Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeal Running Canyon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues contentious Running Canyon appeal, asks for additional fire‑safety review
Summary
A long‑running appeal over a proposed two‑family residence in Running Canyon was continued to April 1 after extensive public testimony for and against. Appellants raised fire‑safety and access concerns; the applicant provided engineering and fire department materials and said proposed improvements would meet code.
The committee continued an appeal concerning a proposed two‑family residential project in Running Canyon and directed both the applicant and staff to prepare additional materials addressing fire‑safety, access and environmental concerns.
The appeal challenges determinations related to grading, project entitlements and the adequacy of environmental review for a property adjacent to Running Canyon Park. Appellants — including members of the Hillside Federation and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy — argued the project would exacerbate wildfire risk, that private driveway widths and turnaround areas did not comply with current fire‑safety standards and that the city’s environmental findings did not address newly relevant information about fire hazard.
Representatives for the applicant, the Valencia family, and their consultants said the project was the result of a decade of public review, that the design had been reduced in size from earlier proposals, and that the Department of Fire had reviewed and approved the project’s water supply and access plans. The applicant’s team provided letters and technical reports including a retired fire chief’s inspection and supporting materials the applicant said demonstrate compliance.
Committee members asked for a clearer record on which fire‑safety standards apply to existing private roads and whether new state or local standards apply to the proposed construction; members also requested specific documentation from LAFD and other technical reviewers. Because the committee’s decision window required additional technical review and because members voiced concerns after recent local wildfire incidents, the committee continued the appeal to give staff and the applicant time to prepare more targeted studies and to consult with the fire department. The committee set an anticipated return date of April 1, subject to applicant consent.
Public testimony was extensive and sharply divided: neighbors and community organizations urged denial or continuation pending additional analysis; dozens of supporters of the applicant described community outreach and compliance steps taken over many years. The committee recorded a continuation and asked staff to work with the applicant and the Office of the City Attorney to define the technical scope of work requested.
