Pac. Palisades Residents Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 08 March 2023
• Docket Number: B306658
• Parties: PACIFIC PALISADES RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents; RONY SHRAM et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

PACIFIC PALISADES RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents;

RONY SHRAM et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

B306658

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

March 8, 2023

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BS174471 John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed.

John B. Murdock; Law Offices of Thomas M. Donovan and Thomas M Donovan for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Terry Kaufmann-Macias Senior Assistant City Attorney, Donna L. Wong and Oscar Medellin, Deputy City Attorneys; Downey Brand, Kathryn L Oehlschlager and Hina Gupta for Defendant and Respondent City of Los Angeles.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Daniel A. Olivas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Andrew M. Vogel, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Justin J. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent California Coastal Commission.

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell and Matthew D. Hinks for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

WILEY J.

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. We affirm.

I

We summarize facts from the 10,425-page record.

A

The vacant one-acre lot was zoned for commercial use in 1978. The site was graded in the early 1970s; today it has no trees and few plants. A photo shows bare flat dirt behind a chain link fence.

The lot is at the corner of Palisades Drive and Vereda De La Montura in Pacific Palisades, which is an oceanside part of the City of Los Angeles with a 2008 population of some 25,000. (L.A Times, Mapping L.A., Pacific Palisades profile, (as of March 6, 2023), archived at .) The lot is "located within a densely developed 740-unit residential subdivision known as the Headlands." About half the homes in the immediate area are multifamily units; the others are single family homes. There are many large two- and three-story residential condominium units.

The area immediately surrounding the lot includes a restaurant, an office and business center, and residential condominiums. To the north and east are multifamily condominiums; to the south is commercial development.

The lot is within Los Angeles city limits; all municipal references are to that city. The parcel is within the coastal zone, about two and a half miles from the coast. Large public parks with hillside hiking trails are nearby.

The respondent developer bought this lot in 2013 and, after consultation with some neighborhood organizations, proposed a four-story project. The developer explained his motivation in a 2017 letter to neighbors. "The decision to pursue senior living was made with feedback we received from some members of the Highlands community who expressed a lack of options for older adults who wish to age in place. These sentiments were echoed by two independent market studies showing that Los Angeles in general and the Palisades in particular lack adequate housing for seniors, trailing nearly every major metropolitan area in the country." The developer sought to "establish a communication channel" with neighbors to "make the process as smooth and unobtrusive as possible." He hoped to break ground in 2018.

The record contains a detailed description of the eldercare project with architectural plans, maps, and images. The developer proposed 82 residential rooms in a 64,646 square foot building with underground parking. The ground floor of the building would have residential rooms, a public bistro, and other features, with more residential rooms on the other three floors. The building's height would range from 25 to 45 feet, making it one story higher than the tallest nearby structures. City zoning allowed for a building of this height on this lot.

B

This dispute began in June 2017, when the developer applied to the City's planning department for permission to build in accordance with the Los Angeles zoning code. He sought a coastal development permit and a "Class 32 infill project exemption" from the California Environmental Quality Act. Later we return to Class 32 exemptions.

Land use regulation in Los Angeles can be intricate. This application proceeded through six layers of review:

1. the City Zoning Administrator, 2. the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission, 3. the Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the Los Angeles City Council, 4. the Los Angeles City Council itself, 5. the California Coastal Commission and

6. the Superior Court.

We summarize these layers of scrutiny.

A Los Angeles zoning administrator conducted the first review. The administrator announced a public hearing on the project, which prompted community reactions.

Some people favored the project. For instance, a 45-year Palisades resident wrote as the chairman of the Palisades Highlands Presidents Council, a group of some 20 individual homeowners associations. The chairman related how the developer contacted this Council in 2013 to discuss possible plans before buying the site. The Council did not want another shopping center or office building. The developer worked with the Council from 2014 to 2017. The Council polled each individual homeowners association in 2015. "The results revealed that the majority of those who voted in the survey in the Highlands preferred the 64,000-square foot residential structure proposed by the developer." The chairman reported the developer had worked closely with member associations to address their concerns.

The chairman added that "[t]here is a substantial population of older residents who have lived in the Palisades Highlands or adjacent neighborhoods for decades and dread the prospects of having to move away, particularly those in town homes with many stairs. This project provides an option for them to remain in the community .... It also allows some of the younger crowd living here to bring their parents closer to them. It is our responsibility as a society to house the elderly in the very same neighborhoods in which they have lived for many years, rather than callously pushing them out of the community that they know and love."

Others were adamantly opposed to the proposal. This opposition was substantial and ranged over many subjects.

Opponents raised issues, for instance, about parking, traffic, fire hazards, the lack of nearby medical resources for seniors, the intrusion of the project upon the views and natural beauty of the area, and disruption the construction would cause.

On October 4, 2017, the zoning administrator held a public hearing attended by the developer and some 40 community members. Some people from the community spoke in favor of the project; some spoke against it.

On January 26, 2018, the administrator issued a 32-page single-spaced decision approving the proposal and granting a coastal development permit. The administrator found the project had no significant effect on the environment and therefore, by virtue of the Class 32 categorical exemption, was exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The administrator found the project was consistent with the area's general plan and zoning; specifically, it was consistent with the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan. This plan is a 60-page document the City's planning department has posted online. (https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/abf34149-0480-4d2d-9506-26b8e06fe185/Brentwood Pacific%20Palisades% 20Community%20Plan.pdf (as of March 6, 2023), archived at .) It is a part of the general plan for Los Angeles, and was last updated in 1996. "The City of Los Angeles has the responsibility to revise and implement the City's General Plan." (Id. p. II-3; see also L.A. Municipal Code, Art. 1.5, (as of March 6, 2023), archived at .) This plan thus has the stature of municipal hopes and intentions for the City circa 1996.

The administrator found the "site and surrounding area are urbanized areas." The proposal's design theme would preserve community character. There was ample landscaping throughout and outside the building. The site had no threatened species, and there would be no significant impact on traffic or parking. "The project design is entirely consistent with current surrounding development."

Opponents and their counsel appealed this decision to the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission in February 2018. Neighbors filed a 58-page brief citing a host of objections.

Again, the opponents' objections ranged widely, and included the following:

The project would be inconsistent with the parklike neighborhood which included features of natural beauty, rugged rocks, and teeming wildlife. The area was a fire hazard zone and vulnerable to flash floods, slides, and earthquakes. The eldercare proposal lacked nearby supporting medical, rescue, and emergency facilities. Neighbors were overwhelmingly opposed to the project. The project was incompatible with the surrounding wilderness and parklands, would ruin scenic values and views, and would bring excessive density. The project would worsen parking and traffic congestion and lacked supporting public transportation. The added traffic would dramatically increase the risk of speeding cars, accidents, injuries, and deaths. The traffic nightmare would create a significant risk of death and...