MINUTES FROM JANUARY 28th 2021
Voting Members in Attendance: David Card, David Kaplan, Richard Cohen, Chris Spitz, Matthew Quiat, Jenny Li, Karen Ridgley, Joanna Spak, Sue Kohl,* Brenda Theveny,* Craig Natvig, Beth Holden-Garland, Alan Goldsmith, Steve Cron, Haldis Toppel, Fay Vahdani, Richard Blumenberg, Eric Dugdale, Jim Kirtley (*left meeting before vote on Item 11.2)
Voting Alternates: Andrew Wolfberg, Kimberly Bloom* (*after primary Sue Kohl left meeting)
Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: Zennon Ulyate-Crow, Jack Coleman, Melanie Bouer, Mary Mueller
1. Call to order and reading of Mission Statement. The Chair David Card called the meeting to order at 5:31pm. Dave Card read the Mission Statement.
2. Introduction of Zoom engineer. The Chair welcomed everyone and introduced the technical engineer Alex Ponting. Introductions of the Board and audience were deferred.
3. Roll call of voting members and certification of quorum. The Chair called the roll of voting members and certified that there was a quorum.
4. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of January 14, 2021 were approved. Upcoming meetings: February 11, 2021 — (Tentative) Public Safety Forum with new acting SLO James Allen; additional speakers/details to come.
5. Consideration of Agenda. Agenda items may be taken out of order at the discretion of the Chair.
6. Treasurer’s Report.
The Treasurer Richard G. Cohen reported that PPCC’s cash balance is $37,725.82. There have been no significant transactions since the last report. PPCC has received an offer of renewal for our D&O liability insurance. The Treasurer will take care of this before the March renewal deadline.
7. General Public Comment – None.
8. Reports, Announcements and Concerns.
8.1. From the Chair/Presiding Officer.
8.1.1. Riviera Country Club – Longworth Maintenance Gate. The Chair explained that following up on PPCC’s letter regarding this matter, he and the Area 8 Representatives Reza Akef and Andrew Wolfberg recently met with Mike Bonin and his team. The Chair explained the background as set forth in PPCC’s letter requesting a determination letter from Planning [see: http://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PPCC-EC-Letter-re-RCC-Longworth-Gate.pdf]. The Chair stated that Councilmember Bonin supports the neighbors and is insisting that the City agencies address their concerns about the illegal use of the gate. CD11 Senior Planning Deputy Len Nguyen is following up with the Planning Dept. [see Item 8.5.3 below]. Andrew Wolfberg expressed thanks to the Councilmember, Mr. Nguyen and CD11 Palisades Deputy Durrah Wagner for stepping up and putting the neighborhood first. He noted that the safety of the students at nearby Paul Revere Middle School is also important. He also stated that he appreciates the support not only from the Council office and also from the PPCC Executive Committee.
8.1.2. Potrero Canyon Park – naming for George Wolfberg. The Chair announced that as result of Mike Bonin’s motion and the approval of the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners (RAP), the new name of the park in Potrero Canyon will be “George Wolfberg Park at Potrero Canyon.” This will be in honor of our long time PPCC board member and multiple past PPCC Chair, the late George Wolfberg. Andrew Wolfberg [George’s nephew] thanked Councilmember Bonin and everyone for their assistance with this effort. He stated that the neighborhood and community will love the park; it’s been a year since his passing and this honor for George is an honor for all in the family and for everyone who participates in volunteering and helping the community. The Chair then noted George’s long history of service, as detailed in PPCC’s resolution [see http://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Resolution-re-Wolfberg-Park-Approved.pdf]. As to the project’s status, the Chair explained that RAP closed out the grading contract and the contract is complete. There is a small credit. Much of the work on the park has already been done. He described all the elements that have been completed and what is visible now. The tentative schedule going forward is: the bid package has been approved for the landscaping contract; bids will be solicited in Feb. 2021 and will be received in March; the landscaping contract will be awarded in April or May, with landscaping work to start this summer. Spring 2022 hopefully will be the completion time (a 9-10 month timeframe is expected for completion). The Chair thanked Mike Bonin, Durrah Wagner, Lisa Cahill and all the CD11 team, including former CD11 senior counsel Norman Kulla, for their work in pushing this project along and making the park a reality for the community.
8.2. From Officers.
8.2.1. Richard Cohen (Treasurer). Harry Sondheim (past PPCC Chair and Area 4 Representative) – In Memoriam. The Treasurer reported that we are saddened to learn of the passing of Harry Sondheim on January 16 from complications caused by COVID. Harry was chair of PPCC from 2000 to 2002, a long-time Area 4 representative and an important member of the PPCC bylaws committee. Harry will be remembered as a strong voice for ethics, independence and civility. He was a true gentleman who was greatly admired for his volunteer work including being a board member of the Friends of the Palisades Library and work for the California State Bar Association which earned him recognition and which named an award after him [https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/awards/SondheimAwardSheet_06-27-12_r.pdf].
Harry was truly the embodiment of community leadership, professionalism and ethics. We will miss him. Karen Ridgley (Area 4 Representative) thanked the Treasurer for this tribute and noted that Harry’s efforts on behalf of Area 4 were appreciated by the neighbors.
8.2.2. Chris Spitz (Secretary). WRAC motions and legislation. The Secretary reported on motions that PPCC supported that have now become adopted WRAC positions. WRAC chair Matt Wersinger has submitted a position letter regarding the “dockless mobility devices” motion [deny permits to providers that do not comply with law enforcement; see https://westsidecouncils.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WRAC-Dockless-Permit-Denial-1_20.pdf],
which PPCC passed a year ago and sponsored in WRAC; the Secretary read aloud CD 5 District Director Debbie Dyner Harris’ email reply [see Attachment below]. The WRAC chair also submitted a position letter on the Community Plan update process [see https://westsidecouncils.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/WRAC-Community-Plan-Motion-12_3.pdf]; the Planning Dept.’s response was to thank WRAC and state only that they will take note of the requests. The Secretary also reported that the following additional motions (supported by PPCC) have passed by a majority or more of WRAC member councils and have been adopted by WRAC: eliminate gut and amend, support CF 20-1536 (Bonin STAP program motion) and oppose BONC social media policy. Position letters will be submitted soon. Regarding state legislation, the Secretary noted that SB 55 (Allen & Stern; prohibit new development in the VHFHSZ) has not yet been assigned to a Senate committee and we are awaiting a further discussion with the Senators about possible amendments. SB 9 and 10 will be discussed later in Item 11.2.
8.3. From Area and At-large Representatives.
8.3.1. Alan Goldsmith (At-large Representative): A recent water sprinkler problem caused a ceiling to collapse at one of the units in his townhome complex. A team of firefighters came to the scene and he was concerned because none of the firefighters was wearing a mask. He asked if anyone else had noticed firefighters not wearing masks and there was no response.
8.4. From Organizational Representatives.
8.4.1. Eric Dugdale (PP Historical Society). Dick Wulliger – In Memoriam. Dick Wulliger was a very bright, respected and energetic man who served the community again and again in many capacities. He was on the PPHS and TCA boards and also served on the PP Democratic Club. He was an example of service to the community and was a truly great Palisadian. The Secretary noted that Dick served as the PPHS primary representative to PPCC for many years. The Chair also remarked on Dick’s service and expressed appreciation for his contributions to the community.
8.4.2. Jim Kirtley (YMCA). During the pandemic, the Palisades-Malibu YMCA is pivoting and doing community service work. He would like to share at our next meeting a “COVID outcomes” sheet showing everything that the YMCA is doing in the community.
8.4.3. Beth Holden Garland (PPRA). PPRA has created signs that people can put up reminding everyone to wear masks. The Chair suggested that PPRA may want to ask businesses to post the signs and he noted that the signs should not be affixed to trees or placed in the public right of way.
8.5. From Government Offices / Representatives. Contact information available at: http://pacpalicc.org/index.php/government-contacts/
8.5.1. Zac Gaidzik, West/Metro LA Field Deputy, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl (see Item 11.1 below).
8.5.2. Janet Turner, Field Representative, Congressman Ted Lieu – not present.
8.5.3. Durrah Wagner, Palisades Field Deputy, and Len Nguyen, Senior Planning Deputy, Councilmember Bonin/CD11.
Ms. Wagner: Regarding the drop in water pressure in Area 5, an LADWP representative has informed her that the agency is conducting treatments related to reservoir recycling; as a result there are periods when the water pressure is low. Ms. Wagner still needs to be told how long this will last; she is trying to get information about the timeline on when the situation will get back to normal. Sue Kohl (Area 5 Representative): She is glad that CD11 is keeping the pressure on LADWP, but neighbors say this is continuing to happen at various times, including within the homes of individual homeowners, and the drop in pressure at the hydrants continues to be a concern due to the fire danger. The Chair noted that this sounds like an engineering problem that needs to be solved with infrastructure. Ms. Wagner also reported that Councilmembers Bonin and Raman have called for the City to expand Project Roomkey and have asked the City Attorney to investigate and report on how to get federal funding for the effort.
Mr. Nguyen: Regarding the RCC/Longworth gate, he has spoken to the Chief Zoning Administrator for the Planning Dept., who has assigned staff to do research about the approvals for the gate. He gave her the background on what he was able to find when this came up in 2018 and will have an update for us in about a week.
8.6. From PPCC Advisors – None.
9. Reports from Committees.
9.1. Community Plan Update Committee (CPUC; David Card, Committee Chair). The Chair explained that we have received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Initial Study for the City’s Housing Element update. There were scoping meetings this week as part of the environmental review process. Every 8-9 years the state housing agency gives their projection of how many housing units are needed in various jurisdictions in the state (this is known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment/RHNA). The RHNA number assigned to our area may impact the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan (CP). When we receive the number that will tell us how we will need to accommodate X number of additional housing units in the Palisades and Brentwood. We don’t yet know what the numbers are but will find out at some point. The Housing Element update is due by October 2021, but we are told that the process of updating our CP will likely not even start until 2022. Written comments on the Housing Element NOP and Initial Study are due by February 15th. The CPUC is working jointly with the Brentwood Community Council’s committee on draft letters; the board will likely be voting on a proposed comment letter at the February 11th PPCC meeting (to be submitted by the February 15th deadline, as part of the EIR process). The Secretary noted that the CPUC will attempt to provide information about the process to the board in advance.
10. Old Business – None.
11. New Business.
11.1. COVID 19 vaccinations update. Guest speaker: Zac Gaidzik, West/Metro LA Field Deputy, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. Discussion only. Also attending and speaking: Lonnie Resser, Health Program Analyst with the LA County Dept. of Public Health.
Mr. Gaidzik introduced Ms. Resser, who described her job and explained that she addresses public health concerns primarily in the West LA community. She shared a Power Point with detailed information about COVID-19 and vaccinations. She first discussed what we know about the virus, how the virus works, and what the vaccines do. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 94-95% effective at preventing the disease. These vaccines use mRNA technology; she described what this is and how it works. She emphasized that individuals cannot get COVID-19 from the vaccine. There may be brief side effects after getting the vaccine, including fever and aches, that last 1-2 days, but these are normal and are signs that the body is building immunity. Two doses are needed in order to get the best protection and the same vaccine should be administered for both doses.
Ms. Resser also described how to make appointments for second doses. There is a different process depending on where you received your first dose. Vaccination is a safer way to prevent spread of the disease than natural immunity. She also spoke about the fast-track development of the vaccine and the steps taken to ensure safety. Manufacturing of the vaccine began during clinical trials. The FDA and CDC prioritized review and authorization. She described the studies for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The FDA and CDC continue to conduct extra monitoring of the safety of the vaccines. “V-safe” is a new text messaging app used to follow up with people in the studies. This allows any possible problems to be investigated.
Ms. Resser further described how the County is allocating and managing vaccine distribution; it is attempting to do this in an equitable way. There won’t be enough vaccine for everyone until late spring or summer. She described the various phases of distribution. The County is currently vaccinating healthcare workers and anyone who is 65 and older. She showed a screenshot of the County website, www.vaccinateLAcounty.com [see link on the PPCC website]. The County website has links to book an appointment and information about the vaccines. There are phone numbers for those without access to a computer. She gave a few tips: Look out for scams and report any scams to dcba.lacounty.gov; never give out personal or financial information. As to the steps necessary to stop the spread: nothing has changed; we must all continue to wear face coverings, avoid close contact, wash hands and sanitize.
Q&A then ensued: Sue Kohl (Area 5 representative): She has spent hours every day to try and get an appointment; those who went to a pharmacy such as Ralph’s for first dose did not receive an appointment or any information about how to obtain a second dose; we were told good luck, you’re on your own in getting a second dose. She hasn’t been able to get an appointment for the second dose on her own, and is wondering if the first and second doses are the same. Ms. Resser: The vaccine supply is limited but the County is prioritizing second doses; there are shipments earmarked for second doses. She will check on whether the first and second doses are the same. Mr. Gaidzik: People can sign up for a second dose at the mega sites. Ms. Resser: She advises individuals to keep trying to obtain an appointment. Appointments for second doses can be up to a week after the recommended date and still be ok. Second doses are recommended 21 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and 28 days after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine. Mr. Gaidzik: Keep trying on the County website by clicking refresh. There is also a new statewide “my turn” website for appointments, myturn.ca.gov. It is best to check over the weekend.
David Kaplan (PPCC Vice-Chair): Regarding second doses, he received a white card after his first dose that said to return on February 13. He was told he would probably get an email telling him when to come. If he doesn’t get an email, should he just show up? Ms. Resser: If you don’t receive the email then still show up on the date on the white card at the same time as your first dose. Jim Kirtley (YMCA): What is the status for vaccination of children 16 and under? Ms. Resser: She doesn’t have that information. The Moderna vaccine was approved only for 18 and over. The Pfizer vaccine was approved for 16 and over. That is because those ages were included in the vaccine trials; children under those ages weren’t in the trials. Some companies such as Johnson & Johnson may now be conducting trials on children but she doesn’t know the ages or status.
Eric Dugdale (PPHS): Are any companies better equipped to make adjustments for the new strains than other companies? Ms. Resser: We don’t have that information yet. The Public Health Dept. urges everyone to get the vaccine as soon as it is offered to you. We don’t know enough about how the vaccines respond to the new strains to make a different recommendation. Alan Goldsmith (At-large Representative): His wife got an appointment via email for a second dose but he did not; they were vaccinated in Long Beach. Can he just go with her? Ms. Resser: Long Beach County is different from LA County so she can’t speak directly to his question. Haldis Toppel (Area 3 Representative): Balboa Park allows walk-ins at the end of regularly scheduled appointments. If you wait in line in the park, at the end of the last appointment a staff person goes through the waiting line and picks out anyone over 65 and they will give them any leftover shots. About 20 persons over 65 were in line when she was there and they all got their shots. Mr. Gaidzik: We are not recommending that people take that option but at the same time they aren’t going to waste the vaccine and will put any leftover doses in arms if people are there. Ms. Resser: We are asking people not to show up and get the vaccine at the end of the day at LA County sites.
PPCC Chair: Teachers/educators do not yet have the green light for vaccinations; when will that happen? Ms. Resser: We must keep transmission/community spread down. The last she checked, that tier would be early February; she noted that the website still says that, but it will take time to get through the first tiers. Chair: When will we be getting increased supplies? Mr. Gaidzik: We hope as soon as possible. Chair: What are the holdups? Mr. Gaidzik: Everything. There was a lot of historic coordination and planning did not happen during the prior administration. Chair: It has been reported that Blue Shield may take over statewide distribution; can you explain this? Mr. Gaidzik: He can’t comment as he doesn’t have any information about this. Ms. Resser: She doesn’t know about this either. Eric Dugdale: Should we be double-masking? Ms. Resser: She hasn’t heard yet from Dr. Ferrer about this but it couldn’t hurt. We need to keep wearing masks as well as getting vaccinated.
There were no questions or comments from the audience. The Chair thanked Mr. Gaidzik and Ms. Resser for the presentation and for answering our questions.
11.2. Motion recommended to member-councils by the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC): A) Oppose SB 9 (Atkins); Support CF 21-0002-S18 (Koretz) B) Oppose SB 10 (Wiener); Support CF 21-0002-S21 (Koretz). See attachment below for motion text. Background: https://westsidecouncils.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Background-re-SB-9-and-10.pdf.
Motion A): On behalf of the Executive Committee, the Secretary introduced the motion and referenced the background information that had been provided in the agenda. She stated that the Committee was including a new first “Whereas” paragraph in the motion that was inadvertently omitted from the motion text in the agenda (“Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates principles of democratic process. . .”). She then moved on behalf of the Executive Committee that the board vote to support the motion with the new first “Whereas” paragraph and substituting the name “Pacific Palisades Community Council” for the name “Westside Regional Alliance of Councils” in the last “Therefore” paragraph [see attachment below for text of motion]. No second was necessary as the motion was made by a committee of more than one voting board member. Discussion: None.
A vote was taken. Result: Unanimous in favor of the motion.
Motion B): On behalf of the Executive Committee, the Secretary introduced the motion and referenced the background information that had been provided in the agenda. She then moved on behalf of the Executive Committee that the board vote to support the motion, substituting the name “Pacific Palisades Community Council” for the name “Westside Regional Alliance of Councils” in the last “Therefore” paragraph [see attachment below for text of motion]. No second was necessary as the motion was made by a committee of more than one voting board member. Discussion: Matt Quiat (Area 6 Representative): He supports this bill as he believes we need more affordable housing which should be located near transit corridors. The Chair explained that PPCC’s position has consistently been to oppose state legislation that would remove local control over planning and zoning and/or would add additional density in our Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Secretary commented that SB 10, among other things, is unconstitutional because it includes a provision that allows for City Councils to override voter initiatives and further, it does not provide for any affordable housing. She stated that it is important to acknowledge that we do have an affordable housing crisis; she is working on a draft motion to be introduced in WRAC, acknowledging the crisis and supporting other bills now pending the legislature that address the crisis in a positive way, consistent with the principles that we support.
Jenny Li (Area 7 Representative): She wonders how these state housing bills would impact the Community Plan process. The Secretary and Chair both noted that state legislation takes precedence but we don’t know now if the bills will pass and what their impact will be. Karen Ridgley (Area 4 Representative): She wonders about the impact of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and whether these would be allowed on R1 parcels in addition to the extra dwelling units that the new bills call for. The Secretary explained that state legislation passed last year allows an ADU and a junior ADU by right on R1 parcels, in addition to the main dwelling unit. As she noted to the board last year, as a practical result this legislation eliminated most R1 zoning in the state. PPCC did not take a position because, after discussing the matter at PPCC LUC meetings, we learned that many residents want to be allowed to construct ADUs on their property and there wasn’t a consensus on the issue one way or the other. However, now that ADUs are allowed by right on most parcels, if SB 9 and 10 were to pass that would result in many more dwelling units being allowed by right on residential parcels. For example, under SB 9, a former single-family parcel would be allowed to have two main dwelling units, plus a junior and “regular” ADU, for a total of four dwelling units; or if the lot is split under SB 9, up to eight units (four main dwelling units plus a junior and “regular” ADU on each of the split parcels) – all on a former “one-unit” single family parcel.
A vote was taken. Result: 17-1-1; motion passed by more than a 2/3 majority.
12. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm.
Item 8.2.2 (Response of Debbie Dyner Harris/CM Koretz to WRAC position letter):
“Thank you very much for letting Councilmember Koretz know of this motion. As you may know, the Councilmember has been a champion for ensuring safety relating to these dockless scooters from day one, and has made several motions to ensure compliance.
During COVID, both LAPD and LADOT have been overall successful in getting these companies to comply with City requirements such as you reference in your letter, and the Councilmember will continue to press this forward to ensure safety throughout the City.
Please let me know if you have any questions, Debbie”
Item 11.2 (Text of adopted motions – A & B):
A) Oppose SB 9 (Atkins); Support CF 21-0002-S18 (Koretz).
Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates principles of democratic process and local control by mandating local governments to ministerially approve lot splits and/or development projects allowing for two main residential units on parcels in single-family residential zones (under specified conditions), thus substantially eliminating single-family zoning in California;
Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code §§30000 et seq.) by failing to exempt parcels within the Coastal zone, by purporting to eliminate hearings for Coastal Development Permits, and by requiring by-right/expedited approval of all projects permitted under the bill, including projects within the Coastal zone which otherwise require discretionary review, including hearings, under the Coastal Act;
Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21065 and 21080) and shortcuts required CEQA review by declaring preemptively that a project permitted under the bill is not a “project” under CEQA, without regard to the test established by controlling caselaw, that is, whether the ordinance in a given case is “capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission, Real Party in Interest), (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171);
Whereas, Senate Bill 9 compromises public safety and puts the lives and property of thousands of California residents in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) at risk from increased density by failing to provide any exemption for parcels within the VHFHSZ;
Whereas, Senate Bill 9 fails to address the state’s affordable housing crisis or to further the purported goal of “ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing” by not specifying or requiring any particular amount or level of affordable housing (low to moderate income/workforce housing) in projects permitted pursuant to the bill;
Whereas, Councilmember Paul Koretz has introduced a resolution in Los Angeles City Council, CF 21-0002- S18, calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 9;
Therefore, Pacific Palisades Community Council opposes Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) and supports the resolution in CF 21-0002-S18 (Koretz) calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 9.
B) Oppose SB 10 (Wiener); Support CF 21-0002-S21 (Koretz).
Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 10(c)) and principles of democracy and true local control by allowing local governments (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) to upzone single family residential properties and speed approval processes for increased density/multi-unit housing, without stakeholder involvement and by overriding community-driven local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, including restrictions enacted by voter initiatives;
Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code §§30000 et seq.) by failing to exempt parcels within the Coastal zone and by allowing by-right/expedited approval of development projects with up to 10 dwelling units on properties that are upzoned under the bill, including projects within the Coastal zone which require discretionary review under the Coastal Act;
Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21065 and 21080) and shortcuts required CEQA review by declaring preemptively that an ordinance by a local government (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) to upzone a single family residential property pursuant to the bill is not a “project” under CEQA, without consideration of whether the ordinance in a given case is “capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission, Real Party in Interest), (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171);
Whereas, Senate Bill 10 potentially compromises public safety and may put the lives and property of thousands of California residents in single family residential areas that are also in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) at risk from increased density by failing to provide for an unconditional exemption from upzoning under the bill for properties in the VHFHSZ;
Whereas, Senate Bill 10 prevents public scrutiny and bypasses democratic process by providing that state agencies alone, without local community input, would identify and maintain a controlling map of so-called “jobs-rich” areas throughout the state for purposes of upzoning single family residential properties under the bill;
Whereas, Senate Bill 10 circumvents controlling caselaw by, in effect, allowing for “spot zoning” by local governments (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) without consideration of whether upzoning a single family residential property would be of substantial benefit to the public in a given case (Foothills Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302);
Whereas, Senate Bill 10 fails to address the state’s affordable housing crisis or to further the purported goal of “ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing” by not requiring any particular amount or level of affordable (low to moderate income/workforce) housing in development projects to be built on properties that are upzoned under the bill;
Whereas, Councilmember Paul Koretz has introduced a resolution in Los Angeles City Council, CF 21-0002- S21, calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 10;
Therefore, Pacific Palisades Community Council opposes Senate Bill 10 (Wiener) and supports the resolution in CF 21-0002-S21 (Koretz), calling for the City of Los Angeles City to oppose Senate Bill 10.