Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose Pacific View Drive vacation; council continues item for one week
Summary
Residents objected to a proposed vacation of an easement on Pacific View Drive, citing utilities, the hillside ordinance and inadequate notice; the applicant defended the project and the council continued the item to Aug. 12 for further review.
Neighbors near Pacific View Drive urged the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday to reject a proposed vacation of an easement that opponents said supports utilities and a narrow, winding hillside street.
Multiple residents said they were not properly notified of earlier hearings and that the application contains inaccuracies. Carrie Rudolph, a Pacific View Drive resident, said the applicant’s environmental assessment answered “no” for many questions that should have been answered “yes,” and that the vacation would remove a long-standing easement that helps serve utilities on the hillside. “The city is being asked to give up an easement that has maintained for a century, which supports our neighborhood solely so that the owner can raise the value of his property and enrich himself,” Rudolph said.
Other neighbors echoed concerns about losing the easement and the practical difficulty of relocating a utility pole and existing services. Charles Alvarez told the council the pole in question carries power, telephone, cable and internet lines and that “there’s very little space or room available for an alternate location.” Art Sawyer, a 28-year resident, said the vacation would “sacrifice a critical street and hillside buffer for the benefit of a single landowner.”
The applicant’s representative, Mandy Rafferty, and project representative Gary Hunt defended the application. Rafferty said the 16–18 month approval process involved reviews by multiple bureaus and that the vacation area does not include the 40-foot right-of-way or utilities. Hunt said the project would provide a 40-foot easement and ultimately widen the pavement and that no utilities would be moved.
Councilmember Raman asked for a one-week continuance to allow additional follow-up; she requested the continuance for further review of the questions raised during public comment. The council continued the item to Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, without objection.
The vacation request also touches on the city’s hillside rules: opponents urged the council to enforce the Mulholland/hillside standards and to return the matter to committee for additional review; the applicant said the project would still have to meet hillside and other review processes.
Councilmembers did not make a final determination on the vacation on Tuesday; instead they postponed further action to allow staff and council offices to address the neighborhood’s concerns and to ensure required notifications and reviews were complete.
