Second District Rejects PPRA Highlands Eldercare Project Appeal

By LILY TINOCO | Assistant Editor

The Second District Court of Appeal rejected the Pacific Palisades Residents Association’s appeal against the development of an eldercare facility in The Highlands in a new ruling filed Wednesday, March 8.

The court affirmed its previous decision that the project is consistent with the Los Angeles Zoning Code, California Coastal Commission and more.

PPRA has been fighting aspects of the development dating back to 2018, appealing exemptions and approvals by the city and California Coastal Commission of the four-story, 45-foot-high, 64,646-square-foot project by Brentwood-based developer Rony Shram.

PPRA initially filed a petition for writ of mandate on July 24, 2018, and took the city to court in 2020 before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John A. Torribio. The brief alleged ways the project violates city ordinances and state laws. Torribio denied PPRA’s motion on April 21, 2020.

PPRA then filed a notice of appeal in Superior Court to overturn the ruling. The appeal was heard virtually on Thursday, January 26.

The March 8 filing affirmed the court’s original ruling, stating “the three respondents—the city of Los Angeles, the California Coastal Commission and the developer—defend the trial court ruling. We affirm.”

The court found that PPRA devoted “the bulk” of their brief to one issue: that the project is larger than LA zoning allows, and that the city incorrectly applied provisions to the project lot’s “buildable area,” or “yard” space.

“This zoning controversy boils down to one sentence in the law: section 12.22.A.18(c)(3),” the filing read.

Section 12.22.A.18.(c)(3) states that no yard requirements apply to the residential portions of buildings located on lots used for combined commercial and residential uses.

“The trial court correctly ruled this provision means no yard requirements applied to the residential portions of the eldercare facility,” according to the filing. “The conclusion is simple: no yard requirements apply here. This demolishes the opponents’ zoning argument.”

PPRA also argued that the project would strain architectural compatibility and views.

The filing stated “substantial evidence supports the city’s finding of compatibility between the project and the neighborhood.”

“The record shows this neighborhood has been a subdivision of Los Angeles for many decades,” according to the filing. “There are nearby public parks and open space, which no doubt is a lovely aspect of the neighborhood. But Pacific Palisades and Brentwood are not undeveloped seashores or wildernesses far from roads and other marks of human activity. They are subdivisions of the second largest city in America. The urbanized character of this site and the surrounding area thus are facts unchallenged in our court.”

In response to PPRA’s challenge against the Coastal Commission’s decision, the Coastal Commission decided the appeal presented “no substantial issue” under the Coastal Act.

The Coastal Commission and city referred to a traffic study that found the project would not have a significant effect on nearby intersections, and that any increase in traffic would not “significantly displace” street parking because the facility would include underground parking.

“The neighbors’ opening brief does not supply an adequate legal analysis explaining this proposed result,” the filing concluded. “We will not overturn the Commission’s decision on this basis … the motion to take judicial notice is denied.”

“PPRA is deeply disappointed by the decision of the Court of Appeals, which seemed bent on approving a huge non-conforming development based on a last-minute addition of a bistro restaurant to an Eldercare facility,” PPRA said in a statement to the Palisadian-Post. “This unwanted and unnecessary project should have been stopped by the City of Los Angeles in the first place. Perhaps now that Mike Bonin has been replaced by Traci Park as our council member, our community’s needs will take priority over ill-conceived projects.”

Shram did not respond to request for comment as the Post went to print Tuesday, March 21.