El Cajon council votes 4–1 to vacate Swallow Drive roadway easement over neighbors’ objections

The El Cajon City Council on Tuesday voted 4–1 to adopt a resolution approving the summary vacation of a 24‑foot roadway easement on Lot B on Swallow Drive, ending a multi‑month dispute between the property owner and nearby residents.

The proposal, brought to the council by city staff, asked the council to reopen the public hearing, take testimony and then adopt the resolution after staff concluded the city has no current or anticipated need for the right‑of‑way.

Residents who live adjacent to the parcel said the small lot has been used for decades as an access point for the Fletcher Hills homeowners association to reach a 50‑acre open hillside for brush clearing and fire mitigation. "Vehicle access to this 50‑acre hillside can only be done through this tiny 5,900 square foot parcel," said Michelle Crook, who identified herself as a Swallow Drive resident. She urged the council to "vote no on vacating the El Cajon easement" and to reclassify the easement to preserve HOA access.

Other speakers described a long history of neighbors maintaining the parcel and expressed concern that vacating the easement could increase wildfire risk. Several asked the council to postpone action for 90 days to allow homeowners and the owner to negotiate or to provide additional study.

City staff noted that Helix Water District had already vacated its utility easement earlier in the year and that planning, engineering and fire departments found no current or future municipal use for the reserved roadway. "We determined that there was no current or future need by the city for this easement," staff told the council.

The city’s fire chief said he inspected the site and did not anticipate an operational impact to suppression efforts if the council vacated the easement. "It really is not gonna have operational impact as far as safety goes," he said, noting the area is served by multiple hydrants and that preferred access is via paved Australia or Betts streets.

Council debate reflected competing priorities. One councilmember emphasized private property rights and urged deference to the property owner, while others acknowledged neighbors’ long‑standing use and asked whether alternative agreements (such as a maintenance easement or purchase) were possible. Councilmember Phil, addressing both sides, said the council should defend private property rights and still encouraged the owner to work with neighbors.

Councilmember [motion maker] moved to "adopt a resolution approving the vacation as outlined in the staff report." The motion was seconded and carried, with the clerk announcing: "Motion carries by a 4‑1 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Kendrick voting no." The resolution vacated the roadway easement as described in staff materials.

The council did not adopt new maintenance or access conditions as part of the vote; staff and council members noted that changing the easement’s legal scope or creating a new maintenance easement would require separate legal processes, potentially including condemnation, appraisal and court proceedings if the owner did not agree.

Next steps noted by staff included filing the resolution and updating city records; neighbors said they would continue pursuing other legal avenues and asked the city to explore ways to preserve access for brush clearing.

The council moved on to its next agenda item after the vote.