By CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA | Reporter
The California Coastal Commission denied an appeal to the proposed eldercare facility at 1525 Palisades Drive at a hearing in Santa Cruz on Wednesday, July 11, in the latest development of a months-long debacle that has taken social media and Palisadian community meetings by storm.
The decision was the latest loss by the appellants as they have now been denied an appeal by both city and state regulators.
At the hearing, attorneys for developer Rony Shram and the appellants, Pacific Palisades Residents Association, were given five minutes for a final statement before a decision was given.
“This project is going to harm these important coastal resources because the city refused to consider and evaluate views from public trails and traffic and parking impacts to public access, solely because the site is two-and-half-miles from the ocean,” said Tom Donovan, attorney for the PPRA. “We are not opposed to developing the site, but the only way the Commission can review or mitigate any impacts is by finding substantial issue.”
Speaking on Shram’s behalf, attorney Kevin McDonnell gave a short history of the lot in question and had retired fire chief Tom Oaks at the ready to answer any fire hazard-related questions. Oaks had also written a letter to Coastal Commission staff regarding any potential fire hazards and found the project, which will house and treat elderly people, would be in “little to no threat.”
Just days before, several appellants reported that proper notice had not been given to them, with some receiving empty envelopes in the mail. Requests for a postponed hearing were denied.
Steve Hudson, California Coastal Commission deputy director, later said that corrected follow-up notices were sent and that phone calls to several appellants were made to confirm receipt.
After reading the staff report that found “no substantial issue” with the project, commissioners were required to disclose any ex-parte communications held prior to the hearing. Commissioners Steve Padilla, Ryan Sundberg and Roberto Uranga all reported taking meetings or phone calls with Shram and Susan McCabe, a coastal commission lobbyist.
Padilla and Uranga also reported communications with Donovan, PPRA President Sarah Conner and former Coastal Commission Chair Sara Wan.
Commissioner Luevano reported receiving a text message from Councilmember Mike Bonin advocating for the project and stating that “most people in the community favor it.”
Additionally, local leaders like Pacific Palisades Community Council Treasurer Richard Cohen, Secretary Chris Spitz and Chair-Elect of the Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce Richard Blumenberg penned letters of support for the project to the commissioners, stating their position only as private citizens.
“I know that these projects are difficult, but I think this is an important project for the reasons stated by the applicant,” Commissioner Donne Brownsey said. “Because housing for seniors, especially in higher income zip codes, I think is very difficult to site, even though it is an extremely needed service.”
When the Coastal Commission unanimously voted to find no substantial issue, allowing the eldercare facility to be built, Shram and his consultants let out a sigh of relief and hugged each other in celebration.
“We are very pleased with the Commission’s unanimous decision,” Shram said in a statement to the Palisadian-Post. “Equally gratifying was Commissioner Brownsey’s insightful commentary about both the importance and the challenges of developing these senior communities, particularly in places like the Palisades.
“Her thoughtful remarks eloquently summarized many of our supporters’ sentiments.”
Conner expressed disappointment with the decision. She said that her association is considering a number of options for appeal in court and has until September to take legal action.
“This may well be the only way to ensure a fair hearing of all relevant issues,” Conner said in a statement to the Post.
She said the process had been tainted by politics and lobbying, and that the administrative procedures did not provide for discovery or any real way to challenge “what we believe were misleading data and statements by the developer and his supporters … ”
“Of course, most residents of The Highlands and PPRA are willing to meet with the developer to try to resolve our concerns outside of the litigation process, but to date the developer has shown no interest in such discussions,” she continued. “That avenue remains open, but in the meantime we will do what is necessary to protect the coastal resources of the Palisades Highlands.”
For Conner’s fellow PPRA board member Jan Rutkin Ostendorf, who was at the hearing in Santa Cruz, the fight is far from over.
“We’re going to keep fighting,” she said, “because this isn’t happening. No way.”
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
