:
The Commission held its first public hearing on the project at its March 19, 2024
meeting. During this hearing, a number of residents raised concerns regarding
vehicular access to the proposed lots. The hearing was continued to May 7, 2024.
The Commission continued the public hearing to October 15, 2024, to allow the
applicant time to address the access concerns. Shortly before the October 15,
2024 hearing, the applicant raised new legal arguments, causing the Commission
to continue the Project to allow sufficient time to consider the new issues raised.
On October 29, 2024, the Commission adopted a resolution denying the Project.
Page 393 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 3
On November 8, 2024, the applicant filed an appeal of the Commission decision.
The City Council was prepared to hear the appeal at its January 14, 2025 City
Council meeting. The applicant subsequently enlisted legal counsel and requested
a continuance of the appeal hearing. The applicant agreed to waive, to the extent
applicable, any required timeline for the appeal under the Subdivision Map Act.
(Attachment 2)
On January 14, 2025, the City Council approved the applicant’s request for a
continuance of the appeal hearing. Over the intervening months, the applicant has
continued to ask for additional time to negotiate with the adjacent property owner
to increase the width of the private roadway. The applicant has represented to the
City that they have sought to engage with the adjacent property owner, but have
not been able to contact that property owner or reach any agreement to widen the
access road.
After months of providing the applicant additional time in good faith to secure
additional width of the access road, the City informed the applicant team that the
appeal would occur as early as late June of 2025, or as an alternative, the applicant
could choose to withdraw the appeal and reapply when the access issues were
resolved.
On July 3, 2025, the City informed the applicant via email that the City Council
would hear the appeal on July 22, 2025.
BACKGROUND:
The 1.31 acre project site (the “Property”) is located on 444 Lierly Lane at the end of a
private roadway. (Attachment 3) It is surrounded by residential development on all sides,
and is bordered by Arroyo Grande Creek to the north. The parcel is currently developed
with a 3,108 square foot single-family residence, and is located within the Single Family
Residential District. The most recently recorded map applicable to the Property is shown
in Attachment 4.
Parcel Map Project Description
The applicant proposes a parcel map to create four (4) new parcels with one (1) remainder
parcel to contain the existing residence. Dimensions for the proposed parcels range in
size from 9,680 square feet to 9,689 square feet with dimensions of just less than one
hundred forty feet (140’) deep by approximately seventy feet (70’) wide. The proposed
parcel sizes are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Proposed Lot Sizes
Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Remainder
9,680 sf 9,688 sf 9,689 sf 9,683 sf 18,324 sf
Page 394 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 4
Staff Advisory Committee (SAC)
The SAC discussed the Project on August 3, 2023. The SAC discussed items such as
emergency access, private access, and fire suppression. The SAC expressed concerns
about the width of Lierly Lane, which is the sole non-emergency access point to the
parcel. The SAC requested that the Project maintain the existing emergency access point
as gated access for all emergency services.
Public Hearings of the Commission
On March 19, 2024,1 the Commission conducted a public hearing for this Project. During
the hearing, a significant number of nearby residents testified to the narrowness of the
existing private access on Lierly Lane and also about their opposition to the use of the
identified emergency access points. After hearing concerns from members of the public,
the Commission continued2 the public hearing to a date certain of May 7, 2024, in order
to allow time for the applicant to address concerns related to primary and emergency
access, reimbursement for any damages to private property adjacent to the Property
during construction as well as to address maintenance, irrigation , and fencing concerns.
That meeting was also continued due to the inability of the applicant to resolve the
aforementioned issues in time for the hearing. In the subsequent months, staff and the
applicant met numerous times with neighbors and property owners, and the applicant was
unable to resolve the issues related to primary access through either the acquisition of
property or agreements for access easements.
On October 15, 2024, the Commission reconvened for the continued public hearing on
the proposed Project. Shortly before the hearing was to occur, the applicant submitted a
letter to the Commission raising new legal arguments about timelines associated with the
Subdivision Map Act. The Commission continued the Project to October 29, 2024, to allow
staff time to review the late letter and address the new arguments raised.
On October 29, 2024, the continued public hearing was held by the Commission, which
voted unanimously to deny the Project based upon the findings identified in the City’s staff
report. 3
In the intervening months, staff met with the applicant team several times and even
offered to provide a neutral site for a meeting with the adjacent property owner. However,
attempts by the applicant team to coordinate with the adjacent property owner have not
been successful, and action on the appeal is necessary.
1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=9c5b19b0-ec48-4f0c-a688-
c42deb398f34&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=17&Tab=attachments
2 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=10543
3 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=12892
Page 395 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 5
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
As relevant to this appeal, subdivision proposals must meet all applicable requirements
described below:
Land Division Standards
AGMC Section 16.20.0504 contains all of the applicable standards associated with land
divisions such a minimums for lot width and depth, improvement standards, and required
access. Subsection C of this chapter states that any subdivision shall conform to the
minimum lot area and width requirements of the zoning for the property. Table 1 shows
how the proposed Project complies with development standards for the SF zone.
Table 1: Single Family District Development Standards
Development Standard SF Requirement Proposed Notes
Lot Size 7,200 sf 9,680sf - 9,689 sf Code Met
Lot Width 70’ 70.00’ - 70.15’ Code Met
Lot Depth 100’ 137.85’ - 138.27’ Code Met
Access and Exception Request
The applicant proposed to provide access to the four lots via Lierly Lane, a private road
that currently serves the Property and the other lots on this private road. At its intersection
with East Cherry Avenue, Lierly Lane is a gravel roadway eighteen feet (18’) in width .
However, the existing roadway does not align with the easement on record, which is an
eight-foot access easement that runs from East Cherry Avenue . The roadway
configuration is shown in Figure 1 below. When comparing the location of the recorded
easement to the observable roadway, half or more of the roadway is on private property.
Because the access at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Lier ly Lane is private
property and out of the control of the applicant, the applicant is unable to create a private
access roadway consistent with City Engineering Standard5 7010, which requires two
twelve-foot travel lanes.
4
https://library.municode.com/ca/arroyo_grande/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT16DEC
O_CH16.20LADI_16.20.050STLADI
5 https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/3151/2016-Standard-Specifications-and-
Engineering-Standards-PDF
Page 396 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 6
Figure 1: The yellow line depicts the 8’ wide road easement and the conflict with existing
utilities and the deviation of the gravel roadway.
On August 7, 2024, the applicant’s representative submitted an exception request
consistent with the requirements of AGMC Section 16.20.050(E)(2)6 for a waiver from the
access standards. Exceptions to the requirements for public access may be waived, if
certain circumstances exist:
a. If a parcel map creates four or less parcels and public access over intervening
lands cannot be offered for dedication, and appurtenant private easements for
ingress, egress, roadway, and public utility purposes may be approved,
provided:
i. The land to be divided is not zoned for commercial, industrial or multiple-
family residential uses;
ii. If no improvements are required, the private easement is no less than
twenty (20) feet in width, and is duly recorded, is perpetual in duration,
and is not subject to liens and encumbrances which might impair or
defeat its purpose. If improvements are required, a minimum of forty (40)
feet is required; and
iii. The access easement owned by the land divider is not an exclusive
easement or specifically written to prohibit further subdivision of the land.
6
https://library.municode.com/ca/arroyo_grande/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT16DEC
O_CH16.20LADI_16.20.050STLADI
Page 397 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 7
b. If a subdivision map has been previously recorded that permitted private streets
without the requirement of offering the streets for dedication, a private road
easement may be approved provided said easement grants the new lots
unrestricted access rights to the existing private streets.
The applicant’s exception request, provided as Attachment 5, states that the applicant
has no right, title, or interest beyond the existing eight-foot easement. It further states that
after due diligence, the applicant has been unable to acquire any additional property or
easements to widen the access road.
The applicant has requested that the City Council consider this exception request. Staff
does not support the requested waiver because the Project does not meet the
circumstances established by the AGMC for the granting of an access waiver. The private
easement would remain less than the required 20’ width, and utility poles, a fire hydrant,
and privately owned fences and hedges are built over the easement of record. Those
features built on the land currently prevent travel over the proposed access area .
Due to the substandard roadway width and paving material of Lierly Lane, a separate
emergency access point is required for this Project. To provide adequate emergency
access, the applicant proposes to connect the emergency access roadway shown on the
proposed parcel map to the existing emergency access road between 307, 311 and 313
Myrtle Drive.
The recorded tract map established public emergency access and public utility
easements that encumber 307, 311, and 313 Myrtle Drive (Lots 26 -28 on the final map).
The applicant has not resolved the impediments to access created by these
encumbrances. Accordingly, staff recommends against granting the waiver.
Required Findings
In order to approve a tentative parcel map, the Planning Commission must make all of
the findings in Section 16.20.070.C of the AGMC. At the October 29, 2024, meeting, the
Planning Commission resolved to deny the Project for failure to satisfy findings #1, 2, 3,
5, 6, and 8 of AGMC Subsection 16.20.070(C). Those findings, and the rationale of the
Commission, is provided below.
Finding #1. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with goals, objectives,
policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, as
well as any applicable Specific Plan, and the requirements of this title .
Page 398 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 8
Staff Response: The Project is not consistent with the adopted Circulation Element7, the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, and the City’s Engineering Standards, Plans, and
Policies, which state the following:
“Circulation Element. CT1-1 Standards: Streets shall be constructed in
conformance with the City and State’s adopted Engineering Standards, Plans, and
Policies that apply to each classification. Variations and modifications in Standards
and planned alignments may be permitted with City Council approval or City
Engineer/Public Works Director approval where delegated.
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. Section 16.20.050.E – Required Access. No land
division final map shall be recorded unless public access is provided from ea ch
parcel of the land division to a city, county, county service area, community service
district, state or federal road that is maintained for public use. Public access to a
road maintained by a property owner's association may be allowed if the city
council determines that there is no other feasible means of guaranteeing
maintenance of the road for public use, and if the association has the unqualified
right to maintain the road pursuant to recorded conditions, covenants and
restrictions which require the association to maintain the road and such
requirement cannot be amended or terminated with the consent of the city.
City Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards8
Standards for Private Road – 24 feet”
The existing private road easement is 8 feet in width and does not meet the adopted
constructed private road standard of 24 feet in width. The existing 8-foot wide easement
would not only prevent most emergency responder vehicles from accessing the site, but
would prevent several types of passenger vehicles as well. The applicant will be creating
four additional parcels that will generate additional vehicle trips on an existing deficient
private road. The constructed roadway does not align with the location of the easement,
and utility poles and a hydrant are located within the easement that further restrict vehicle
access. Thus, the deficient private road will not accommodate traffic from the proposed
Project in a safe manner for residents as the limited easement width compromises
resident access.
7 https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/472/Circulation-Element
8 https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/3151/2016-Standard-Specifications-and-
Engineering-Standards-PDF
Page 399 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 9
Finding #2 and #3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed
and the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Staff Response: The site is not suitable for t he type of development or the proposed
density of development because the Project does not utilize a design that is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood due to providing substandard access which will affect
property owners adjacent to the proposed site.
Finding #5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
Staff Response: The Project proposes substandard access, therefore, the Project is likely
to cause serious public health problems. The existing road width would be an impediment
to access for emergency vehicles. The existing private road easement is 8 feet in width
and does not meet the adopted constructed private road standard of 24 feet in width for
a two-lane private road. The applicant will be creating four additional parcels that will
generate additional vehicle trips on an existing deficient private road. Further, the physical
driveway does not match the location of the easement, and utility poles are located within
the easement that further restrict vehicle access.
Finding #6. The design of the tentative parcel map or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public-at-large for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed tentative parcel map or that alternate easements for access
or for use will be provided, and that these alternative easements will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
Staff Response: The tentative parcel map will not interfere with existing access
easements owned by the public at large. However, the proposed Project does not provide
alternate easements for access that are substantially equivalent to the ones previously
acquired by the public. The existing private road easement i s 8 feet in width and does not
meet the adopted constructed private road standard of 24 feet in width for a two -lane
private road.
Finding #8. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result
of the proposed tentative parcel map to support project development.
Staff Response: The Project site has substandard access to the parcel. The substandard
access affects the ability of public service vehicles and emergency responder vehicles to
access the parcel. The proposal does not provide additional access facilities that would
resolve the substandard access.
Page 400 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 10
Applicant’s Letter Prior to Commission Denial and Staff’s Response
On October 14th, the applicant’s representative sent City staff a letter asserting several
items related to the Subdivision Map Act and housing law. That letter was sent to the
Commission as a supplemental memo9 prior to the start of the October 14th meeting.
The applicant’s primary support of their argument alleged that City staff determined the
Project was exempt from CEQA on, or before, March 19, 2024. This misunderstands the
role of staff in approving CEQA projects. In actuality, City staff may only recommend that
the Commission find that the project is exempt from CEQA. The Commission meeting
was duly noticed and a hearing was held on March 19, 2024. But, the Commission
ultimately did not act on staff’s recommendation , and instead opted to continue the
hearing. The Commission instead determined the Project was exempt on October 29,
2025, the date it adopted its resolution denying the Project.
Further, a tentative map is not deemed approved when it violates local law or the
Subdivision Map Act itself. The applicant’s other arguments that pertained to the City’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) were deemed irrelevant to approving the
tentative map, as there is no proposed housing project at this time.
Staff notes that, when the applicant requested that the hearing on the appeal be continued
in January of this year, the applicant agreed to waive all the above asserted timelines
under the Subdivision Map Act to allow them additional time to widen the existing access
road.
Basis of the Appeal
The appeal filed on November 8, 2024, states that the justification for filing an appeal is
that the “applicants would not have pursued the project if not for the Aug 3 , 2023,
determination by staff.” (Attachment 6) The email referenced in the appeal was from staff
to the applicant’s representative, and was part of the pre-application process—not a
“determination.” The staff email indicated that, based on review by the SAC, the existing
primary access would be sufficient to move the project forward with the preliminary
evaluation of the project —it did not act as an approval. The SAC’s role is advisory, and
it was only authorized to make a recommendation to the Commission. (See AGMC
Section 16.20.040) Changes in factual circumstances occurred and the information
provided to the City by applicant in the year between that 2023 email and the present.
9 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=12773
Page 401 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 11
The SAC recommendation in 2023 was based on the best available information at the
time, and following review of the application, new information was made available to staff
that ultimately resulted in staff’s recommendation for denial:
During the original March 19, 2024, Commission hearing, several members of the
public provided comments that the location of the primary private access (Lierly
Lane) depicted on the plans reviewed during the preapplication review was
incorrect with respect to the location of the roadway.
The owner of 811 Lierly Lane subsequently performed a survey of the
easement location, which determined that the eight-foot access easement
did not match the existing physical private road (Lierly Lane). The applicant
also confirmed the accuracy of this survey. Further, the location of the eight-
foot easement contains infrastructure such as utility poles, a fire hydrant,
and privately owned fences and hedges that obstruct access.
Based on the survey, staff determined that the existing primary access point
proposed for the project would not be sufficient for the type of development
and density proposed and subsequently formed the basis for staff’s analysis
and recommendation for denial.
The applicant’s basis appeal fails because staff is not authorized to make a binding
determination as to divisions of land. Commission approval is required under the AGMC
in order to authorize divisions of land. The Commission’s approval is required because it
is the “advisory agency” for tentative parcel map approvals. (AGMC Section 16.20.040)
Staff’s authority is limited to making recommendations to the Commission regarding
applications. (Id.) Thus, the Commission properly denied the application under AGMC
Section 16.20.070 pursuant to its authority. The October 29, 2024 determination of the
Commission to deny the application for Tentative Parcel Map 23-001 should be upheld,
and Appeal Case No. 24-02 should be denied.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Adopt the proposed Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 24-002 and denying
Tentative Parcel Map 23-001;
2. Modify and adopt the proposed Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 24 -002 and
denying Tentative Parcel Map 23-001;
3. Do not adopt the proposed Resolution, take tentative action to uphold Appeal Case
No. 24-002, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate supporting
resolution including findings for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23-001;
4. Provide other direction to staff.
Page 402 of 440
Item 10.a.
City Council
Appeal Case 24-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Parcel
Map 23-001; Location – 444 Lierly Lane; Appellant – Bruce Vanderveen and Jeanne
Helphenstine; Representative – MBS Land Surveys
July 22, 2025
Page 12
ADVANTAGES:
Denial of the appeal and denial of the project will prevent the subdivision of a parcel with
substandard private access that would cause potential health and safety issues for the
existing and future residents.
DISADVANTAGES:
Based upon the proposal, insufficient access to the subject parcel represents a potential
health and safety concern for the existing and future residents that has not been
addressed through this application. The increase of trips on a roadway , that already
represents a safety concern, will increase the possibility of conflict and the possibility of
health and safety impacts for residents.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Denial of the Project is exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because CEQA does not apply to the disapproval or
rejection of projects by a public agency. (Pub Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(5);
State CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a).). There will be no subdivision or construction
as a result of the denial of this application for a subdivision, and therefore the denial has
no potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change
in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); 15378.).
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2. A public hearing notice was mailed to all property
owners within 300 feet of the subject property ten days prior to the meeting and a public
hearing notice was posted at the site on November 14, 2024 , and July 10, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Request for Appeal Extension
3. Project Location
4. Tract 2653 Map Recorded with County Recorder
5. Exception Request
6. Appeal Form
Page 403 of 440
65501.00002\43955572.5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 24-002
AND DENYING WITH PREJUDICE TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 23-001; SUBDIVISION OF ONE (1) EXISTING PARCEL
INTO FOUR (4) NEW PARCELS WITH ONE (1) REMAINDER
PARCEL; LOCATION – 444 LIERLY LANE; APPLICANT –
BRUCE VANDERVEEN AND JEANNE HELPHENSTINE;
REPRESENTATIVE – KERRY MARGASON, MBS LAND
SURVEYS
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Tentative Parcel Map 23-001 to a subdivide the existing
parcel into four (4) new parcels with one (1) remainder parcel (the “Project); and
WHEREAS, the existing Project site is a 1.31-acre parcel located at 444 Lierly Lane; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 16.20.040 authorizes the Planning Commission to
approve Tentative Parcel Map applications, with recommendations from the City Engineer,
Planning Director and Staff Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Project at a duly noticed public hearing
on March 19, 2024. During that meeting, the public hearing was continued to May 7, 2024.
The Planning Commission further reviewed the Project at the duly noticed public hearing on
May 7, 2024, at which time concerns were raised by residents of inadequate access of 444
Lierly Lane to East Cherry Lane, particularly for emergency vehicles, if the Project were to
occur. During that meeting, the public hearing was continued to a date uncertain to allow
the applicant time to resolve issues relating to inadequate access. The Planning
Commission again reviewed the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on October 15,
2024, shortly prior to which the applicant raised new legal issues, at which time the Planning
Commission continued the hearing to October 29, 2024 at which time the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to deny the Project; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2024, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council was prepared to hear the appeal of the Project on January 14,
2025, but the applicant requested that the appeal date be extended; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the extension of the date of appeal from January 14,
2025, as requested by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, in good faith, the City has allowed the applicant substantial time to resolve the
concerns regarding inadequate access from Lierly Lane; and
WHEREAS, City Staff has conducted a thorough review of the Project and the City Council
incorporates the analysis of the Staff Report dated July 22, 2025, prepared by the
Page 404 of 440
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
Community Development Director as part of the passage of this Resolution and relating to
the same Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
Tentative Parcel Map Findings Under Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.20.060.C:
1. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with goals, objectives,
policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande
General Plan, as well as any applicable Specific Plan, and the requirements
of this title.
The Project is not consistent with the adopted Circulation Element , the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code, and the City’s Engineering Standards, Plans, and
Policies, which state the following:
“Circulation Element. CT1-1 Standards: Streets shall be constructed in
conformance with the City and State’s adopted Engineering Standards, Plans,
and Policies that apply to each classification. Variations and modifications in
Standards and planned alignments may be permitted with City Council
approval or City Engineer / Public Works Director approval where delegated.
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. Section 16.20.050.E – Required Access. No
land division final map shall be recorded unless public access is provided from
each parcel of the land division to a city, county, county service area,
community service district, state or federal road that is maintained for public
use. Public access to a road maintained by a property owner's association
may be allowed if the city council determines that there is no other feasible
means of guaranteeing maintenance of the road for public use, and if the
association has the unqualified right to maintain the road pursuant to recorded
conditions, covenants and restrictions which require the association to
maintain the road and such requirement cannot be amended or terminated
with the consent of the city.
City Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards
Standards for Private Road – 24 feet”
The existing private road easement is 8 feet in width and does not meet the
adopted constructed private road standard of 24 feet in width. The existing 8-
foot wide easement would not only prevent most emergency responder
vehicles from accessing the site, but would prevent several types of
passenger vehicles as well. The applicant will be creating four additional
parcels that will generate additional vehicle trips on an existing deficient
private road. The constructed roadway does not align with the location of the
easement, and utility poles, a hydrant and fences are located within the
easement that further restrict vehicle access. Thus, the deficient private road
will not accommodate traffic from the proposed Project in a safe manner for
residents as the limited easement width compromises resident access.
Page 405 of 440
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
The site is not suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed.
The proposed subdivision does not utilize a design that is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood due to providing substandard access which will
affect property owners adjacent to the proposed site.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development due
to providing substandard private and emergency access.
4. The design of the tentative parcel map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the tentative parcel map was designed to minimize potential
environmental impacts and is not anticipated to cause substantial
environmental damage if approved.
5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The Project proposes substandard access, therefore, the Project is likely to
cause serious public health problems. The existing private road easement is
8 feet in width and does not meet the adopted constructed private road
standard of 24 feet in width for a two-lane private road. The applicant will be
creating four additional parcels that will generate additional vehicle trips on an
existing deficient private road. Further, the physical driveway does not match
the location of the easement, and utility poles are located within the easement
that further restrict vehicle access.
6. The design of the tentative parcel map or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public-at-large for access through, or
use of, property within the proposed tentative parcel map or that alternate
easements for access or for use will be provided, and that these alternative
easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public.
The tentative parcel map will not interfere with any existing easements owned
by the public at large.
7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing
community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements
as prescribed in Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California
Water Code.
The Project site currently has access to all necessary utilities and will continue
to have access after completion of the Project.
Page 406 of 440
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
8. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result
of the proposed tentative parcel map to support project development.
The Project site has substandard access to the parcel. The substandard
access affects the ability of public service vehicles and emergency responder
vehicles to access the parcel. The proposal does not provide additional
access facilities that would resolve the substandard access.
9. For a proposed subdivision that includes, or is adjacent to an agriculture
district; the design of the tentative map or proposed improvements shall
provide an adequate buffer, according to Section 16.12.170(F) and as further
determined through environmental review under CEQA, to minimize potential
conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses and to protect the
public health, safety and welfare.
The proposed Project is not adjacent to any agricultural lands and, therefore,
no agricultural buffer is proposed or required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
hereby:
1. Finds that all recitals above are true, correct, and incorporated herein.
2. Denies Appeal Case 24-002, with the above findings, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
3. Determines that denial of the Project is exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because CEQA does not apply to the
disapproval or rejection of projects by a public agency. (Pub Resources Code, §
21080, subd. (b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a).). There will be no
subdivision or construction as a result of the denial of this application for a
subdivision, and therefore the denial has no potential to result in either a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment (State CEQA
Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); 15378.).
4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
On motion by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember , and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 22nd day of July, 2025.
Page 407 of 440
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
_______________________________________
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________________
MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________________
ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 408 of 440
From:Kerry Margason
To:Patrick Holub; Brian Pedrotti
Cc:Jeanne Helphenstine (); bruce vanderveen
Subject:444 Lierly Lane (MBS 22-284)
Date:Tuesday, December 24, 2024 10:11:10 AM
Hi Brian and Patrick – We are requesting an extension of 30-60 days for the Appeal hearing on this
project. The applicants have retained Ty Green to help us through this process. Mr. Green would
like some time to try to reach an agreement with the City that will allow the project to be
approved. As you know, some City staff are on vacation until after the first of the year and there
will not be enough time to explore all the options before the January 14th hearing date.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and the possibility of extending the
hearing date.
Thank you,
Kerry Margason
MBS Land Surveys(805) 594-1960
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 409 of 440
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 410 of 440
ATTACHMENT 4Page 411 of 440
Page 412 of 440
Page 413 of 440
Page 414 of 440
Page 415 of 440
Page 416 of 440
Michael B Stanton, PLS 5702 Ofc: 805.594.1960
3559 S. Higuera Street Cell: 805.440.4215
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Fax: 805.594.1966
August 7, 2024
Brian Pedrotti, Patrick Holub
City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
RE: MBS 22-284, 444 Liery Lane, Parcel Map AG 23-001
Dear Mr. Pedrotti and Mr. Holub:
Pursuant to section 16.20.050 – Standards of land divisions, subsection A.2 we are requesting an
exception to the widening of Lierly Lane based on the existing road alignment and width for
approximately 200 feet. Currently, Lierly Lane is a private, 8 foot wide easement, with private
landowners on both sides.
The applicants have no right, title or interest in the land, other than the granted easement over
the first approximately 200 feet of the existing 8 foot width and have been unable to secure
additional land within that 200 feet to accommodate widening of Lierly Lane, despite several
attempts to work with neighboring property owners over the past 2.5 years.
Prior to the application completeness determination, the applicants held 3 meetings with City staff,
including a preapplication meeting. Lierly Lane was discussed at all 3 meetings because the
applicants were having difficulty securing additional area to increase the width of Lierly and they
were concerned the City would not approve the project if Lierly could not be widened. Staff
agreed with the approach of taking emergency access off Myrtle, developing the interior of the
project with approved standard improvements, and leaving Lierly at it’s 8 foot width. While leaving
Lierly at 8 feet wide is not ideal, the project has emergency access through the adjacent Tract
2653 on the west side of the project area and the proposed development would provide additional
emergency access to the existing development at the northwestern end of Lierly.
The preapplication meeting consisted of developing conditions of approval, with input from all City
departments, for the parcel map. The widening of Lierly Lane was not a condition of approval.
It is understood that some neighbors have an issue with the project where it will take emergency
access directly from the established emergency access easements created by Tract 2653, however
these easements were required during the approval process of Tract 2653 with the intent that the
area to the east of the Tract would develop.
As proposed, this project satisfies the required findings for a parcel map, as outlined in section
16.20.070 C. Findings in the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City) municipal code, and is consistent with
the City Council’s resolution 4040 approving the Neighborhood Plan (Plan), including 20 foot wide
roads (where applicants have control over the design of the roads), and use of the emergency
access points developed in Subarea 1 of the Neighborhood Plan, specifically to provide emergency
access to Subarea 2 (Looney and other properties).
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 417 of 440
Brian Perdotti; Patrick Holub
August 7, 2024
Page 2 of 2
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements. In fact, the
adopted Housing Element identifies this property on the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory Map,
Figure 4-1, as an underutilized parcel that could realistically provide an additional 4 dwelling units,
to be counted towards City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Based on the General
Plan Annual Report of 2022, the City still needs approximately 200 of the State’s allocation of 291
above-moderate dwelling units.
While the applicants continue to speak with neighboring property owners, it is unlikely that
additional property will be available for the widening of Lierly Lane and we respectfully request an
exception to the requirement.
Thank you,
/s/Kerry Margason
Kerry Margason
Planner
Cc: Jeanne Helphenstine
Bruce Vanderveen
File
Page 418 of 440
ATTACHMENT 6
Page 419 of 440
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Date
Name and Address of Appellant
Appeal of
Case No.
Approved/Denied by on
Date
Reason for Appeal
Receipt No.
Signature
Mailing Address
Telephone
Fee - $1,163
Date
___
Director of Legislative and Information Services/City Clerk
November 8, 2024
Bruce Vanderveen; Jeanne Helphenstine;
P.O. Box 502, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Planning Commission's denial with prejudice of TPM AG23-001
Planning Commission (PC)October 29, 2024
PC denied the project with prejudice based on access constraints. When
the project applicants discussed the project with staff, prior to filing the application, Staff sent an
email dated August 3rd, 2023 stating Lierly would not have to be widened. It was determined
that with the use of the public emergency access easements off Myrtle, the
project could move forward without widening Lierly at this time. The project as designed is
consistent with the General Plan and the Housing Element. Applicants would not have pursued
the project if not for the Aug 3rd 2023 determination by staff.
/s/Kerry Margason, MBS Land Surveys
3559 S. Higuera Street, SLO, 93401
(805) 594-1960
Page 420 of 440