Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Murrieta Council authorizes resolution to pursue easement on Via Silva for secondary emergency access
Summary
Council voted unanimously to adopt a resolution of necessity permitting the city to pursue eminent domain, if needed, to acquire a 30‑foot easement and 22‑foot emergency access at 24712 Via Silva after staff said approximately 147 homes and 14 undeveloped parcels lack secondary access.
Murrieta City Council on Aug. 19 adopted a resolution of necessity allowing the city to acquire, including by eminent domain if required, a 30‑foot easement to create a 22‑foot‑wide emergency access on property at 24712 Via Silva (APN 949130050).
Staff told the council the easement would provide secondary emergency access for roughly 147 homes and 14 undeveloped parcels that currently depend on a single public access (Milkwood Lane/Hancock). The planned access would be paved to accommodate a full fire truck, secured with locked breakaway gates and signed for emergency use only. An appraisal produced an offer of $36,000; staff said negotiations had not reached agreement and recommended adoption of the resolution so additional legal options remain available.
A representative for the property owner disputed the need for eminent domain, telling the council that an easement had been executed previously “at no cost to the city” but could not be recorded because of a deficient notary and clouds on title. The representative said homeowners oppose increased traffic and urged the city to accept the existing private street or help clear title rather than proceed to condemnation.
Council members pressed staff on details including the distinction between a 22‑foot emergency access pavement within a 30‑foot easement and a full public roadway, the locked but breakaway nature of gates for emergency responders, and the ownership complications stemming from a now‑defunct HOA and an underlying developer entity. City staff said they located the developer and that owner had been noncooperative in prior efforts.
Councilmember Stone moved and Councilmember DeForest seconded the resolution of necessity; the motion carried unanimously, 5–0. Council and staff said negotiations will continue but the resolution permits the city to proceed with right‑of‑way acquisition (including eminent domain) if settlement is not reached.
The action authorizes a procedural step (resolution of necessity) rather than immediate acquisition; staff told the council they will continue negotiations and return with settlement details if achieved.
