Photo courtesy of Shram Development
By CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA | Reporter
A report published by the California Coastal Commission on an appeal to the proposed eldercare facility on 1525 Palisades Drive found that “no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed.”
After the Pacific Palisades Residents Association formally appealed the project set forth by developer Rony Shram, the report published June 29 is set to be reviewed at a hearing in Santa Cruz on July 11 and shifts the weight further against the appellants.
Ready to defend the appeal on behalf of the PPRA and 170 appellants, attorney Tom Donovan called the report “disappointing,” and full of errors and omissions. While the report stands in stark contrast of their position, their strategy and opposing arguments remain the same. A 13-page response letter has also been sent to the commission in light of the report, in hopes of pointing out where the appellants think it went wrong.
“I think that the applicant has studiously avoided telling everybody how many employees and visitors are going to be at this project,” Donovan said in an interview with the Palisadian-Post while explaining what he saw wrong with the Coastal Commission’s report.
He also pointed out the lack of a legitimate traffic impact study that such a facility would have.
Former Coastal Commission chair and commissioner for 15 years, Sara Wan, also found significant flaws in the report.
“What’s disturbing to me most, if you look at the staff report … there are a couple of major issues that they missed,” Wan said.
She questioned why there had not been a view analysis done by the city of Los Angeles and why parking specifications for nearby residents were not laid out.
Wan’s concerns seemed to be in line with an issue brought forth at the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission appeal hearing on April 18 by Commission President Esther Margulies.
“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,” Margulies said before deferring to the opinion of her counterparts and voting against the appeal.
“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.”
In a statement provided to the Post via email, developer Shram said, “We are very pleased with the staff report, which confirms that our proposal is appropriate and allowable at this site.”
Some of the appellants have been calling foul on Shram for contracting McCabe & Company, one of the most powerful coastal project lobbying firms in California. Shram’s land use attorney, Benjamin Reznick’s law firm Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP, was at number one in the “Top Ten Lobbying Firms by Lobbying Client Payments, 2007-2009.” according to MapLight, a political finance-tracking website.
At the hearing in Santa Cruz, both sides will only be given five minutes to present their case, before delegation begins by the Coastal Commission. The board members will be required to disclose any ex-parte communications they have had on the matter.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
