Council upholds planning commission, denies subdivision appeal for 444 Lyerly Lane

The Arroyo Grande City Council on Tuesday denied an appeal of the planning commission's decision and rejected a tentative parcel map that would have divided 444 Lyerly Lane into four parcels and a remainder. The council adopted a resolution denying appeal case 24-002 and denying with prejudice tentative parcel map 23-001, and determined the denial is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The denial followed months of hearings and public comment about the site's access. Planning staff advised the council that the proposed eight-foot easement for private-road access is inconsistent with the General Plan circulation element and city standards and contains impediments, including utility poles, a fire hydrant and fences. The application sought to create four new parcels on a 1.31-acre property at the end of a private roadway. "The constructed roadway does not align with the location of the easement," staff said in its report, and the planning commission concluded it could not make the required findings for approval because the access is substandard and would prevent safe response by emergency vehicles. Appellant Bruce Vander Veen, who owns the property, urged the council to consider exercising eminent domain to acquire a small strip of neighboring land to widen the access. Vander Veen said he and his clients relied on a 2023 staff advisory email that indicated sufficient access during pre-application meetings and that subsequent surveys revealed the easement location and width issues only later. "We hired Rob Lewin ... he says this is unsafe," Vander Veen said, urging the city to act so the property could be developed and neighborhood safety improved. Neighbors and property owners who spoke at the hearing opposed overturning the planning commission. Ingrid Kovacs, who said she lives at 307 Myrtle Drive, read a written comment noting the proposed easement is "only 8 feet wide, well below the 24-foot minimum required by Royal Grande Municipal Code," and contended the gravel road in use is not aligned with the recorded easement and crosses property not owned by the applicant. "This proposal fails to meet multiple findings required for parcel map approval," Kovacs said. Other neighbors described the private drive as a shared driveway and emergency access created for internal circulation of Tract 2653 that does not extend to the proposed lot. Several residents said the neighborhood has repeatedly considered access improvements during prior phases of development and that the applicant had multiple continuances to resolve the issue without success. Council members said the commission and staff had reviewed the matter extensively and that unresolved access, safety and legal easement questions prevented approval. Council member Guthrie, who moved the denial, said the planning commission could not make the required findings and that the council could not promise to resolve outstanding property-title or access issues without fuller study. The council's action formalizes the planning commission's October denial and follows multiple continuances and an appeal lodged in November 2024. Staff had recommended adoption of the resolution denying the appeal and map. No immediate city action on eminent domain occurred; the city attorney explained to council the constitutional process and findings required if the city were ever to pursue acquisition, including a public-interest necessity finding and court proceedings. The council's vote recorded the motion to deny the appeal as adopted by roll call; the staff report and resolution were entered into the record.