RECAP on 1525 Palisades Drive
In 2018, the Pacific Palisades Residents Association (PPRA) filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate against the City of Los Angeles and the California Coastal Commission “CCC” to oppose the approval of an Eldercare Project in the Pacific Palisades Highlands.
– The PPRA filed the Petition to further its Mission: To protect and preserve the neighborhoods and the coastal and mountain environment of Pacific Palisades and surrounding areas. The PPRA is not seeking any financial compensation other than reimbursement of its attorneys fees, which it is entitled to under California law.
– The PPRA is not opposed to developing the Project site. It does not oppose eldercare facilities or development projects in general. However, this Project is too large, too tall and has insufficient parking. It is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The City and the CCC failed to sufficiently analyze the Project and failed to mandate appropriate conditions to mitigate the Project’s potential adverse effects. The City failed to adequately consider the State’s Regional Interpretive Guidelines in approving the Project.
– The City and the CCC failed to obtain sufficient evidence regarding the Project’s traffic generation and its impact on parking and public access to parkland trails. No traffic study was conducted. There were no specific projections for the number of employees and visitors who will access the Project each day. There was insufficient evidence to determine the number of required parking spaces and to accurately access the traffic impact on trail access.
– The Project’s mass and scale are incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. This 45 ft. high Project would be the tallest structure in the area at a site that is next to a park. The adjacent commercial building is only 23 ft. high.
– The City failed to consider any evidence regarding the Project’s effect on scenic public views. It incorrectly concluded that only ocean views are protected by the Coastal Act and that public views of coastal hills and mountains or views from hiking trails are not protected. This is wrong. Public views of the coastal hills and mountains are protected by the Coastal Act. The City refused to evaluate the Project’s effect on scenic public views solely because the Project is 2½ miles from the ocean, despite substantial evidence that these scenic views will be adversely impacted.
– The City’s finding of a Categorical Exemption is improper under CEQA and not supported by substantial evidence. The Project does not fit within a Class 32 exemption. It is inconsistent with the applicable general plan designation, applicable general plan policies and applicable zoning and regulations. The Project does not qualify as “infill development”; It is not located on a site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. Most of the Project site is adjacent to parkland. The City approved the Project without sufficient evidence relating to traffic, noise and water quality. The Project is also not consistent with numerous elements of the City’s Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan and its policies.
– For a more detailed understanding of the issues and PPRA’s contentions, please refer to the PPRA First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate, which is a public record on file with the Los Angeles Superior court.
We are still welcoming your donations. We are offering for any donation of $200 a beautiful bird print from talented artist Mark Cappellano. Check out our GoFundMe page for details : https://www.gofundme.com/protect-california-coastal-act or contact us info@PalisadesResidents.com
1 Comment
Stephen Dickey · April 20, 2023 at 6:19 pm
People who do not want an eldercare facility built near them have been fighting the project since 2017. Others want the facility, saying the project would fit the neighborhood and the public needs it. The trial court rejected the opponents’ challenge, which was based on Los Angeles zoning laws, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Coastal Act. These neighbors appealed. The three respondents—the City of Los Angeles, the California Coastal Commission, and the developer— defend the trial court ruling. At issue is whether a reasonable person could agree with the City’s conclusion that adding this urban building to this urban area was compatible with the plan for Brentwood and Pacific Palisades.
The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion as the City: that this proposal for an urban building is compatible with the plans for this urban area. Further, the court explained that it was for the Commission to weigh conflicting evidence; and the court may reverse only if a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion. For example, the neighbors raise the specter of a parking calamity, but the Commission concluded the nominal increase in traffic would not significantly displace street parking for hikers bound for the trails. The eldercare facility would, after all, include underground parking. This logic is sound. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s and the City’s decisions.