Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Stanton Groman house at Pinnacle Place with reduced height and setback changes
Summary
The Los Angeles City Council granted Stanton Groman’s appeal to build a single‑family residence at 11979 Pinnacle Place, approving PLUM committee recommendations and several amendments that reduce the rear ridge height and increase the rear setback; the council also noted the applicant’s agreement to dismiss a lawsuit tied to the project.
The Los Angeles City Council on a unanimous vote approved an appeal by applicant Stanton Groman to build a home at 11979 Pinnacle Place, adopting the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee report with amendments that change the project’s height and setbacks.
Alan Apshez, representing applicant Stanton Groman, told the council the applicant has pursued the project for “approximately 4 years” in a subdivision that is largely built out and said PLUM had unanimously recommended approval. The council adopted amendments that increased the rear setback by 2 feet (to a revised setback of 48 feet), lowered the ridge height of the rear section by 2 feet (to a reported total ridge of 134 feet for that section), and moved the house footprint forward on the lot an additional 2 feet. The applicant also agreed to settle and dismiss a lawsuit described in the record as Grumman Mortuaries, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles as part of the package of concessions.
Councilmember Feuer introduced the amendments and urged adoption of the unanimous PLUM recommendation; Councilmember Bernsen seconded them. The council recorded a roll‑call vote of 15 ayes and approved the project as amended.
Members of the public and nearby property owners opposed some aspects of the project. Corin Khan, speaking on behalf of Dr. Niles Chapman, asked the council to require a 10‑foot increase rather than the 2‑foot increase proposed for the rear setback, saying the house would affect use of adjacent parkland. The council considered that request but adopted the smaller amendment negotiated with the applicant and reflected in exhibit A‑1 delivered to the planning department.
The PLUM committee’s report and the amendments were the operative documents cited by staff and counsel during the discussion; the planning department materials and the exhibit referenced by the applicant were retained in the administrative record.
The council’s action grants the appellant’s appeal and implements the setback and height changes described above; the record notes no further council directions or subsequent conditions beyond those motions.
