MINUTES FOR JANUARY 14th 2016
Voting Members in Attendance: Chris Spitz, Maryam Zar, Jennifer Malaret, Richard Cohen, Barbara Kohn, George Wolfberg, Reza Akef, Kelly Comras, Richard Wulliger, Stuart Muller, Sarah Conner, Bruce Schwartz, Rick Mills, Sue Kohl, Cathy Russell, Nancy Niles, Barbara Marinacci and Gil Dembo.
Voting Alternates: Rick McGeagh, Dustin Hall, Diane Bleak, Susan Payne and Brian Deming.
Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: Donna Vaccarino, Alan Goldsmith, David Kaplan, Kevin Niles, Ted Mackie and Linda Lefkowitz.
Start of Business Meeting
1. Reading of Community Council’s Mission. Richard Cohen read the Mission Statement.
2. Call to Order and Introduction of the Board and Audience. Chris called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Introduction of the Board and Audience (time constraints prevented full introductions).
3. Certification of Quorum. Chris certified that a quorum was present at 7:01 pm.
4. Adoption of Minutes/Upcoming Meetings. Chris deemed the December 10, 2015 minutes approved as corrected. Upcoming meetings: 1/28/16. LADWP presentation re proposed temporary facilities to increase power capacity due to overloaded circuits in the Palisades; at a minimum, it is expected that the installations may affect and/or be located in PPCC Areas 3 and 5 potentially near existing LADWP properties, although also possible in other locations (note: the proposed DS-104/substation location will NOT be a topic of discussion). 2/11/16. (Tentative) VPLUC update/report supplement/Board discussion re Village Project land use application.
5. Consideration of Agenda. The President considered the agenda.
6. Treasurer’s Report. Richard Cohen reported the financial status as of January 14, 2016. PPCC’s current cash balance is $39,668.74. Holiday party total revenue exceeded expenses by $6,961. Richard stated that this fine result was largely due to revenue from the tribute book/program ($5,700) and the silent auction ($1,050). PPCC’s current balance exceeds the balance in mid-November, 2015 by approximately $7,000 largely due to the holiday party and miscellaneous membership renewals and donations.
7. Reports, Announcements and Concerns.
7.1. Announcements from the President, Chris Spitz.
7.1.1. Meeting Ground Rules. 1) Due to library rules, the meeting must end promptly at 9 pm; as needed, the President will stay after the meeting to answer questions. 2) The President conducts meeting order and may rearrange order of discussion at her discretion. 3) Board members and audience shall only speak when called upon by the President; there shall be no interruptions except to make a point of order. 4) The President’s role in maintaining meeting order shall be honored. 5) All discussion shall be civil, respectful and courteous. (PPCC Bylaws, http://www.pp90272.org/BYLAWS%20JULY%202015.pdf.).
7.1.2. 2015 Holiday Dinner and Awards Gala Recap.
See Gala Event photos at:
Chris thanked all contributors, donors, sponsors and participants. Chris gave a special thanks to Event Committee Chair Peter Culhane and Subcommittee Chairs Maryam Zar and Sue Kohl for their critical role in the success of this wonderful evening honoring our amazing honorees. Additionally, Chris thanked Board members who provided key assistance: Cathy Russell, Gil Dembo, Ted Mackie, Barbara Kohn, Brian Deming, George Wolfberg, Richard Cohen and Jennifer Malaret.
7.1.3. (New) PPCC Communications Committee.
Chris announced the committee membership as Maryam Zar (Chair), Michael Soneff, George Wolfberg, Brian Deming, Janet Anderson and Chris Spitz (ex officio). Chris stated that the committee would focus on launch and maintenance of the new PPCC website (in progress), potential e- newsletter and ongoing messaging/outreach.
7.1.4. Short Term Rentals (STRs) Update.
Chris reported that PPCC is waiting for distribution and transmittal by the City Planning Department of a draft ordinance to legalize STRs currently illegal in residential zones (draft expected by mid-February). PPCC position: opposed to permitting STRs in residential zones (see PPCC minutes of 9/24/15, 10/8/15, 10/22/15, 11/12/15 and attached letters submitted by PPCC to City officials).
7.1.5. BMO/BHO Amendment Update.
Chris reported that consistent with PPCC Bylaws Art. V.3(B) and in light of a 1/11/16 deadline for submission of comments to the City Planning Dept., the Executive Committee approved a letter submitted to City officials on January 7, 2016, expressing concerns to date and requesting postponement of the Amendment to allow further study and public comment. See attached letter.
7.1.6. Small Lot Subdivision Code Amendment.
Chris reported that there will be a public hearing January 20, 2016, 5:30- 7pm, Felicia Mahood Multipurpose Center, 11338 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles 90025. http://planning.lacity.org/ordinances/ proposedordinances.htm. Note: According to the City Planning Dept., this is a proposed Amendment to an existing ordinance (adopted in 2005) which established a new hybrid housing typology (similar to townhouses) for infill residential development in areas zoned for multi-family and commercial uses (not in single- family zones); the Amendment would create new enforceable development and design standards and require greater front and rear yard setbacks for Small Lots.
7.1.7. Sign Ordinance Update.
Chris reported that the City Planning Commission determination of 10/22/15 has been transmitted to the City Council PLUM Committee (hearing TBD). See PPCC minutes of 10/22/15 and 11/12/15. For more information, contact PPCC Secretary Jennifer Malaret (firstname.lastname@example.org).
7.2. Announcements from Governmental Representatives Representatives (Note: Contact information at: http://www.pp90272.org/Governmental%20Reps.pdf).
7.2.1. Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) – SLO Officer Moore — Not in attendance.
7.2.2. Los Angeles City Council, District 11; Councilmember Mike Bonin’s Office. Sharon Shapiro, Field Deputy. Omar Pulido in attendance.
7.2.3. Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Daniel Tamm, Westside Area Representative, Mayor’s Interfaith Liaison — Not in attendance.
7.2.4. California State Assembly, Office of Assemblymember Richard Bloom. Stephanie Cohen, Field Representative — Not in attendance.
7.2.5. California State Senate, Office of State Senator Ben Allen. Lila Kalaf, District Representative — Not in attendance.
7.2.6. United States Congress, Office of Congressman Ted Lieu. Janet Turner, District Representative. Janet Turner in attendance. Janet reported that Ted Lieu is a member of the “quiet skies caucus” and detailed the Congressman’s efforts to reduce airport noise.
7.3. Announcements from Board Members and Advisors.
7.3.1. Officers/Area Representatives.
1) Maryam Zar, PPCC Vice-President. PPTFH activities/homelessness (OPCC outreach; Homeless Count 1/28/16 – to volunteer, contact email@example.com). Maryam gave an update on OPPCC outreach efforts which made contact with approximately 35 homeless persons. OPPCC met in addition with Palisades residents. The Task Force was recognized by Sheila Kuehl’s office and Maryam thanked the board and larger community for its support. Maryam solicited volunteers for the Homeless Count and encouraged interested persons to go to lahsa.gov where registration information is being taken. Walk in volunteers are encouraged. Brian Deming stated that the next PPTFH meeting would be January 19th at Corpus Christi Church’s gymnasium as a meet and greet with OPCC outreach workers from 5-6:30 pm. 2) George Wolfberg, At-Large Representative. New Year’s weekend PCH closures (from 4th Street to Entrada). George reported that accidents resulted in local closures for more than six hours. Contacts have been made with both local and state officials for a better way to handle these accidents including suggestions to remove cars, consult video and other methods for how accident details could be logged and verified more efficiently.
7.3.2. Organizational Representatives – Report on Behalf of Organizations.
1) Sarah Conner, PPRA Representative. 17000 Sunset Blvd. apartment project (see PPCC minutes of 11/12/15 and 12/10/15); on December 2, 2015 the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission granted appeals of the prior issuance for a coastal development permit. Sarah thanked George Wolfberg and the MKPOA and more than 100 Palisadian residents who objected to this non-conforming development.
8. Reports from Committees.
8.1. VPLUC (David Kaplan, Chair).
Village Project land use application update/report supplement (see VPLUC Preliminary Report, http://www.pp90272.org/VPLUC.pdf). David reported that the amendment application was received from the developer which differs from the November 2015 meeting relative to the general topics: (1) set back increases, (2) height reductions, (3) elevations to be defined from the sidewalk to the rooftop elevation, (4) the shared parking study has been deleted, (5) restaurant square footage has been reduced, and 6) Pilates exercise uses have been deleted. The traffic study is due to be received in February 2016 and the committee will report back then.
8.2. Bylaws Committee (Richard Cohen and Jennifer Malaret, Co-Chairs).
Second reading, oral and written, of Motions 1(A) and (2) regarding proposed bylaws changes (organizational membership, meetings). Presentation: Richard Cohen summarized the purposes of Motion 1(A) (calendaring of existing organizations and providing a specific process for new organizations to be represented) and read out loud the existing language and each of the proposed changes, as set forth below and in the red-lined document distributed in advance of the meeting with the agenda. Questions: Barbara Kohn asked about the one-year term. There is no limitation on how many one-year terms any organization can serve. Action: 23 voting members were present. 22 members voted in favor (the Chair did not vote as per custom and Roberts Rules of Order). The motion passed.
Background. On March 12, 2015, PPCC’s Board directed the Bylaws Committee to explore modifications to the Bylaws relative to Article VIII(1)(A) “Selection and Election of Representatives, Organization Representatives and Alternates” with reference to organizations eligible to send representatives as set forth on Appendix A. The Board directed three possible areas of amendment: (1) the four categories which currently have one organization (“standing seat”) should be reconstituted such that those categories have multiple organizations and rotate appointment as presently do the other five multiple organization categories. (2) faith based organizations should be eligible to send representatives and have the opportunity for inclusion, and (3) a process should be established whereby any organization not listed and that believes it is not adequately represented by an eligible organization, may submit an application for inclusion. On October 8, 2015 a motion to facilitate all three areas of these amendments garnered a majority of favorable board member votes but failed to pass because it did not receive the two-thirds majority vote required by PPCC’s Bylaws (“Organization Representatives Motion #1).
Motion 1(A). The Bylaws Committee recommends that the Board vote to adopt the proposed amendments distributed with the agenda, referred to as “Organization Representatives Motion #1(A)”. The proposed amendments are now limited to: (1) improving calendaring of the process by which organization representatives and their alternates are selected, (2) providing a procedure for membership application by existing and new organizations, and (3) non-substantive corrective and clarifying language regarding vacancies and other matters.
The Bylaws Committee recommends that, to expedite and preserve efficiency at PPCC’s scheduled and public meetings, Article XII, Sec. 2(B) (Amendments) be amended as follows: “No amendment or new Bylaw may be voted upon until the entire text [delete “it”] has been distributed with [delete “read at”] the agenda for two consecutive Board [delete “council”] meetings. Presentation: Richard read aloud the motion and proposed changes as set forth above, summarized the purpose of the changes and expressed that the committee did not interpret the bylaws to mean that “read” must be “read aloud” because oral reading has not been done since 1973. This past year out of an abundance of caution solely due to a request from one board member, PPCC’s legal advisor advised and supported the oral readings but in conjunction with a change of the bylaws to align PPCC with modern practices which allow announcements to be made in writing multiple times in accordance with the bylaws. Discussion: (1) Donna Vaccarino opposed the motion, seeking a continuance of the practice for board members to hear orally what changes are being proposed. (2) Reza Akef supported the motion and noted that board members have a duty to read emails and documents that are sent to them. Board members with any questions can always question, contact and inquire of the Chair or any committee member and it is the job of all board members to prepare for the meetings. (3) David Kaplan supported the motion and challenged any board member without the document in front of them to make a meaningful objection. At this point in time after numerous distributions and many months of time to read and digest the substance, David stated that now is not the time to complain. (4) Rick Mills supported the motion and stated that when a board member prints out the materials they are clear and the Chair can make copies available for anyone. (5) Sue Kohl supported the motion and stated that printing out the agenda and board materials is critical to understanding. Action: Chris explained that abstentions count as “opposed” for purposes of a vote on bylaws amendments, pursuant to Bylaws Art. X11.2.A. 23 voting members were present. 17 votes in favor; 5 opposed (including 3 abstentions; the Chair did not vote as per custom and Roberts Rules of Order). The motion passed.
9. Old Business.
9.1. Above Ground Facilities (AGF) Ordinance.
1) Background: A revised draft ordinance regulating cell towers and other structures in the public right of way (PROW) was transmitted by the City Attorney on December 8, 2015 to relevant City Council committees (hearing TBD). https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm? fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=09-2645. Revisions include: removal of the existing exemption for utility-pole mounted antennas (in certain circumstances); expansion of notice for cell towers in the PROW; and (limited) enhancement of aesthetic criteria. Contact President Chris Spitz for a more detailed summary (firstname.lastname@example.org). 2) Proposed MOTION by the Executive Committee (as time allows): “PPCC supports the AGF Ordinance revised as of December 8, 2015, but with a request that “Community Councils” be included among the organizations entitled to receive notice under LAMC Sections 62.08.VII.D.1(e) and 2(e).” Due to time constraints the matter was deferred until the next meeting.
10. New Business.
10.1. Potential new flight path over Pacific Palisades (Metroplex Plan).
Briefing by FAA officials, including Steve May, Senior Advisor, Office of the Regional Administrator, FAA Western- Pacific Division. Presentation: Glen Martin presenting for the Southern California Metroplex plan as of 1-14-2016. Topics discussed: (1) purpose and need are to re-examine the use of airspace with qualitative benefits to be achieved, (2) current guidelines for airport noise and what is the metric for change, i.e., when has significant impact been achieved and if/how that needs to be mitigated (guidelines were provided); note that this metric is a DB metric and not how noise is perceived by humans. The metric is environmental in nature relative to the governmental process of reports. (3) study area of the draft EA; (4) So Cal MetroPlex environmental process, the procedures have not been changed; if they were changed it would be 4th quarter 2016 or 1st quarter 2017 (4) SMO RWY 21 CTRUS SID. The largest change will be planes coming over the Santa Monica shoreline. (5) LGB HAWCC SID is only for piston driven aircraft. The concern is that the planes will be directly guided towards Los Angeles rather than offshore which conflicts; however, the plan built the routes they currently fly. There is no change from actual flights today. (6) LGB TOPMM SID. Flights interfering with LAX departures so this brings them up sideways over the land as they depart from Long Beach. For the Palisades they will have to be at or above 11,000 square feet when they are headed northbound. (7) LAX IRNMN STAR. Addresses traffic from northern CA and the far west like Hawaii. By sending traffic over Pacific Palisades it curves the vection for the last leg over Santa Monica. (8) LAX CRSHRSTAR. Routes coming down from the north are attempted to tip over the land to reduce angles as the planes come into LAX. (8) LAX HUULLSTAR. Has different departure points. (9) LAX LADYJSID. Relates to departures to the west which will move further west towards Malibu. The altitude will be 1,000 feet lower at the shoreline, i.e., 8,000 square feet instead of 9,000 square feet. In summary these should be the totality of the routes affecting the Palisades within the Metroplex proposal. http://metroplexenvironmental.com/socal_metroplex/socal_introduction.html (or Google Search “SoCal Metroplex”). (10) Depiction of all Jets, turboprops and all others. (11) LAX Traffic Current and Forecasted (percentage increase from 1.68% to 4.46% per annum; forecasts up to 2020 will still be less than 09-11 in terms of numbers not taking account into size however both mini-jets and jumbos have not taken on). (12) The average hourly count for aircraft coming in over Santa Monica at the 8 PM hour and overnight has slightly increased. Some of which may have been effected by runway construction are temporary however the time relation is being studied by the FAA. Will these flights continue late at night and early morning or will they be cancelled when the runway construction is completed? January data should show us however that weather impacts the results as well. Aircraft get slowed down when weather is poor. The FAA does not decide when the planes come in to LAX, this is all based on the airlines and their determination of when their flights come in. For example, Asian flights are coming in 1- 1.5 hours early perhaps due to El Nino and that may be contributing to these numbers as well. (13) LAX north wind arrivals over district 33 slide showing that arrivals over the Palisades are at the highest altitude within Los Angeles. Relative to Santa Monica Canyon the 2013 average altitude was 8,109, the 2014 average was 8,097, and the 2015 averages was 8,091. (14) LAX arrivals over Santa Monica Canyon were measured through the “arrival gate” and the measures had decreased from 118.508 to 118.516. The FAA is surprised as anyone that the measure decreased due to the impact in noise and they are still investigating and analyzing the data.
Questions: (1) Would the noise be noticeable if a plane flies at 8,000 feet vs. 9,000 feet? Yes, it might. (2) How does the inversion layer affect noise? Yes, it can. (3) Does the plan involve private helicopters? No it only deals with aircraft departing LAX or Long Beach. (4) when loading the website, the difference in a Palisades house was less then the beach front and what the EIR concluded; the science that is provided indicates that the Palisades will not perceive a difference. However, on a human level a significant and annoying level in sound has been perceived. While the Metroplex fine may meet criteria there is a mystery and notable increase in noise. (5) the DNL is an average over 24 hours so you can have very loud planes and very soft planes so the plan does not explain individual aircraft noise. (6) in Phoenix, San Francisco and Berkeley there are lawsuits over pending and actual noise. Is the averaging the reason that the FAA is having problems with these communities? The DNL is the standard, it is how things are measured. (7) Will this increase pollution, i.e., soil pollution when planes are flying over ground and what are the measures? Will there be an aggregate number of planes in the future under the Metroplex plans? If aircraft fly less miles, then emissions are less but if more flights are scheduled that offsets the benefit. Changes in emissions are not projected because volume of flights has not been projected. (8) the LAX committee has asked for testing, data and reporting with a “second bite at the apple,” i.e., subsequent change and an on-going process. Airspace will continually be re-evaluated and the ability to change it is always present. (9) Can planes break in a more rural location and reduce the noise to heavily populated areas? Programs build in breaking and idling patterns. It is hoped that planes will essentially idle over the Palisades and Santa Monica before they get to LAX. (10) Are there other ways to analyze the data to understand what is going on relative to residents’ perceived impact of increased noise? The FAA has to look at turn arounds and those few flights that are coming in at a lower altitude. The concern is the voice data may need to be analyzed to show why they are even there; searching anomalies may have a hundred different reasons but the effort would require a one by one search to see how planes are in a detail. Another idea is why planes that are not LAX arrivals are in the competing airspace. (11) Has change in the size of actual aircraft been looked at? The data looks at average height and the number of aircrafts has actually gone down. (12) What is the status of the Santa Monica airport? The court has supported extending operations through 2023. Conclusion: The FAA will continue to coordinate with Janet Turner and Councilmember Bonin’s office.
10.2. [Flight Approach Paths.]
MOTION by George Wolfberg: “PPCC supports the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) Motion, passed by their committee on December 17, 2015, regarding flight approach paths to LAX. See MVCC Motion attached.” Chris Spitz read the motion. Maryam Zar seconded the motion. Discussion: (1) Reza Akef asked if support of the motion would increase traffic over the Palisades. George explained that the motion encompasses PPCC’s concerns in this regard. Action: The motion passed unanimously.
10.3. Proposed Village Starbucks CUB (onsite beer and wine sales).
Presenting: Spencer Regnery, Glassman Planning Associates. Presentation: Starbucks Evening Program will add beer and wine and new food items to enhance the experience. The operation will not be loud, Starbucks only wants to provide an option to coffee in the evening and it intends to remain a family destination where servers are trained to verify identification and monitor the situation. Wine or beer would be handed directly to the person who orders it and servers will walk through and continue to observe who is drinking their beer or their wine. Questions: (1) Will hours change? No. Alcohol sales will start at noon and go to 30 minutes before close. Can alcohol be taken off premises? No. Railings will be expanded. (2) How long has this gone on in other locations and it is profitable for the company? It has been tried and successful. The food has been proven to be a successful component. (3) Will the patio remain shared? Yes. (4) Concerns about carding, training, lack of seating, time of servers to check who is drinking what, in Beverly Hills they start serving at 5 PM, and sharing the patio with Subway, etc. (5) A two drink limit might be suggested and opposition to serving alcohol starting at noon rather than 5 PM. (6) Why is the Village Starbucks being targeted as a location needed to serve alcohol with families and people having conversations not wanting to be overseen? High railings are not aesthetically desired in our village and there are concerns about how carding would be verified. (7) What percentage of customers buy food with their beverages? (8) Do alcohol sales increase deliveries? No. (9) Serving alcohol prevents employing students in the area. (10) This would total 19 on site and off sale actual and proposed locations for alcohol sales. That would be too many and there are concerns about noise for residents from what is going on in the patios. (11) Why not limit the hours of alcohol sales? Chris stated that a letter would be written summarizing the board’s questions and Spencer stated that Starbucks would provide answers. The hearing date will be January 26th, 200 Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071.
11. General Public Comment — None.
12. Adjournment. Chris Spitz adjourned the meeting at 9:01 PM.
ITEM 7.1.5 – PPCC LETTER REGARDING BMO/BHO AMENDMENT
January 7, 2016
Hon. Councilmember Mike Bonin, Council District 11, email@example.com
Hon. Councilmember Paul Koretz, Council District 5, firstname.lastname@example.org
Tom Rothmann, Senior City Planner, City Planning Department, email@example.com
Hagu Solomon-Cary, Planning Assistant, City Planning Department, firstname.lastname@example.org
Los Angeles City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Via email
Re: Council File #14-0656; CPC-2015-3484-CA; CPC-2015-4197-EAF; Baseline Mansionization/Baseline Hillside (BMO/BHO) Code Amendment; Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to Modify Single Family Zone Regulation; Council District: ALL (“Amendment”).
Dear Councilmembers Bonin and Koretz, Mr. Rothman and Ms. Solomon-Cary:
Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) is the most broad-based community organization and the voice of the Palisades since 1973. In November 2015, PPCC held a public forum to discuss the Amendment. No action was taken on this matter, however board discussion and public comment generally reflect 6 reasons that serve as the basis for PPCC’s current request : The CPC Hearing on the Amendment currently expected for March 2016 should be postponed to allow for additional study, outreach, and public comment receipt/opportunity by the Department of City Planning.
The City’s Process Has Been Insufficient. The Proposed BMO/BHO Code Amendment is very complex and would further restrict building on all property in Pacific Palisades zoned R1, RS, RE or RA that is located in Hillside Areas and all non-Hillside Areas outside of the Coastal Zone. Planning disclosed that it has been working on these amendments since 2014 and, in that process, has been in numerous discussions and meetings with certain residents, other neighborhood councils and property ownership groups/associations. To date, only four public hearings were scheduled (only two of which were in West Los Angeles) and then were held during the holidays when attendance would be naturally limited.
The City Has Not Studied Economic Impacts. Since the Amendment is aimed at limiting the size of new homes if/how will property values (small/large, old/new) in Pacific Palisades be affected? If/how will assessments and tax revenues to the County be affected?
The City Has Not Demonstrated Consensus that the Amendment is Needed. The fundamental premise of the Amendment is that there has been “a proliferation of out of scale development in single family neighborhoods” which “has demonstrated a need to update the current rules.” During PPCC meetings, there has been no agreement on this point with varied perspectives of “homeowners” and “owners/real estate developers/brokers” being voiced.
The Amendment Does Not Use “Plain English” to Explain How Height is to be Measured Nor Does it Detail the Impacts to Property Owners, i.e., height and grade in Hillside Areas is “[insert: Grade] Elevation, [insert: at the perimeter of the building] of the finished or natural surface of the ground, whichever is lower, or the finished surface of the ground…”?
The Amendment Does Not Use “Plain English” and Appears to Dramatically Impact How the Size of New Homes is Measured, i.e., the Amendment affects calculations for basements, garages, covered porches, patios, over height ceilings, maximum residential floor area relative to lot size, bonus options, uniform reductions in hillside areas or coastal zones and changes to the maximum envelope height calculation. Each of these provisions is potentially significant and apparently misunderstood.
The Amendment is Unclear as to Why the Zoning Administrator’s Authority Should be Expanded to Approve Additions Made after August 1, 2010 to “Buildings” (strike: “One Family Dwelling”) under the stated conditions.
In conclusion, this just-released ordinance highlights viewpoint differences on residential development. It deserves more time, more study, more notice and full due process for and with all residents of the City of Los Angeles.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments.
Pacific Palisades Community Council
cc (via email):
Hon. Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles City Mayor, email@example.com
Hon. Mike Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney, firstname.lastname@example.org
Christine Saponara, City Planner, email@example.com
ITEM 10.2 – FAA / MAR VISTA COMMUNITY COUNCIL MOTION
MVCC Motion passed unanimously – January 12. 2016
WHEREAS, the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) is an official neighborhood organization of the City of Los Angeles;
WHEREAS, beginning no later than October 2015, residents of Mar Vista have observed and experienced significant overhead changes to arrival patterns of commercial passenger airplanes into Los Angeles International Airport (LAX);
WHEREAS these airplanes fly over Mar Vista every 1-2 minutes, beginning before dawn and continuing through the day into the evening, at altitudes lower than they did prior to October 2015, emitting noise at higher levels than they did prior to October 2015;
WHEREAS, residents of the Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Culver City, and other parts of the City of Los Angeles have reported similar observations regarding changes to approach paths to LAX since at least October 2015;
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for flight approaches and departures relating to LAX;
WHEREAS, the FAA is in the process of implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), with the goal of transforming the country’s air traffic control system from a ground-based system to a satellite-based system in order to increase efficiency, safety, and predictability to flights throughout the United States;
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2015, the FAA concluded a public comment period relating to its implementation of NextGen technology for LAX and other Southern California airports;
WHEREAS, representatives of the FAA have not explained the reason for the observed changes to flight approaches into LAX over Mar Vista but have denied that they are associated with NextGen implementation;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the MVCC requests and supports efforts by the Los Angeles City Council to request information from the FAA regarding the reason for the observed changes to flight approaches into LAX over Mar Vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the MVCC supports flight approaches into LAX over the neighborhoods noted above that would offer a reduction of noise impacts.