A Misleading Email

In September 2004, the month after Briggs Road residents were closed out of their homes by a private LLC landowner, one of our neighbors received an email reply to the question, “As the County did issue… Certificates of Compliance, doesn’t some right of access exist to the property owners?”

The reply appears to be replete with errors, which is surprising because it came from one of Michael D. Antonovich’s deputies, Paul Novak, who was Planning Director for the County of Los Angeles at the time.

Our copy of the email is barely legible. In the belief that our access difficulties would be short-lived, we did not retain digital copies of the email. All we have is this copy of a scan of the printout of the original.

Sorry. Perhaps it would be helpful to retype a portion.

Subj:      RE: Agua Dulce Homeowners

Date:     9/17/2004  9:20:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time

From:    PNovak@bos.co.la.ca.us

…

CC:       NHickling@bos.co.la.ca.us, …

One thing to bear in mind about the certificates of compliance is that they do not “confer” access. The certificates merely reflect a County determination that the property in question is a legal lot consistent with the State of California Subdivision Map Act (SMA). A legal lot does not necessarily have access—regrettably, there are many lots in the County and in other jurisdictions that do not have legal access.

I have read the 100 plus pages of the Subdivision Map Act of California, and I could find nothing that required a lot to have access for its map to be accepted as legal. What is required, though, is that the parcel meet the requirements of the county.

Specifically, “Section 66411: Each local agency shall, by ordinance, regulate and control the initial design and improvement of…subdivisions for which this division requires a tentative and final or parcel map.”

And from the LA County Regional Planning website: “Major issues involved in the evaluation of proposed tract maps include: … Availability of adequate access… to serve the proposed development.”

Item 6, on the County’s Land Division Application Checklist is “Affidavit of Easements.”

Do you believe that a five-and-a-half mile long course of torture by automobile, open only at the whim of an eccentric state agency, constitutes “adequate access”? It will not take many trips over that bone-jarring track to convince you that it is not at all adequate.

If you don’t have adequate access, you don’t get map approval. Isn’t that the clear implication?

But let’s back up a bit, cut the bad guys some slack, and re-examine what Regional Planning says on the web page:  Adequate access is a major issue involved in the evaluation of proposed tract maps. Those are the exact words, reorganized a bit, cut and pasted from the very website.

Is it possible that Mr. Novak meant that adequate access is a major consideration in the approval of a map, but is not an ironclad requirement? I have been working on this particular post for a very long time and do not want to mess it up with a sloppy interpretation, so let’s be super accurate and give Mr. Novak the benefit of the doubt.

       The best I could find in the LA County Code was: 

21.48.100 Access to property.

The advisory agency may require as a condition of approval of a tentative minor land division map that the subdivider produce evidence that the property as divided will have access to a public street or highway.       

It says “may,” but I am assured by folks in the business that they actually always do require access.

So, sure, if you want to split hairs and be a bit of an ass about it, the Subdivision Map Act doesn’t confer access, but in conjunction with Los Angeles County ordinance and actual practice, it requires access. What’s the difference? It looks like having a legal map comprises a pretty strong affirmation of access.

And you need map approval to get permission to pay for a Certificate of Compliance, and you need that for a building permit. And the houses up here—the newer ones anyway—have building permits.

So okay, maybe Mr. Novak made a mistake. Director of Planning but, you know, to err is human. And maybe, to use his words, there are, regrettably, many lots in the County and in other jurisdictions that do not have legal access.

Briggs Road is a County easement. Long ago, when establishing that easement, the County left off the parcels at the ends of the road where it meets the blacktop—most likely as a strategy to avoid taking any responsibility for grading or maintenance. And the fact-checkers should have discovered that—if they really did any checking at all. That could explain a mistake.

Regional Planning expressly considers adequate access a major issue, apparently a very high priority. The Director said that lack of adequate access is regrettable. Somehow the County failed, for whatever reason, to ensure that many lots would have adequate access. Regrettably.

But what are we to make, then, of the fact that our adequate access is cut off by public agencies?  Worse yet, what are we to make of the fact that sitting on the board of the most intractable public agency cutting us off from the world, Metrolink, is Mr. Novak’s boss, Michael. D Antonovich?

And even worse, that obstacle was created after we (and Mr. Hickling) received Mr. Novak’s email.

And Fish and Game slammed the river shut after we received Mr. Novak’s email.

And LOS ANGELES COUNTY sold the parcel at the other end of our road for a PITTANCE to the Mountains Conservancy, a CALIFORNIA agency, after we (and Mr. Hickling) received Mr. Novak’s email.

That is regrettable.

What part of this was a mistake?

Or do you have a better theory? What do you think? Write us a comment.

I will take up with Mr. Novak’s email again in the next post.

What Does the Man Say?

As promised, I emailed Norm Hickling to request more specific information about who was behind the push to landlock the Briggs Road community. “What is not clear,” I wrote, “especially now, is who or what agency now opposes our acquiring legal access to our homes.”

Mr. Hickling replied on November 14:

“One conservancy has had concerns in the past because one of the largest single properties was owned by a developer. That issue no longer exists as the City of Santa Clarita, along with large financial support the County of Los Angeles, purchased the developer’s property and have assigned it to another conservancy to keep it open as open-space. This was a major step in mitigating this issue.

“However, a rep from the original conservancy still required a submittal payment to provide access. I understand that person is no longer with that organization, so based on a meeting I had with my colleagues yesterday, will be approaching the conservancy again to try and work through this issue and change minds. I should have an update on that very soon for you.

“Crossing the Railroad is another issue that I am addressing and trying to find a solution, if one exists.” 

Norm Hickling

We want to be open-hearted, trusting people, but it is very difficult to know whom to trust or believe. We have been lied to and yanked around so much over the last decade, that we find ourselves distrusting everyone. My motivation in asking the question above was to narrow down the range of some of that suspicion. Losing so much trust is quite painful, so if I could have a better idea of who the good guys and bad guys were, I would be more comfortable.

The information about the conservancy and the thousand acres, if true, is encouraging—but we’ll believe it when we see it. We have been encouraged before, and led to anticipate a solution. We let our guard down, only to be dropped with no real progress toward an easement.

Actually it was the railroad crossing that I was most curious about when I wrote to Norm Hickling. Recall that our very own Los Angeles County Supervisor, Michael Antonovich, sits on the board of the very railroad in question, and that Norm Hickling is his deputy. These men have had almost a full decade, ten long years, to address the railroad crossing question, so we find it difficult to believe that they may find a solution soon. Reinstating that century-old crossing may have turned out to be too difficult for Mr. Antonovich to accomplish, even though he is one of the main players and his deputy is working diligently in our favor.

We would prefer to access our neighborhood by the much nicer and much shorter road that crosses the railroad.

So why might Mr. Hickling have reason to suggest that at long last he and Mr. Antonovich have an idea of how to open the railroad crossing? Unfortunately, I asked too broad of a question. I wanted to know just who was thwarting the efforts of these gentlemen, but I still do not have an answer.

I do have a theory, which I will post soon. I don’t really believe either of these men to be so incompetent.