Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Grading Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds denial of Pacific Palisades grading appeal after contested geotechnical reviews
Summary
The Los Angeles City Council voted 11-0 to deny an appeal of Department of Building and Safety approvals for grading and a parcel map modification in Pacific Palisades, ending a public hearing that featured conflicting geologists' findings and disputed cut-and-fill volumes.
The Los Angeles City Council on July 20 voted 11-0 to deny an appeal by the Pacific Palisades Community Council of a Department of Building and Safety determination permitting grading and a parcel map modification on a hillside property in Council District 11.
The appeal argued the developer exceeded grading limits set in the parcel map and that the city's environmental review and slope stability analysis were inadequate. Jack Allen, speaking for the Pacific Palisades Community Council, told the council that the owner had “cut and filled an additional thousand cubic yards above what he was permitted” and that the city had not fully considered potential impacts to slope stability and groundwater. Pam Schmidt, an attorney representing the property owner (identified in the hearing as Ronan), asked the council to “uphold the Plum Committee's decision to deny the appeal.”
The dispute turned on technical geotechnical findings. Allen said an independent geologist hired by the appellant found insufficient data to assess groundwater effects and recommended additional borings and a groundwater contour map. Council staff and the city's geologist, represented in the hearing by a city speaker, said the city's geologist re-reviewed the borings and recalculated slope stability using conservative assumptions and concluded the parcel could be made safe with specified conditions. The Plum Committee recommended denying the appeal and adopting the city's findings; the council voted to adopt that recommendation.
Transcript material presented numeric differences that were central to the appeal: the appellant said grading had been limited by a parcel restriction to roughly 300 cubic yards but that the developer submitted plans and later cut and filled about 1,760 cubic yards (about 1,700 cubic yards more than the appellant said had been permitted). The city described the work as remedial grading with conditions to address drainage and stability. The council directed no further action beyond adopting the committee findings.
Votes and next steps: The council closed the public hearing, opened and closed the roll call, and recorded 11 ayes; the motion to adopt the Plum Committee findings and deny the appeal carried. No further mitigation measures or additional council directions were recorded on the public transcript.
Background and context: The item had a committee hearing before coming to full council; the parcel map and grading approvals are governed by the city's planning and building rules and by environmental review requirements. The appellant pressed for additional subsurface study and mapping to resolve groundwater uncertainties; city staff reported that, after reanalysis, the geologic conditions could be addressed by the recommended conditions on the project.
Ending: The council's vote leaves the city's findings and the parcel map modification in place subject to the conditions and mitigation the city's geologist and planning staff required.
