Resident sues over ‘paper road’ access

A Flintridge property owner has filed a more than $2.1 million lawsuit against the city of La Cañada Flintridge alleging the City Council is denying the man access to his property through a public road. This after the March 17 council meeting when the council in a split 2-to-2 vote decided against allowing Philip Merritt to develop the “paper road” Windermere Place as a driveway to access his property.

The council at that meeting suggested Merritt modify his plans to access the property from Hampstead Road, which connects with the other side of his property, or return to the city’s planning commission with a complete proposal of his plans in the hope that the council would alter its decision at a later date.

Windermere Place is considered an unimproved “paper road,” because it has only been plotted on paper. The 20-foot-wide road and a connecting 10-foot-wide Windermere Trail were dedicated to Los Angeles County in 1925 by developer and Flintridge namesake Frank Flint and became city-owned when the city incorporated in 1976. City staff and some council members agree with Merritt that the road was likely plotted originally to allow access to Merritt’s and other adjoining properties. However, in the years since the street was plotted, it was never developed and now involves issues not considered relevant 82 years ago, some council members said during the March 17 discussion.

The boundaries of Windermere Place contain a blue-line stream, which created additional fodder for neighbors opposed to Merritt’s development of the road and is one reason two of the four voting council members opted to leave the road on paper only at this point in time.

At the council meeting, city staff provided the council with four options for proceeding: (1) To allow public access of Windermere Place as a public street, which would mean improving the street to public standards, perform maintenance and assume liability. (2) Allow private access to Merritt’s lot over Windermere Place through an easement, which would involve vacating the street and making the property general city owned land. That option placed the liability and maintenance responsibilities on Merritt as the easement holder. (3) Vacate the street and use the land for other purposes, such as open space, which would mean no access to Merritt’s property. (4) Vacate the street and sell the property to the highest bidder. With that option, the property could be used as access, or not, based on who purchased the land.

New Mayor Steve Del Guercio excused himself from the council vote, due to a potential conflict of interest, which left the remaining four council members deadlocked, in a vote of 2-to-2, and meant no action could be taken and the road remained on paper only.

Merritt’s attorney, Arnold K. Graham, of Graham Vaage & Cisneros, in Glendale, contends that two of the voting council members “acted responsibly,” but the two who voted against his client “abdicated their duty as council members because they didn’t follow the staff’s directives.”

Graham contends his client was told by the seller’s broker and the city of La Cañada, prior to purchasing his property in 2005, that Windermere Place was plotted as an access road for that and other adjoining lots. “Plus, it’s a matter of public record. If you own property adjoining a street, you have access to the street and not only to the street but to be viewable by the public street. It’s a very simple legal issue,” he said.

According to the court document, Merritt is seeking compensation for damages, such as “attorney, appraisal, architectural, geotechnical, surveying, engineering and other fees and related expenses, and all litigation expenses.”

The damages and fees to be determined at trial would be “in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Los Angeles Superior Court, presently estimated to exceed $2.1 million,” the document states.

A handful of residents showed up at the March 17 council meeting to object to Merritt’s request. The city’s planning commission also received a list of signatures from 20 residents along Inverness Drive and Roanoke Place, who according to the petition, objected to “any utilization of Windermere [Place] off of Inverness [Drive] as a driveway for a proposed home located on Hampstead Road.” The planning commission also received one signature on a petition in support of Merritt’s request.

The lawsuit was filed on April 2 and received by the city the following day, said Mark Steres, city attorney.

The lawsuit was turned over to Steres’ office because it’s an inverse condemnation claim, meaning Merritt claims the government is taking his property by not allowing him to access it how he’d like, Steres said, adding that he’s currently reviewing the case.

Steres was at the March 17 council meeting and contends the city acted properly.