none, Plans only - Residential repai, Staff Reports•
Ci4f 0/ RO/1�L
MEMORANDUM
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: COMPLAINT RAISED BY SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MCHATTIE REGARDING 20 GEORGEFF
ROAD (ALLOCO).
DATE: MARCH 23, 1995
At the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, March 21, 1995, Doug
McHattie approached the Planning Commission under written and oral
communications indicating that he was seeking direction from the Planning
Commission relative to a land subsidence/failure that occurred at an unknown
address in the City. Mr. McHattie indicated that it costs "$4,000 just to ask the
question" as to whether the grading can occur because it falls under the City's Site
Plan Review Ordinance. I had not heard of this complaint before and it had been
only verbally presented to Principal Planner Lola Ungar as a "grading" request
which clearly falls under Site Plan Review.
Mr. McHattie indicated at the meeting that he felt that these people should not have
to pay fees because they are simply going to restore the slope back to its original
condition. During the meeting, he indicated that he felt that the pool was now
failing, the land supporting the deck was failing and that the hillside was failing.
Although he did not utter the words, it appeared to be everybody's impression that
this land failure was a result of recent rainstorms and represented an emergency.
I indicated to the Planning Commission that I wished to further review this item
because in a worst case scenario, staff could return this to the Planning Commission
in a "one -stop permit process" format similar to how we had handled the Grubs'
structural fire when they had simply requested to return their structure to its
original configuration.
In further discussing this with Mr. McHattie outside the meeting, he indicated that
the rain simply exaggerated the problem and the hillside had been -subsiding for a
couple of years. Further, he stated that the applicant had two soils studies, the
-1-
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
second of which was pursued by the applicant because he did not trust the findings
in the initial study.
I indicated to Mr. McHattie that we will be more than happy to inspect this
condition on Wednesday, the 22nd of March with assistance from the Los Angeles
County Building Department. We attempted to schedule a meeting for that day or
Thursday the 23rd. However, when learning that the situation was not an
emergency but rather the result of inappropriate or "bad" grading that had once
occurred on the property, I was compelled to indicated to Mr. McHattie that fees
would probably have to be assessed for the standard public hearing review process
under Site Plan Review. Staff could, however, accelerate the application process to a
one -stop permit application to be handled during the Planning Commission's
regular field trip to be held on Wednesday, April 5. In order to comply with State
public hearing requirements, staff respectfully requested that Mr. McHattie provide
plans and a property owner's mailing list no later than Thursday, March 23.
According to Mr. McHattie, Mr. Alloco indicated that he was no longer going to
pursue the repair of this slope and did not wish to pursue the situation further.
According to Mr. McHattie, he has been conducting numerous slope subsidence
inspections in the City. Mr. McHattie indicates that most of the lots in the City were
graded at approximately the same time and may be subsiding due to similar
deteriorating conditions such as weather, over a period of time. It is his opinion
that the City may see an increase in minor slope subsidence in the upcoming year.
Mr. McHattie suggested that the City may wish to consider an administrative review
process for grading on properties where the applicant only wishes to restore the
hillside to the condition in which it existed following the initial issuance of a
grading permit. Under this scenario, staff would be able to review grading
applications, outside of the Site Plan Review process, when no further expansion of
the building pad or buildable area is proposed by the applicant. This seemed to be an
idea worth exploring. Mr. McHattie will be placing his considerations in writing
and we will be preparing a report for consideration by the Planning Commission at a
future meeting.
CRN: mlk
allocofile.mem
cc: City Council
-2-