This home at 17400 Revello Drive slid down towards the ocean June 6, 1965. Now developers want to build mega mansions on the landslide. Herald Examiner Collection Photo LOU MACK
Circling the News received the following letter that was sent to Castellammare residents urging them to speak at another hearing for additional oversize homes built on the Tramonto Landslide. CTN is printing the letter as a service to Pacific Palisades residents, who might not be aware of the latest developments.
Dear Neighbors:
Tomorrow at 11 AM is the CDP virtual hearing for the REVELLO_POSETANO projects , the PDF shows instructions for remote attendance. You can download the proposed plans from these links, however, the drawings are quite incomplete, lack basic information, dimensioning and sections, with no foundations or piles.
This is another substantial development, spearheaded by the same group, who initiated the Tramonto slide projects – they are representing the new owners of the six lots in question. The 3 homes proposed are large and also all have exempt ADUs, which seems to be the latest trend. We have noted at least the followings inconsistencies and violations of the LAMC:
- All three projects have an environmental CE (Categorical Exemption), which might be considered inappropriate at best. All projects we have done in the area, including our own home, have gone through with at least an MND (Mitigated Negative Declaration). The proposed buildings are not on an active slide as the Tramonto one, but still should at least go through some environmental checklists.
- The Posetano home exhibits an overall height over 45’, which violates LAMC 12.21.1 HEIGHT OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURES.
- The Applicants excavation amounts exceed allowable limits about x3. The BHO excavation maximum for a house on a Substandard Limited Hillside street is 750 CY, and anything over 1,000 CY requires a haul route procedure.
- The two Revello homes have no legal fire access due to the Revello pinch/dip. These will be new homes #4 and #5 (+ #6 and #7 counting the ADUs) on Revello, approved as an exception to the rule, as they are applying for the same (illegitimate in our understanding) ZA Determination to grant them an exemption from the 20’ fire access rule – the cumulative effect is staggering.
- It is our conclusion from LAMC research, that no permit under LA jurisdiction, including a CDP, can be conditioned on future compliance, verified by other agencies. Consultants for the applicant have argued, that a CDP is only an entitlement. Nevertheless, there is definition of a “permit” in LAMC 12.20.2.B, which clearly states that a CDP is indeed a permit…
- LAMC 12.20.2.J REVOCATION also states, that: “Any permit application filed or approved under the provisions of this section or Code may be immediately terminated or revoked by the permit granting authority upon a finding that one or more of the following grounds exist 1. That inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information was filed or presented in conjunction with said Permit application…” In our view, such has occurred here.
- Further, LAMC 11.02 states that: “SEC. 11.02. INCONSISTENT PERMITS AND LICENSES (Amended by Ord. No. 134,358, Eff. 6/8/67.) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code or any other ordinance of the City of Los Angeles, no permit or license shall be issued in violation of any provisions of this Code or any other ordinance of the City of Los Angeles; if any permit or license is issued in violation of any provision of this Code or any other ordinance of the City of Los Angeles the same shall be void. Any permit or license issued, which purports to authorize the doing of any act prohibited by any other provision of this Code or any other ordinance of the City of Los Angeles, shall be void…”
One can conclude that Planning:
a) cannot issue a Director of Planning Approval based on errors (an environmental CE should be considered an error as well, due to geology of the area), inadequate street access + LAMC noncompliance (2,3, 4 above)
and
b) there is no LAMC stipulation for issuing a permit based on future compliance; right the opposite, both LAMC 11.02 and 12.20.2.J clearly state that erroneous or inconsistent data in the permit application or documents should render those void.
We keep on hearing from Planning, BOE, and even the WLA APC, that “there has been no emergency or disaster so far” and “the city has no intention of repairing the street”. This is simply not right. Please, attend the hearing virtually, send emails, voice your concerns, additional letters could be submitted during any advisement period.
This is the landslide area that a developer wants to build on. Three city streets will need to be reconstructed. A portion of one that slid can still be seen midway down.
(Editor’s note: this story was updated on December 6.)