Rancho Area Resident’s Project Hampers Trail Access

by Jacqueline Chen

One morning last week, Vance Haemmerle was following a two-year routine when he walked to the top of Viro Road and followed an equestrian trail to a gate constructed years ago by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the convenience of its many employees who lived in La Cañada’s Rancho area. That evening, when Haemmerle tried to walk home using the same route, he found a 6-foot cliff had replaced the access road.

As it turned out, the path used by Haemmerle - and many other JPL employees who are also residents of La Cañada - is a private street belonging to an investment firm. The adjacent homeowners, Shawati and Louis Pearl, had bought a lease on the land so that they could extend their backyard.

The Pearls could not be reached for comment for this article.

Residents who called City Hall to inquire about the legality of what the Pearls are doing and to seek ways to prevent the loss of trail access, discovered the issue fell into the purview of various city agencies.

“There is an approximately ten-foot right of way in the cul-de-sac,” said Golnaz Manouchehr-pour, associate engineer in the LCF Public Works Dept. “What this means is that the area radiating about 10 feet from the center of the cul-de-sac is an easement for public right-of-way.

“However, this might not apply because the area being built on is a private street, and there is no document stating that it provides access to the horse trails,” she continued. “Our concern is that he doesn’t damage the trail in any way. He cannot build on it, cannot cut trees. He has to make sure that the work he does will not alter the trail in any way but he can build a fence in his own backyard should he wish to do so.”

Haemmerle and a group of area residents are gathering names of people who have lived there for a long time to attempt to prove the public has used the private street continuously since the 1940s, when both JPL was founded and homes were built in the area. If they are successful, it would mean that the public has an implied right to use the passageway.

Legal precedent has been set regarding such access in a nearby community. Judge C. Edward Simpson of the Los Angeles Superior Court in Pasadena ruled in June 2004 that property owners who shared 200 feet of a common driveway at the north end of El Prieto Road in Altadena and erected a fence across it had no right to block access to the San Gabriel Mountain trails.

In his written decision, Simpson explained that the plaintiffs, who had sued because the fence prevented them from using the trails, had met their burden of proof that “the public’s use was substantial, diverse and sufficient to convey to the owner notice that the public was using the passage as if it had a right so to do.”

According to Robert Stanley, the city’s director of community development, the same legislation could very well apply to the present situation.

“The city believes that there has been a public use easement over the years because of the historical use of that drive,” Stanley said.

Prescriptive Easements

City attorney Mark Steres said he is aware of the situation, but is not involved because the city would like to resolve it with the homeowner. He said it all boils down to facts of previous use, and that there are two types of easements associated with public right to use, both of which fall under the legal term “prescriptive easements.”

A prescriptive easement is created when someone uses land not belonging to him or her. Personal, or private, prescriptive easements are created when a neighbor uses a part of an adjoining property. After a time requirement is met, the user gains legal right to utilize the property.

Public, or recreational, prescriptive easements are created when the general populace has been using the property for an extended length of time. Because of the passage of California Civil Code Section 1009, the latter is difficult to attain after March 1972, and generally requires proof of usage for five years prior to 1972.

Community Develop-ment Director Stanley said no decisions have been made, and he is working with the Pearls to resolve the situation. He also said that a stop work order has been issued because the city has no information about the project.

“Mr. Pearl is getting a survey which he will provide me with to show where the property lines are,” Stanley said. “We are looking for him to provide the city with a plan of what type of work he plans on doing in that area. We have to determine what work he is doing and whether that work requires a permit.”

Building & Safety’s office manager, Ben Bartlett, confirmed that no permits have been issued for the work that is being done.

“(Mr. Pearl) has been asked to submit plans on the area in front of his garage,” he said. “One of the things he is doing is renovating a pool and he asked if he could work on the flat area around the pool, and we said ‘yes’.”

Walk to Work

The city’s response is very important to Haemmerle, he said, because he paid a premium to live in the neighborhood primarily because he wanted to walk to his job.

“Two years ago I lived in Montrose and drove to work at JPL,” he said. “I specifically bought in the neighborhood to walk to work. I am single and have no kids, so it wasn’t for the schools.

“I paid approximately $200,000 above what a similar house would go for in La Crescenta or Montrose, so walking to work cost me a lot of money. You can see why I’m interested in this issue.

“The parking at JPL is pretty bad and JPL is scheduled to grow in the near future so it’s going to get worse,” he continued. “JPL is always encouraging its employees to find alternative modes of transportation. What’s better on the environment and good for your own health than walking?”