Return to Index of 2014 Minutes

MINUTES FOR MARCH 27th 2014

Voting Members in Attendance: Chris Spitz, Jennifer Malaret, Ted Mackie, Sue Kohl, Richard Wulliger, Gil Dembo, Harry Sondheim, Brenda Theveny, Stuart Muller, George Wolfberg, Jack Allen, Paul Glasgall, Donna Vaccarino, Andrew Wolfberg, and Cathy Russell.

Voting Alternates: John Glasgow.
Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: Steve Cron, Laura Mack, Carol Bruch, Richard Cohen, and Steve Boyers.

Start of Business Meeting

1.0 Reading of Community Council’s Mission: Laura Mack read the Mission Statement.

2.0 Call to Order and Introduction of the Board and Audience. Acting as President with Barbara Kohn absent, Chris Spitz called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Introduction of the Board and audience.

3.0 Certification of Quorum. The President certified that a quorum was present at 7:04 pm.

4.0 Adoption of Minutes. Adoption of the March 13, 2014 minutes. Next Meetings: April 10, 2014 and April 24, 2014 Citizen of the Year and Sparkplug Gala Dinner Event (see below).

5.0 Consideration of Agenda. The President considered the agenda.

6.0 Treasurer’s Report. Ted Mackie reported the financial status as of March 27, 2014. The total account balances equal $37,257.05. Citizen of the Year account balances currently total $21,781.00. Responses to the newsletter have totaled only 137 to date and that is a historic low since 2007.

7.0 Reports, Announcements and Concerns

7.1. Announcements from the Acting President, Chris Spitz

7.1.1 – Reminder to RSVP for the 2014 Citizen of the Year and Sparkplug Gala Dinner Event, Thursday, April 24, 2014 at the Riviera Country Club. Janet Turner, Event Chair. Jim Rea, Program Chair and Tribute Book. Chris Spitz urged all board members to turn in their RSVPs and continue outreach to organizations and area organizations and residents.

7.1.2 – City of Los Angeles Notices – Chris reported that the City Council unanimously passed a motion drafted by Councilmember Bonin to require that PPCC and BCC receive the same city planning notices as are required to be distributed to NCs.
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2013/13-1625_CA_03-18-14.pdf

7.1.3 – Report on WRAC Town Hall on 3/26/14, a public forum on traffic, safety and planning issues affecting the Westside with scheduled speakers to have included Councilmembers Bonin and Koretz, City Planning officials Michael LoGrande and Greg Shoop, and LAPD Deputy Chief Teri Hara. Chris reported that she, Paul Glasgall and Patrick Hart attended the Town Hall and enjoyed various speakers. Paul Glasgall reported that, in conjunction with the C-PAB meeting, it was announced that a program to concentrate resources on Sunset regarding speeding and motorcycles would be implemented. Crime is down 17.8% in WLA, but violent crime is flat. The Palisades is ranked 3rd in the City as to the least amount of crime. A homeless encampment was removed at Skirball and Sepulveda due to sanitization reasons after a three-month process and the removal took 3 days. Chris Spitz reported that Alan Bell spoke on the ReCode LA initiative and expressed that this was the most important piece of planning legislation we will experience in our life times. Comments are due May 2, 2014. Chris urged everyone to take a look at that report (ReCode.LA) and to provide comments. Councilmember Bonin is concerned about the loss of affordable housing; at the next PPCC meeting there may be a presentation from a WRAC representative on this topic.

7.1.4 Public Statements by PPCC Board Members – Chris reminded members of the board to refer to Article 5, Section (4)(B). Chris stated that the amended Bylaws will be posted soon on the council website.

7.2. Announcements from Governmental Representatives

7.2.1Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) – SLO Officer Moore. Not in attendance.

7.2.2 Los Angeles City Council, District 11; Councilmember Mike Bonin’s Office. www.11thdistrict.com. Not in attendance.

7.2.3 Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Daniel Tamm Westside Area Representative, Mayor’s Interfaith Liaison (*attending on the 4th Thursday of each month). Mayor’s Website: www.lamayor.org. City Services webpage: http://www.lacity.org/CitywideServices/index.htm. MyLA Phone App: http://www.lacity.org//MyLA311/index.htm. (1) Public Safety – Daniel expressed that public safety is of paramount importance to City Hall. There will be a forum at United Methodist Church, Wilshire Boulevard, April 2, 2014. (2) The Planning Department is very excited about ReCode LA. The Los Angeles zoning code is the second oldest in the nation behind Cleveland, without zoning codes being reformed since 1946. SB1818 is not doing what is was intended to do and the City is aware of that. (3) The Mayor has been making public attendances, including the Budget Conference 101. Questions: (a) Paul Glasgall asked about how much business LA has lost to other cities in the motion picture industry. Daniel replied that it is significant, Texas, North Carolina, Canada, New Mexico, New York and other states have made very generous offers. Patrick Hart expressed concerns about LA residents in the film industry who are on unemployment due to the movement out of the City. (b) George Wolfberg reminded the Mayor’s Office of the Administrative Citation Enforcement (“ACE”) program and the process to have that implemented and enforced. Daniel expressed that he would follow up with Detective Thomas. George reported that ACE is a pilot program limited to police and animal enforcement. (c) Cathy Russell asked about the closing of the CA Incline. George Wolfberg reminded that this is a City of Los Angeles project that will take place in Santa Monica relative to the Coastal Interceptor project, the current signs do not relate to the Incline. (d) Carol Bruch asked about the hiring of Dr. Lucy Jones regarding retrofitting issues and wondered about a progress report and if an individual could ask for relevant statistics. Daniel responded that he will try to facilitate having Dr. Jones appear in person to speak and respond to these questions.

7.2.4 California State Assembly, Office of Assemblymember Richard Bloom’s Office. http://www.asmdc.org/bloom. Not in attendance. Chris Spitz reported that the Assembly Office is working on signage along PCH relative to transients and Stephanie Cohen will be at our next meeting to give an update.

7.3. Announcements from Board Members and Advisors

7.3.1 Area Representatives – Report on Behalf of Areas. (1) George Wolfberg (At-Large Rep) reported on the PCH Task Force Meeting. The PCH Task Force was established long ago by Sheila Kuehl who recognized the different jurisdictional agencies involved with the coast highway and the resulting complexities. This Task Force has been continued by subsequent elected officials. See report below. Discussion: Steve Cron asked about widening of PCH near the Bel Air Bay Club. Jack Allen spoke about the formation of the Task Force and original issues that included wanting three left turning lanes from Temescal Canyon and whether that issue could be reintroduced now. Stuart Muller stated that he worked with various agencies and none were interested in cooperating on such a change. Andrew Wolfberg asked about additional LAPD resources. George stated that there will be some assistance provided particularly with hope to directing traffic. Gil Dembo predicted that traffic counts throughout the Palisades will be increased as a result of this and other contemporary events. (2) Jack Allen (Area 5) reported that Area 5 residents have recently complained about USPS delivery, both mis-delivered or not delivered at all. John Glasgow agreed that mail delivery is a problem. Second, Jack reported that the “Beast of Chautauqua” is back, the previously reported on mastiff that had bitten four residents resulting in the dog being removed for the last three years. Jack opined that this dog is threatening residents and the public using the surrounding streets and area trails. Action: Interested board members will contact Barbara to request that investigatory letters be sent relative to both the USPS and the dog. (3) Stuart Muller reported that there will be a City dedication for the beautification efforts at Temescal and PCH on Friday. (4) Paul Glasgall (Area 2) reminded all that traffic deaths are up.

7.3.2 Organizational Representatives – Report on Behalf of Organizations.

8.0 Reports From Committees

8.1 Land Use Committee (“LUC”) – Chris Spitz, Chair. LUC report (see additional information and links below): Upcoming dates of interest: 1) April 2: WLA APC appeal hearing re 15225 DePauw (Potrero Canyon rim development/retaining wall & grade measurement issues), 4:30 p.m. at Henry Medina building in WLA; 2) April 2: Regional Planning Forum (ReCodeLA, Mobility Plan, other Planning initiatives), 6-9 p.m. at United Methodist Church in Westwood; also in Van Nuys on April 5. 3) April 3: LUC meeting, 12:45-2:45 p.m. at Palisades Library; the meeting is public and all are welcome to attend; agenda items will include updates on ongoing projects, including Potrero Canyon rim development; discussion of the Village Specific Plan requirements; a review of the ReCodeLA report relative to the City’s proposed rewrite of the entire Zoning Code; and consideration of the draft EIR concerning the proposed Archer School remodeling project, focusing on traffic impacts on the Palisades.

9.0 Old Business.

9.1 Bylaws Committee – George Wolfberg, Chair. Discussion of Bylaws Attachment A (area representative election procedures; formation of possible committee). See Bylaws excerpt below. Chris reported that Barbara wants to form a possible committee to discuss future Area Representative elections. The topic was precipitated by Harry’s objection to a certain provision in the adopted Motion from the last PPCC meeting. Discussion: (1) Richard spoke in support of the Motion adopted at the last meeting, noting a small dissent by Harry to an attachment to the Bylaws that spell out the procedures for electing Area and At-Large Representatives. Richard said that the committee agreed to re-visit the particular dissent by Harry Sondheim relative to the historical lack of announcement of vote counts for Area Representatives, both those cast and those received. Roughly five years ago a man named Mike Stryer ran for Area Representative and lost and in that process he made a strong case that vote results should be announced for transparency and in respect of democracy. A prior Bylaws committee did draft that change into the Bylaws; however as a matter of practice such public announcement has not been made. The current Bylaws committee discussed the competing forces and adopted language that allows the Chair to release election results upon request. Richard reminded the board that there are procedures in the Bylaws for contesting the election. Harry has suggested that the Chair announce the total number of votes be announced; yet the committee rejected that approach because that would only show the lack of participation by the community and not what candidates would want to know which is by what vote count they lost. Richard also stated that Barbara intends to form a committee relative to how communities vote including in-person and on-line. This committee is going forward in any event and could accommodate reconsideration of this particular issue. Richard urged that this future committee be comprised of younger scholars rather than the continued involvement of board members previously involved in drafting the bylaws. (2) Harry Sondheim said that his issue is only with contested elections, not uncontested elections. Harry sees no value to disclosing publicly how many votes each candidate received. Harry sees value in disclosing only to the candidates the votes received in a contested election. Harry advocates disclosing the total number of votes publicly for uncontested elections. Discussion: Steve Cron expressed his support of the Bylaws committee’s position and against Harry’s proposal. Steve stated that candidates run, they win, they lose and that is part of democracy. Carol Bruch said that we are not children and there should be no embarrassment for running. The board and community should be embarrassed if and when voter support and turn out are low. Gil Dembo supported the Bylaws Committee’s approach and the problem is with the lack of resident awareness of the PPCC. Jack Allen said he supports transparency and is against Harry’s approach. Laura Mack suggested that the community focus on lack of engagement by the community. Paul Glasgall supported the Bylaws Committee approach. Steve Boyers spoke in support of updating the election procedures to encourage more participation by residents and is fully in favor of disclosing election results. John Glasgow spoke in support of full disclosure of every count and every vote. Donna Vaccarino agreed that the PPCC should disclose votes and look at itself as an organization so that community outreach is encouraged and perhaps with the disclosure of vote counts younger residents may be encouraged to join PPCC. Richard Cohen and Harry Sondheim both reiterated their support for a committee to be formed by the Chair relative to review of Attachment A. Chris Spitz read an email from Janet Turner in support of alternate and additional election measures. Sue Kohn spoke in favor of electronic voting and information being given to residents in print. Action: George made a Motion for Attachment A, Sec. 9.XX to be amended to state that [vote totals will be released upon request by the Chair]. 9 votes in favor. 8 opposed. The motion carried.

10.0 New Business

10.1 Earthquake Fault Analysis Motion proposed WRAC. The motion was unanimously passed by WRAC leadership with all councils present except for one (Westchester). See attached Motion below included for informational and discussion purposes only. Chris reported that the LUC reviewed this motion and did not support it without additional information and changes to the suggested language. There is no deadline.

11.0 General Public Comment

11.1 Gil Dembo – Gil asked the council’s opinion about yard signs that are put up all over town and then never taken down. Suggestions were to get help from the Palisadian Post or that offended residents should take down the signs and return them to the sponsor’s address.

11.2 Patrick Hart requested to submit a written supplement regarding a presentation he made on March 5, 2014 to the Board of Public Works. See information below.

12. Adjournment. Chris Spitz adjourned the meeting at 8:50 PM.

ITEM 7.3.1 PCH Task Force Notes (George Wolfberg)

PCH Task Force Highlights:
Accidents. The actual number of accidents from year-to-year is about the same in all areas from Mc Clure Tunnel to Ventura County.
Highway widening near Bel Air Bay Club. Caltrans will widen the highway shoulder near the Club to increase safety for bicycle riders. This $5 million funded project should be constructed in 2016 and will impact traffic
Signal timing. Amy Kalp and Sue Pascoe complained about the length of signals at PCH: specifically: at Coastline Drive, Sunset Blvd. Temescal Canyon Road and Chautauqua Blvd. State electeds will look at this with Caltrans.
California Incline. Design is 100% complete. Caltrans signoffs needed. Prior to beginning Incline construction, Moomat Ahiko Way, will be reconstructed in both directions, closing this street after Labor Day for 10 days; California Incline will be an alternate route. Current plan is to start the 16-month Incline project near the end of this September . There were questions regarding the traffic management plan. An ad hoc committee composed of five community persons including Patti Post and George Wolfberg will begin meeting with Santa Monica and LA traffic engineers and the Council office starting near the end of April to vet the traffic plans.
Pier Bridge. Santa Monica is beginning the process to repair/replace the bridge to the pier. EIR should be available by December 2016.
Coastal Interceptor Replacement Sewer (CIRS). The final 900-feet of this clean water project will be constructed under the highway between the Entrada beach parking lot and the Annenberg Beach House. The LA City Engineer received the encroachment permit from Caltrans about a week ago and construction will begin in mid-April. One lane of PCH will be closed for the estimated 12-month construction period. The work will proceed six-days a week. There will be one reversible lane during peak traffic flow:
From 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM there will be three lanes open toward the McClure Tunnel and two lanes from the tunnel.
From 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM there will be two lanes in each direction with a 10′ buffer lane to permit left turns into private driveways.
From 4:00 PM until 7:00 PM the morning flow will be reversed with three lanes open from the tunnel direction and two lanes toward the tunnel.
Night work will take place between 9:00 PM and 5:00 AM when two lanes will be closed in the tunnel-direction.
Make travel plans early! Saturday lane adjustments are to be determined. Safety of bicyclists is a concern and advance signage will encourage cyclists to leave the highway at Temescal and take the bike path. The is not a mandatory action as bicyclists have the same rights to the road as do motorists; so watch out and be careful. Other signs to warn motorists of highway congestion will be placed on I-10, Highway 101 in the Valley and Pacific Coast Highway two weeks in advance of construction. Malibu requested signage also at the Malibu Civic Center.
Sylmar Ground Return Replacement. This LADWP project involves running a large (direct current) replacement ground wire as part of the Pacific Intertie power-sharing project. The wire will run from Sylmar to several hundred feet off shore. Routes are under study and environmental work remains to be done, but a favored route will run the line underground from Kenter to Sunset to Gretna Green to San Vicente to 7th Street / Entrada Drive / West Channel Road under the highway/beach out to sea. There will be zero EMF owing to the use of Direct Current. DWP projects that the EIR will be available for 45-day public comment period beginning in June or July. Detailed design will be available in mid-2015 with construction in 2016-17.

ITEM 8.1 LAND USE COMMITTEE REPORT

Planning Forum Flyer:

http://recode.la/sites/default/files/file_attachments/event/PlanningForumFlyer_4.pdf

For those interested in the council file pertaining to the ad hoc committee regarding community care facilities and the draft CCFO Ordinance here are the links to documents recently submitted by the Planning Department:

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0118_rpt_plan_03-18-14.pdf
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-0118_misc_03-18-14.pdf

For those interested, here is a link to the draft DEIR for the Archer school project:

http://www.planning.lacity.org/eir/ArcherFwd_CampusPresvation/DEIR/index.html

For those interested, here is a link to memorandum from DOT re traffic impacts – as an alternative to the DEIR, this document is only six pages (minus the tables) and summarizes proposed Archer School project’s impacts:

http://www.planning.lacity.org/eir/ArcherFwd_CampusPresvation/DEIR/files/Appendix_P2.pdf

BCC will be considering the Archer School topic; reference BCC agendas. The comment period for the draft DEIR ends April 14, 2014.

ITEM 9.1 – BYLAWS

BYLAWS ATTACHMENT A
[Note: Attachment included with bylaws for convenience only. This attachment reflects board policy that may be amended from time to time without the two reading requirement that applies to the actual bylaws and appendices.] [amended, March 27, 2014]
Election Procedure for At-Large and Area Representatives
Sec. 1. Elections Committee.
A. On or before the first meeting in June, the Chair shall appoint an Elections Committee which shall consist of five persons selected by the Chair, none of whom shall be a candidate for Elected Representative.
B. The Committee shall be responsible for implementing and supervising the elections of the Elected Representatives as provided herein.
Sec. 2. Notice of Elections.
A. At least 30 days prior to the July meeting of the Council, the Elections Committee will prepare and post a Notice of Elections which sets forth the offices up for election, the qualifications necessary for the offices, the deadlines for submitting nominations, and where a copy of these procedures is available. The Notice should also include the telephone number or numbers of persons who may be contacted for information on the elections.
B. Posting of the Notice of Elections will consist of delivering copies of the Notice of Elections to any weekly newspaper that is distributed in the Pacific Palisades, to the Chamber of Commerce, and by posting copies in the Pacific Palisades Public Library and Post Office as well as on the Council Web site.
Sec. 3. Nomination Process.
A. Dissemination of election procedures. Any incumbent, as well as any person indicating an interest in becoming a candidate, shall be given a copy of these election procedures.
B. Boundaries.
1. The boundary for the At-large Representative is the Pacific Palisades Area shown on the Boundary Map of Pacific Palisades, as contained in Appendix “B” to the Bylaws.
2. The boundary of each Area is shown on the Boundary Map of Pacific Palisades, as contained in Appendix “B.”
C. Nomination Papers. Only the candidate can prepare the document submitting or withdrawing his/her own nomination.
D. Filing Deadlines.
1. All candidates. Any candidate, including any incumbent running for reelection, must submit a Candidate’s Statement prior to or at the regularly scheduled July meeting, at which time the chair will announce the list of candidates. If there is a person whose name has not been announced who it is believed has erroneously been left off the list of candidates, that person or someone designated by that person must be present at that July meeting with that candidate’s statement and must submit the statement to the chair immediately following the announcement of the list of candidates.
2. Additional requirement for incumbent. Prior to or at the first Council meeting in June, each area incumbent must notify the chair in writing whether or not the incumbent will run for reelection. At the first Council meeting in June, the chair shall announce the names of the incumbents who are running for reelection. If the chair is not notified at or before that meeting, the incumbent will be deemed conclusively not to be running.
E. Notice Procedure. Any notification or statement required by this nomination process:
1. shall be given by personal delivery to the Chair or, to the presiding officer at a Board meeting, or
2. shall be sent by email to the Chair, or
3. must be mailed to the Pacific Palisades Community Council, P.O. Box 1131, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, by a delivery process which shows a U. S. postmark indicating it was mailed at least seven days prior to the date of the July meeting and which requires a return receipt. Timely submittal of a posted document is determined by the official U.S. Postal Service postmark. Business or home office meter-stamp dates are not acceptable as evidence of timely submittal.
F. Withdrawal of Nomination. Any person who decides to withdraw must notify the chair in writing of that decision. Such notice shall be given as provided in “E. Notice Procedure” above. Votes for candidates who withdraw shall not be counted.
G. Candidate Statement.
1. It is suggested that each Candidate’s Statement include, but not be limited to the following:
a) Number of years residing in Pacific Palisades,
b) Number of years at current address,
c) Position on issues the candidate believes are of importance to the Community or to the candidate’s area.
2. Length–maximum of 100 words
a) The Chair or Vice-Chair shall count the number of words in each Candidate’s Statement.
b) The name and address of a candidate shall not be included in the word count.
c) The use of abbreviations and acronyms is encouraged in order to save space.
d) If a Statement is over 100 words, it will be edited by the Chair or Vice-Chair.
Sec. 4. Preparation and Mailing of Ballots.
A. Ballots may be prepared as part of a Council newsletter. Ballots shall include the names of each candidate for Elected Representative and the candidates’ statements. The candidates for the At-large Representative should be listed separately and below the list of Area Representative candidates. On the ballot will be a “Statement of Eligibility To Vote for the At-large Candidate.” and the following places to check:
Statement of Eligibility To Vote for the At-large Candidate
Check Only One
Pacific Palisades Resident at:
___________________________________________________________
Owner of Real Property in the Pacific Palisades at:
___________________________________________________________
Operator of a business in the Pacific Palisades at
___________________________________________________________
Signature ___________________________ Date ___________________
B. Ballot Distribution.
1. Notice. On or before the mailing of the ballots, the Committee will prepare a Notice of Ballot Availability listing all the candidates; stating:
a) how and where ballots may be obtained;
b) the last day that ballots may be mailed, and
c) such other information as may be useful.
The Notice will be distributed in the same manner as set forth herein for the Notice of Election.
2. Distribution. Mailing lists which list most residences and properties and businesses located in the Pacific Palisades will be used. In addition any person who is eligible to vote may request a ballot and a ballot will be mailed to such person provided the person is not listed on one of the lists.
Sec. 5. Voting Process.
A. Eligibility to Vote.
1. Area Representatives. Only residents may vote and there shall be only one vote per household.
2. At-large Representative. Any individual who is a resident of, owns real property in, or operates a business in the Pacific Palisades is eligible to vote for the At-large Representative.
B. Mail Ballot Used. Ballots shall be returned by U.S. mail.
C. Deadline. The Council shall set a deadline when all ballots must be postmarked. Timely submittal of a document is determined by the official U.S. Postal Service postmark. Business or home office meter-stamp dates are not acceptable as evidence of timely submittal.
1. There shall be no write-in candidates.
2. If there is only one candidate for an area or for the At-large office, the name of that person shall still appear on the ballot.
Sec. 6. Counting Process.
A. Opening of ballots. The ballots shall be opened in the presence of the Elections Committee within two weeks of the ballot deadline set by the Council.
B. Disqualification of a vote or a ballot.
1. Grounds for disqualification of a ballot. Ballots shall be disqualified if:
a) The voter’s eligibility cannot be determined.
b) A voter votes for more than one candidate in his or her area without ranking his or her preferences for instant runoff or for no candidate in his or her area.
c) The ballot is not timely returned.
d) A ballot other than the ballot supplied by the Council is returned.
2. Grounds for disqualification of a vote.
a) A vote for an Area representative shall be disqualified if the voter has voted for both an Area representative and an At-large representative but is only eligible to vote for the At-large representative.
b) A vote for the At-large representative shall be disqualified if the Statement of Eligibility is not completed or is not signed or contains false information.
3. Decision. A majority of the members of the Election Committee must agree for a ballot, or a portion thereof, to be disqualified.
C. Counting.
1. The votes in contested elections shall be counted twice, with at least two persons participating in each tabulation.
2. If a voter votes for candidates in more than one area, only the vote for a candidate in the voter’s area shall be counted.
3. The instant runoff voting procedure shall be used for contested elections involving three or more candidates. The ballot shall provide for each voter to indicate the voter’s runoff choices by ranking candidates in order of preference, i.e., 1,2,3. If no candidate is the first choice of at least half of the voters, a runoff count shall be conducted. The counting of ballots simulates a series of runoff elections, eliminating the candidates from the bottom who have the least support. In each round, every voter’s ballot counts as a single vote for his or her top-ranked candidate who is still in the running, as indicated on that voter’s ballot. Candidates with the least support or who have withdrawn are eliminated. Counting continues until there are just two candidates remaining. A majority elects the finalist with the highest number of votes. Should the finalists tie; the winner shall be determined by a coin toss.
D. Results.
The names of the Area Representative candidates who have been elected and the number of votes received by each shall be released first to each candidate and then, no later than the first Board meeting in September, to the public. The chair shall release the vote totals upon request.
E. Preservation of ballots. Ballots shall be preserved until the close of the second meeting following the release of the election results unless a challenge by a candidate to the results is pending.
F. Challenge. A Challenge shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the challenge. Any challenge:
1. shall be given by personal delivery to the Chair or to the presiding officer at a Board meeting, or
2. shall be sent by email to the Chair no later than 10 calendar days following the release of the election results or,
3. must be mailed to the Pacific Palisades Community Council, P.O. Box 1131, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, by a delivery process which shows a U. S. postmark indicating that it was mailed within the 10 calendar day period prior and which requires a return receipt. Timely submission of a document is determined by the official U.S. Postal Service postmark. Business or home office meter-stamp dates are not acceptable as evidence of timely submittal.
Sec. 7. Area Alternates.
See Article VIII, 1.C of Bylaws for the procedures relevant to the selection of area alternate representatives.

ITEM 10.1 – MOTION PROPOSED BY WRAC; EARTHQUAKE FAULT ANALYSIS MOTION

Whereas the 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act [California Public Resources Code §§2622 et. seq.] mandated faults to be mapped and state legislators banned construction across active earthquake faults after the Sylmar Quake

Whereas said State mapping has not been completed due to budget cuts and some 2,000 of California’s 7,000 miles of faults have not yet been zoned

Whereas the building ban has not been enforced in unmapped areas

Whereas the failure to finish said fault mapping and enforce the ban constitutes a significant public health and safety hazard

Now therefore the WRAC calls upon the City to require a fault study by the project applicant/developer as a condition of submission of an entitlement application when the proposed project is within 1000 feet of a known fault line as mapped by the California Geological Survey’s existing map of all 7,000 miles of faults, published in 2010, and to fully enforce the ban on construction in active earthquake zones.

ITEM 11.2 – SUPPLEMENT FROM PATRICK HART, TEXT OF MARCH 5 PRESENTATION

March 5, 2014: TEXT OF PRESENTATION by Patrick Hart, PPCC Liaison to LADPW

My name is Patrick Hart. I am the Pacific Palisades Community Council Liaison to the Los Angeles Department of Public Works. However, I am speaking today on my own behalf as a concerned resident of Pacific Palisades.

My home overlooks Temescal Canyon Park where the Temescal Canyon Park storm water diversion project (TCPBMP) is being implemented. I am concerned about the current danger that the now-completed Phase I of this project has created, and that Phase 2 does nothing to mitigate any of these existing problems. In fact, it appears that Phase 2 actually seems to exacerbate the concerns of Phase 1, while not solving the problems for which it is being implemented. I will recap the salient points in a moment, and you can read the rationale in my enclosed support materials.

Today I am respectfully asking that you, the President and Commissioners on the Board of the Los Angeles Department of Public Works, support my Appeal to stop the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering from obtaining a Coastal permit, or, at the very least, that you delay your decision until you have had time to get up to speed as to how dangerous an operational Temescal Canyon Park project will be to the Public Safety and Health of our Pacific Palisades community.

First of all, let me say that we are all on the same page in wanting to cleanup the Santa Monica Bay.

This Prop. O funded project is supposed to mitigate fecal coliform pollution in the Bay. I am an engineer who, after years of research, has uncovered that the true source of over 80% of the fecal coliform pollution in the Santa Monica Bay comes from cracks in the 1924 Coastal Interceptor Sewer which runs under PCH from the county line at Malibu down to Hyperion, along with cracks in 80-100 year old sewer pipes lain adjacent to the creeks and streams in the canyons which flow into the Bay. Further, it has been documented that fecal coliform in the form of fertilizer washed off our lawns, and oil and grease washed off our streets during a rainstorm, constitutes only 3% of the total pollution flowing into the bay (source NRDV Testing the Waters, 2009-2010). This information makes the implementation of Phase 2 of Temescal Canyon Park storm water diversion project (TCPBMP) a seriously incomplete solution to stopping the pollution flowing into the Santa Monica Bay. Please refer to my additional support materials.
Here are the two key reasons why I am today asking the LADPW to not allow the BOE seek a Coastal Permit:
Public Health and Safety Concerns:
Odors and Fumes: Adding Sodium Hypochlorite (SH) will cause odors and fumes to be emitted from the 2.5′ x 5′ ground level Phase 1 vent, and from the Phase II storage bunker (in the event of our frequent Palisades electrical power outages).
Fires and Explosions: There will be an increased risk of fire and explosion because no solution has been given to securing and protecting the 2.5′ x 5′ surface level vent to the underground 1.25 million-gallon Phase I storm water storage tank, or addressing the open fires from the homeless encampments that are often burning near the vent or the proposed Phase II Sodium Hypochlorite storage facility.

Insufficient Pollution Containment: Figures show that the implementation of this project will result in a mere 1.32% reduction in fecal coliform pollution flowing into the Santa Monica Bay, which is unmeasurable by any current testing protocols (source: 44% theoretical reduction (BOE) of 3% total pollution (NRDC) = 1.32%).

As you may be aware, in 2010, I filed an Appeal against Phase I of the Temescal Canyon Park storm water diversion project, and today’s Appeal concerns Phase II of that same project.

As I said earlier, today I am respectfully asking that you support my Appeal to stop the BOE from obtaining a Coastal Permit, or that you delay your decision until you have reviewed this project and my support materials in their entirety, and discussed possible solutions to ensure the Public Safety and Health of our Pacific Palisades community.

Respectfully,

Patrick Hart – Pacific Palisades Community Council Liaison to the LADPW

Return to Index of 2014 Minutes