City of Pismo Beach
City Clerks Office
1/3/2025 JAN 0 3 2025
Dear Pismo Beach City Councitmembers, Roebw As you may recall, we sent a letter in May 2024 requesting that priority be given to recording of an easement and opening of a path between Shoreline and Vista del Mar streets. Chief reasons for this are safety for residents and schoolchildren as well the knowledge that this access has been written into and recently updated in Pismo Beach's own General Land Use Plan. We know that shoreline access is a priority for both the city and the California Coastal Commission, and that there is acknowledged historical use of an unofficial path many years ago.We are also well aware that recording and opening of such easements depends on an agreement between three properties-302 Vista del Mar, 2054 Ocean and 335 Terrace Avenue.That agreement now includes two owners instead of three.
At the recommendation of Jorge Garcia,six Shoreline Dr. homeowners met with him and Scot Gray, =n 10/25/2024 0n. behalf of ourselves and several other homeowners to determine a on. -_-s:elywe made little progress. From the beginning, it felt like they were - - __ ^ch of old people in order to appease us for awhile. They shared no ideas :111 =- =__= _"' "' oroceed,preferring instead to respond to each concern that it is just -- _ - --__ __==- _ _ _ — __._. Below are the main points discussed:
''ismo Beach apparently sent a letterto the owner of 2054 Ocean Blvd. and _= •=- -= response.There is no motivation to continue to make contact because of == :"a:said owner wilt engage lawyers on his behalf.
'}c ---cern expressed about the easement as a_ pedestrian evacuation route for in the event of wildfire or emergency when Shell Beach Rd.is grid locked -'d occur in June of 2020.The response was basically a shrug. acre=s =_pends on recording of easement of three properties and _ :7;nk it is.We already know this.We don't think it's easy, but there has to be reason it's in the General Plan. Otherwise,why is it there?We were assured that _,.ng of an easementwould occur the minute one of those properties makes any imZ _._"lent. However,this did not happen when 2054 Ocean made improvements in 201;, ;, :h city settling instead on "flagging"it in a project tracking system until they had __-- __ = a-easements on adjacent properties.
4. We= ":=_ _ _:a formal request for a variance by 302 Vista dat Mar in October 2022 :n granting and installation of a pedestrian easement on the property. —_ = _ . -_ .,,are issued on 5/24/2024 and the remodel was completed in the -- --.erc-2024 :.:thout any such change. Mr.Graham expressed lack of knowledge of any s,indicating that,"I wasn't here"working at the city a,that time. He assured us that he ._ :ook into it and get back to us.
_:the facts of point4 above negate the veracity of point r3; both cannot be _-:"_ __ _:ime if there is no follow-through to get Property owners to live up to the
three-property agreement that we were so confidently told would fall into place once improvements were made. Mr. Graham responded via email 10/29 informing us that after Looking into it,the easement had been recorded at 302 Vista del Mar, but that no other improvements would be required because "we don't have a recorded easement on 2054 Ocean,as the condition doesn't require it until such time as easements are required on the adjacent properties." He also opined that he did not see a "compelling reason"to change that decision.As you see,this is a circular issue and belies any assurances from the city that there is incentive to actually bring this easement to fruition and fulfill what is stated in the city's General Plan. It is also ironic that in 2011,Senior Planner Graham delayed recording the easement on 2054 Ocean until the other properties granted theirs.
After our meeting on 10/25,we feel that we need more information for our files in order to understand this issue more clearly and move forward.We request:
1. Copy of the easement recorded in 2024 at 302 Vista del Mar
2. Copy or evidence of an agreement between city staff and 302 Vista del Mar that waived the requirement for construction of pedestrian access.Surely there is something in writing reflecting this decision.
3. Copy of the original agreement between city and three properties regarding protocols for granting of easement
4. Copy of any existing access easement between the three properties, city and Terrace Ave. owners who have a private alley allowingthem to access Vista del Mar and the shoreline along the proposed easement area.Why do they have access, and we do not?
5. Copy of the letter sent by the city of Pismo Beach to the current homeowner at 2054 Ocean/335 Terrace Ave.
We feel it necessary to inform the City Council of our struggle to exercise our right to shoreline access or even to get anyone to listen with an intent to resolve instead of thinly veiled impatience.
This has become a game of Whack-a-Mole,where the object is to bury everything and hope that it won't pop up again.We trust that there are ways to make this easement happen before the initial homeowners on Shoreline die-something that we're not certain is not a strategy to ignore the problem. If there is truly no plan or desire to move forward on this,we recommend that the item be removed from the Pismo Beach General Plan. Cutting and pasting it into every update is disingenuous if the city continuously waives requirements and fails to live up to it. However,the three-property agreement lives on and we expect the city to do its job and require adherence to it.
We are not asking for something unreasonable, only safety and access where it used to exist and now is more important than ever.
Furthermore, "I wasn't here" is not an appropriate response to questions or requests.We heard it 6 times during our meeting.We thinkthat's enough. It does not instill confidence in our city government.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and want to assure you that this issue is not going away until there is some progress one way or another.
Richard and Janet DeClark 2110 Shoreline Dr. Pismo Beach, CA
� �' � Ga 1 ircjer' �r� cl
-Z n C. �0 9e �� � f"e.� J '17
4-1 / ee- s c �e 5 [� ^► Gc GO/��
e A G /d S e d le-
y / 7 G/ �d C �c L► Q T
/' c� 2G � crIC pcomc � s "�. l�� �
(77C, 3 �o - a / VC)