By CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA | Reporter
Three West Los Angeles Area Planning Commissioners rejected a community appeal against the proposed eldercare facility on Palisades Drive on Wednesday, April 18.
The unanimous vote allowed the project to continue, thwarting the efforts of community groups who have collected hundreds of signatures opposed to the four-story business.
After more than three hours of presentations by lawyers on behalf of Brentwood developer Rony Shram, appellants and more than 50 Palisadians who had overcome traffic nightmares on PCH to speak at the hearing, the decision both electrified and deflated the crowded auditorium.
Many Highlands residents supported attorneys Robert Flick and Jonathan Klar as they challenged the project on environmental, traffic and safety grounds.
But there were also many supporters, largely from the Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce, who urged the commissioners to squash the appeal.
Because of the record number of Palisadians wanting to speak, they were restricted to one minute each—and spent time trying not to duplicate each other.
Councilmember Mike Bonin delivered a statement via representative Len Nguyen, speaking out in support of the project. This was the first time he revealed his position.
Bonin’s letter attributed his support to the Pacific Palisades Community Council’s “finding that the use is appropriate for the C-1 zone property.”
Maryam Zar, PPCC chair, had written letters to Bonin informing him the PPCC accepted the legal zoning of the area for commercial development, but recusing themselves from making a determination on building design or its conformity with the coastal and environmental laws.
There is now concern that the ruling sets a precedent for future coastal developments under Coastal Commission guidelines.
The balance on the state body itself is said to be “in play” between, crudely speaking, slow growth advocates and more commercially minded champions—so it remains unclear how the Sacramento board members may view last week’s vote.
PPCC Board Members Richard Cohen, Chris Spitz and George Wolfberg spoke in favor of the project.
They made sure to announce they were speaking on their own behalf and not as a part of the council jurisdictions they had just mentioned they were part of.
Even as the vote drew, the commissioners did not appear to unanimously support the project.
“To say, without doing any kind of study whatsoever, that there is no habitat value and to cross that off the list without an objective and open study, that is rushing through this a little bit,” Commission President Esther Margulies said. “I am concerned about that. In my opinion, we have not had the level of study, in terms of the environmental quality, that really is required for this unique site.”
Support from both Commissioner Michael Newhouse, who attributed his vote due to a lack of tangible evidence produced by Shram’s opponents, and Lisa Waltz Morocco, who believed it to be an appropriate use of a commercial site, surprised Margulies.
So, she decided not to vote based on “principles” but instead for the “best service to the community.”
After the hearing, Flick and Klar said they would not give up and will be exploring other options, including an appeal to the Coastal Commission.
Once the city has formally informed the state body of the most recent decision, expected to happen by April 27, the opposition will have just 10 days to file an appeal.
Legal observers said they will have to dampen the emotional appeal—“they are painting a horrific picture of The Highlands in general: Why would anyone want to risk living there?” said one neutral attorney at the meeting—and focus more on rebutting legal arguments and studies.
This process could take another six months, ensuring that Shram’s hopes of breaking ground any time soon may again be put on hold.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
