By SARAH SHMERLING | Editor-in-Chief
Pacific Palisades Community Council hosted a special meeting on Monday evening, May 20, regarding the Tramonto landslide and proposed “largescale development” of four homes in Castellammare, ultimately voting in support of urging the city of Los Angeles to require an environmental impact report for the project.
The PPCC Board reported in a background summary that in April 2023, it learned about the proposed construction of four homes over 12 existing lots along the 17500 blocks of Tramonto and Revello drives at the top of the Tramonto landslide, ranging from 2,619 square feet to 7,695 square feet (each with 2,428 to 6,292 square feet of basement space).
PPCC also reported that it learned at the time Castellammare Mesa Home Owners filed an appeal with the West LA Area Planning Commission of the planning director’s approval of Coastal Development Permits and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
“An MND is a determination under the California Environmental Quality Act that mitigation measures can be implemented for a particular project to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, without requiring an environmental impact report,” according to PPCC.
At the time, the PPCC Board was informed of concerns related to the “scale of the project” and the “unstable geology of the underlying slide at the foot of the property to be developed.” The board passed a motion in 2023 calling for the EIR, as well as urging the city to “ensure the preservations of the public’s safety throughout construction and mitigating any construction impact on local roadways.” The PPCC Executive Committee sent a supplemental letter in October 2023.
A five-hour appeal hearing of the proposed project took place in November 2023, with the WLA-APC adopting an MND for the project and approving CDPs for the proposed homes, with conditions. The Castellammare Mesa Home Owners has appealed the adoption of the MND.
A landslide that occurred in February of this year has blocked the right lane of Pacific Coast Highway at the base of the Tramonto landslide, reported PPCC Area 1 Representative Murray Levy, raising “urgent and immediate concerns about the planned construction.”
While Caltrans plans to restripe the area to create an additional lane and help alleviate traffic concerns, the agency has reported it will not clear debris from the lane, “as that action would cause further slope destabilization and slippage,” according to PPCC’s summary. “The city must stabilize the slope above before the lane can be restored to use.”
All of the sites of the proposed development project, Tony Russo of Crest Real Estate—speaking on behalf of the applicant, Springhouse Hamilton Park LLC—explained at the November hearing, are located within the Tramonto landslide. The city requires the project “must remediate the landslide per code to ensure the safety of the development in the area.”
In the late 1960s, Russo continued, Tramonto was restored to its pre-landslide condition through the construction of a bulkhead, which was later reinforced in 1981. In February 2021, city engineers concluded the bulkhead and tie-back system appear “structurally sound,” according to Russo.
“Ultimately, the project proposes the four residences on piles that will stabilize the landslide and achieve the required factors of safety,” Russo said at the time.
During the nearly two-and-a-half-hour special meeting on May 20, presentations were made by Council District 11 Planning Deputy Jeff Khau on behalf of Councilmember Traci Park; developers Greg Demos of Demos Development and Russo; and Kim Feder along with many residents of the area and members of Castellammare Mesa Home Owners.
Khau explained that the council office, which has previously spoke in favor of the project, is in a state of gathering updated information, especially in light of recent landslides.
“Right now, we’re really looking at a CEQA appeal for the Mitigated Negative Declaration,” Khau described. “We have the opportunity right now to consider an EIR for this project—[consider] whether or not an environmental impact report is an appropriate environmental clearance for this project, given the complexities, given the controversy around this project.”
The location of the landslides and where the remediation needs to occur, Khau described, is on private property, with plans for additional city-owned lots in the area to be sold, possibly to the developer, through a bidding process in the future.
In a report in 2010, Khau said, it was determined there was an active landslide in the area that would cost $25 million to fix, but the city was unable to remediate it at the time, due to lack of funds and staff. This is why, Khau continued, the council office originally felt this proposed project, which would take over responsibility for the landslide remediation on the relevant lots, was beneficial.
The developers spoke next, with Russo saying he hoped “the takeaway from this presentation is that the project, although large in scale, is a net benefit of this community and stakeholders:” “It’s in no one’s interest to do nothing here,” he quoted a planning commissioner as stating.
The scope of the project, Russo described, includes the export and removal of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of landslide debris, which amounts to approximately 70,000 million pounds of “mass that will not be a driving force on landslide materials to the south.”
“The development will be visually compatible with other homes in the area that are large, multi-story, estate-size homes,” Russo continued.
“Key project benefits,” according to the presentation, include is addresses orders to comply, installs pile supported retaining wall along bulkhead, new voluntary sidewalk and cross gutter, a turnaround on Revello for fire and life safety, repair any potential damage along Revello, construction sequencing commitments, and voluntary construction conditions.
Russo ended his presentation by touching on why the project has an MND instead of an EIR, which, he explained, was determined by LA City Planning.
“They are the lead agency making the final decisions and determinations,” Russo explained. “Planning does, however, require the applicant to analyze many different categories of environmental impacts, such as air quality, geology, traffic, biology, etc., to determine if the project has a significant impact on the environment … the documents ultimately concluded that there is simply no unmitigable impact.”
Demos spoke next, explaining that he originally bought two lots in the area in 2015. After finding out that he would need to remediate the landslide in order to develop on the lots, he began to speak with 40-plus residents in the area over the course of several months to attempt to coordinate an effort to remediate it.
He learned that a “project of this scale would be impossible, given the number of people that would need to rely on each other with conflicting views and uncertain financial means.” So, he said, he began to strategically acquire other lots in the area to develop and remediate through a proposed project.
Feder then spoke, acknowledging that the Castellammare Mesa Home Owners had “some reservations” about the proposed development, but are not opposed to it overall.
“What we are opposed to is unsafe, risky and non-compliant development that has not been through a complete due diligence process,” Feder continued. “We are asking PPCC for your support in requiring a full and independent EIR be required to move forward.”
Feder, as well as other residents and members of the HOA, presented on a number of topics related to the “intricate mitigation issues,” ranging from biological (monarch butterflies located in the area) to noise and vibrations during construction and putting responsibility for mitigating the landslide in the hands of the developer versus the city of LA.
“If this project is allowed to move forward without an EIR,” Feder said, “a dangerous precedent will be set for all communities.”
The presentation included transportation and fire risk, the amount of excavation proposed and concerns about hydrology.
“The tagline that I’ve seen a lot is ‘taking action is better than nothing,’” Feder concluded. “It isn’t, it isn’t better than nothing. It’s going to create more problems, and it doesn’t solve a problem either.”
Following the presentations, Russo and Demos were given a chance to respond, followed by additional response by Castellammare Mesa Home Owners and residents. Then, a motion was proposed.
“PPCC supports the appeal of Castellammare Mesa [Home Owners] with adoption of an independent and full EIR, and urges City Council to require this environmental impact report,” read a motion by PPCC President Maryam Zar that was unanimously approved to support by board members. “It is essential that this report be prepared by an independent, neutral and experienced expert focusing on the geological instability in the area in order to examine and ultimately determine whether or not the Tramonto project will further stabilize the hillside resulting in continuing slide activity or otherwise compromised public safety.”
PPCC discussed the meeting at its regular Thursday, May 23 board meeting—finalizing the wording of its position:
“In light of the factors raised during our Special Meeting of May 20 and the inherent concerns that come with being a hillside neighborhood entirely within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone with very few major arteries of ingress and egress, PPCC supports the appeal by Castellammare Mesa Home Owners of the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tramonto Project. We insist, instead, that the City Council require a full Environmental Impact Report, performed independently by a responsible consultant that is approved by the City. We also ask that the City of LA prioritize the stabilization of the Tramonto Slide as part of its mandate to protect the public’s safety—partnering with the County and the State if need be to accomplish that goal.”
The hearing of the MND appeal, set to take place before the City Council Planning & Land Use Management Committee, has been continued from May 21 to July 31 at the earliest. The project would also need California Coastal Commission approval.
Editor’s note: This story was updated May 31 to add PPCC’s finalized wording of its position.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
