MINUTES FOR MARCH 10th, 2016
Voting Members in Attendance: Maryam Zar, Jennifer Malaret, Richard Cohen, Barbara Kohn (until departure from meeting), Janet Anderson, Reza Akef, Nancy Niles, Bruce Schwartz, Richard Wulliger, George Wolfberg, Peter Culhane, Rick Mills, Barbara Marinacci, Sue Kohl, Dick Wulliger and Cathy Russell.
Voting Alternates: Howard Robinson, David Kaplan, Doug McCormick, Susan Payne and Dustin Hall.
Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: Eric Dugdale, Kevin Niles, Ted Mackie and Diane Bleak.
Start of Business Meeting
- Reading of Community Council’s Mission: Richard Cohen read the Mission Statement.
- Call to Order and Introduction of the Board and Audience. Maryam Zar (PPCC Vice President / acting Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:01pm. Introduction of the Board and audience. Jennifer Malaret read the meeting ground rules.
- Certification of Quorum. The acting Chair certified that a quorum was present at 7:08 pm.
- Adoption of Minutes/Upcoming Meetings. The acting Chair deemed the February 25, 2016 minutes approved as corrected. Upcoming meetings: 3/24/16: No meeting. 4/14/16. (Tentative) WRAC-recommended motions regarding (1) CUB/alcohol conditions; (2) VA Master Plan and related legislation, S. 2013 (Feinstein), H.R. 3484 (Lieu); (3) Zoning Code enforcement.
- Consideration of Agenda. The acting Chair considered the agenda.
- Treasurer’s Report. Richard Cohen reported the financial status as of February 11, 2016. The total account balances equal $37,755.00. The general corporate liability insurance premium was paid.
- Reports, Announcements and Concerns.
7.1. Announcements from the Acting Chair/Presiding Officer
7.1.1. March 24 Board meeting CANCELLED. The acting Chair announced the next PPCC Board meeting will be April 14, 2016.
7.1.2. LADWP Pole-Top Distributing Stations (PTDS) – The acting Chair announced that LADWP will be holding a Community Meeting on March 14, 2016, 7:30pm, at Marquez Elementary Charter School.
7.1.3. Short Term Rentals (STRs). The acting Chair announced that there were no updates as of agenda distribution.
7.1.4. Village Starbucks CUB. The acting Chair announced there were no updates as of agenda distribution.
7.2. Announcements from Governmental 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. Tricia Keane in attendance. Tricia reported that (1) the City is undertaking a comprehensive update of its zoning code. Phase 1 of the update is subject to community forums. The Westside meeting is on April 6th at the Iman Cultural Center at 3376 Motor Avenue from 6-9 PM. The ReCode.la website has all of the information. On April 2nd from 9 AM to noon there is a meeting in Van Nuys with convenient parking as well.
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. Not in attendance.
7.3. Announcements from Board Members and Advisors.
7.3.1. Officers/Area Representatives. (1) Sylmar Ground Return revised EIR has been released. April 25th is the deadline for comments. George Wolfberg (At Large) summarized the route of the ground wire from Oregon down through the Sylmar Repeater Station near Interstate 5 in the North San Fernando Valley. Power is direct current and must be grounded else it can go into underground and gas lines. The line goes underground at Kenter School and continues basically along Sunset Blvd. to a vault near Gladstone’s where it goes out to sea. The line is deteriorating and must be replaced. There were three options for where to run the line. There are two cables, which will be de-energized one at a time, and the installation will take approximately six months. www.ladwp.com/envnotices. (2) Reza Akef (Area 8) reported that the Northern Trust Golf Tournament adversely affected the neighborhood. The organizers have violated their agreements particularly with regard to deliveries. Representatives and CD11 have been unable to find the CUP agreement to determine compliance. (3) Howard Robinson thanked David Kaplan for his chairmanship of the VPLUC. Howard stated he was grateful for David’s extensive time spent on the project, leadership and the due diligence spent in bringing the matter to the board.
7.3.2. Organizational Representatives.
7.3.3. PPCC Advisors.
7.3.4. Board Members, Other Reports. (1) Barbara Kohn made a statement recusing herself from this meeting and regarding circumstances at the PPCC meeting on February 25, 2016. Barbara stated that before the meeting began on February 25th she received a comment from Chris Spitz and in reply stated immediately that she was recusing herself. Barbara requested that her status in the February 25, 2016 minutes be revised to reflect her as a non-voting member, and that she was only present. She also asked that her statement at the 3/10 meeting be reflected in the minutes. Maryam noted that there are no present or non-present categories in PPCC’s minutes, board members only listed as voting or non-voting and pledged to have the statement made be reflected in the minutes. Jennifer Malaret stated that the minutes do not reflect comments that are made before or after the meeting; and noted that Barbara had sat at the table with her card out and was counted for quorum purposes as a voting member at the February 25th meeting. Jennifer stated that the bylaws do not contain procedures for recusal. Reza Akef objected to Barbara’s statement and asked that it be deleted from these minutes because giving this report was wholly inconsistent with her claims that she was recusing herself from this meeting. [Barbara Kohn left the table following this report.]
8. Reports From Committees
8.1. Bylaws Committee (Richard Cohen and Jennifer Malaret, Co-Chairs). Second distribution of proposed bylaws amendments relative to elected Area and At-large representatives, election procedures and minor adjustment to Area 3 and Area 4 boundaries (Bylaws Art. VIII.1.B and D; Appendix B and Attachment A); see minutes of 1/28/16 and 2/11/16 for summaries. MOTION by the Bylaws Committee that the Board approve the proposed amendments as distributed with this meeting agenda and with the February 25, 2016 meeting agenda. Presentation: Richard Cohen talked about the topical changes to the bylaws and noted the substantive change to the boundaries of Areas 3 and 4 along with Marge Gold’s attendance. Richard noted the re-definition of “resident” as it applies to the election of both area and at-large representatives. Richard talked about how the bylaws used to talk about physical post office and library postings (no longer pssible) so the amendments provide for electronic notice. Like notice the bylaws give the council the ability to conduct elections by mail, in person voting, and possibly electronic voting. The newsletter remains a possibility as does exploring electronic voting like Certified Neighborhood Councils do. The bylaws committee recommends the changes unanimously and no negative feedback has been received. Discussion: None. Action: the motion passed unanimously.
9. Old Business.
9.1. VPLUC (David Kaplan, Chair). MOTION #s 1, 2 and 3 sponsored by the VPLUC and postponed from the February 25, 2016 board meeting (PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED). See: (1) www.pacpalicc.org, Documents tab/Minutes, and Resources tab/Reports & Summaries (PPCC minutes of 11/18/15, 1/14/16, 2/11/16 and VPLUC Preliminary and Supplemental Reports) and (2) http://www.palisadesvillageca.com (FAQs tab). Note: first City hearing to occur on March 24, 2016. MOTIONS below:
MOTION #1 (postponed from 2/25/16). David Kaplan read the motion. “Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) recognizes that community opinion is generally supportive of the Palisades Village Project, as reflected by public comments at PPCC and other community meetings and input from constituents received by Council District 11 and PPCC Board members. PPCC therefore recommends that the City Planning Commission approve the following land use entitlements as requested by the applicant:
- 1) Specific Plan Amendments to the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan, as proposed by the applicant and which establish new North Swarthmore Subarea Regulations.
- 2) A Vesting Zone Change from C2-1VL and R3P-1VL to C2-1VL, for the existing surface parking lot areas.
Design aspects of the Project are being reviewed by the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board.” Discussion: (1) Reza Akef requested a friendly amendment to strike the sentence. There were no objections to the friendly amendment. Action: the motion passed with 17 yes; one abstention (Area 1); one no vote (Historical Society).
MOTION #2: WITHDRAWN. See attached letter. The Chair reported that the position is attached to the agenda. The letter and supporting documents were provided on the table.
MOTION #3 (postponed from 2/25/16). David Kaplan read the motion: “The applicant has requested that the City approve a request for a parcel map to vacate public land to the applicant consisting of a 20-foot-wide alley extending north from Sunset Boulevard to the existing alley located behind the existing Mobil Station, the 20-foot-wide alley between Swarthmore Avenue and Monument Street and a lane of Sunset Boulevard, where it widens in front of the existing Mobil Station. Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) recommends approval of the parcel map, subject to the following:
- 1) Since the proposed public land being ceded to the applicant has substantial economic value, PPCC recommends a condition of approval which will require the applicant, in exchange for the economic benefit being provided by the City to the applicant, to establish a fund in an amount to be determined.
- 2) Said fund shall be specifically targeted to address the Purposes set forth in Section 2 of the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan, which are to assure all new development harmonizes with and enhances the surrounding neighborhood. To this end, the use of the fund shall include, but not be limited to, installation of compatible off-site streetscape improvements. Possible unifying items could include street furniture, street signs, exterior lighting and lampposts, sidewalk and crosswalk treatments, and plant materials. At a minimum, off- site improvements should extend to both sides of Sunset from La Cruz to Via de la Paz, around the perimeter of the Village Green, and on Swarthmore on the first block south of Sunset.”
Discussion: (1) Sue Kohl offered a friendly amendment. After the word ‘parcel map’, subject the following to the middle of para 2 “to that end”, Sue suggested deletion so that the amended motion would read:
Amended Motion # 3 “The applicant has requested that the City approve a request for a parcel map to vacate public land to the applicant consisting of a 20-foot-wide alley extending north from Sunset Boulevard to the existing alley located behind the existing Mobil Station, the 20-foot-wide alley between Swarthmore Avenue and Monument Street and a lane of Sunset Boulevard, where it widens in front of the existing Mobil Station. Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) recommends approval of the parcel map, in reliance upon the applicant’s commitment to contribute to funding of off-site harmonizing streetscape improvements in conjunction with community entities such as PRIDE, the Village Green Committee, Palisades Beautiful, and the Palisades Business Improvement District (BID). To this end, the use of the fund shall include, but not be limited to, installation of compatible off-site streetscape improvements. Possible unifying items could include street furniture, street signs, exterior lighting and lampposts, sidewalk and crosswalk treatments, and plant materials. At a minimum, off-site improvements should extend to both sides of Sunset from La Cruz to Via de la Paz, around the perimeter of the Village Green, and on Swarthmore on the first block south of Sunset.”
Sue stated her rationale being the last meeting where Mr. Caruso effectively agreed to the substituted language. No objections were made to the friendly amendment. (2) Reza Akef stated he was disappointed that the community room was removed from the project. The alley is quasi-public and private anyway and we know that the City won’t improve the alley anyway. Reza requested a friendly amendment for Caruso Affiliated to look into retaining the community room. Mr. Caruso responded by saying that the parking allocation for the community room is too difficult without community support for a variance. A variance would be a great idea since many people would walk or come there during off hours. The prior community room would require $3.5 million in parking. At the time Mr. Caruso is not pursuing a community room because certain community individuals are demanding the project to be fully parked. Reza asked if one of the theaters could be designed with community room meetings in mind. Mr. Caruso thought it is a great idea to incorporate a theater to be used for community meetings. Ideas to pursue are that variance or a theater design. Rick Caruso encouraged residents to attend public City hearings to state a desire for the two ideas proposed. Reza Akef agreed to withdraw his request for a friendly amendment. Barbara Marinacci offered a friendly amendment to add Pacific Palisades Garden Club to the list. No objections were made to the friendly amendment. Action: Sue Kohl read Motion #3 as modified by the two friendly amendments. The motion passed with 17 yes votes; one abstention (Area 1); one no vote (Historical Society).
MOTION (3) – FINAL LANGUAGE. “The applicant has requested that the City approve a request for a parcel map to vacate public land to the applicant consisting of a 20-foot-wide alley extending north from Sunset Boulevard to the existing alley located behind the existing Mobil Station, the 20-foot-wide alley between Swarthmore Avenue and Monument Street and a lane of Sunset Boulevard, where it widens in front of the existing Mobil Station. Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) recommends approval of the parcel map, in reliance upon the applicant’s commitment to contribute to funding of off-site harmonizing streetscape improvements in conjunction with community entities such as PRIDE, the Village Green Committee, Palisades Beautiful, Pacific Palisades Garden Club and the Palisades Business Improvement District (BID). To this end, the use of the fund shall include, but not be limited to, installation of compatible off-site streetscape improvements. Possible unifying items could include street furniture, street signs, exterior lighting and lampposts, sidewalk and crosswalk treatments, and plant materials. At a minimum, off-site improvements should extend to both sides of Sunset from La Cruz to Via de la Paz, around the perimeter of the Village Green, and on Swarthmore on the first block south of Sunset.
10. New Business.
11. General Public Comment.
11.1. Marge Gold talked about the formation of the Village Green germinating within the PPCC. The park has been run by the Village Green for 40 years without public support. Repairs are needed to the brick and trees. On the website there is information as to where the donations are sent. palisadesvillagegreen.org.
11.2. Gabrielle Gottlieb spoke regarding the pole top distribution stations. The installations are not safe in a residential area. Pictures were shown of a teenage boy sliding into a pole in Arleta, CA with the transformers coming down and the possibility of oil causing an explosion. The installation on Sunset near Allenford is considered “safe” because it is not in an intersection and is not on a residential street. The El Medio proposed location has lots of kids from the high school near and is by surrounding homes. No doubt power upgrades and installations are needed but the up-grades need to be done safely. Gabrielle said the pole tops are needed now but have to be outside of residential neighborhoods, not near sidewalk and not in spots where there is a history of traffic accidents; locating on Sunset would be better and the community needs to rally behind getting the substation built. Another resident was concerned about siting near churches as opposed to schools – that doesn’t seem to make sense. The acting Chair encouraged residents to attend the LADWP community meeting. Rick Mills responded that LADWP did not present to PPCC as if there were alternatives but their most recent notice does give options for alternate locations.
11.3. A resident spoke out against the large and hideous power poles in the public rights of way (PROWs).
11.4. Ted Weitz stated that there is an overburdening of all of the easements that utilities, cable companies, and phone companies have and the town is looking extremely blighted. Jennifer Malaret replied that the City has the right to use easements in the public right of way for these purposes and referred to PPCC’s minutes which have extensive information on this topic particularly with regard to cell phone towers.
12. Adjournment. The acting Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:02 PM.
ITEM 9.1 – PPCC LETTER RE VILLAGE PROJECT MND (MOTION #2)
PPCC Executive Committee MND Considerations – Factors Considered by the EC in Deciding to Act on an Emergency Basis to Submit PPCC Comments on the Palisades Village Project MND
The Palisades Historical Society’s request for postponement of a vote on Motion #2 at PPCC’s February 25, 2016 meeting prevented the Board from voting on the motion prior to the City’s deadline for submission of comments. Given the impossibility of a Board vote on the matter prior to the deadline and broad-based expression of community support for the project evident to the Executive Committee, the only course of action available to the Executive Committee to present the community’s sentiment on the MND to the City was to take emergency action under Article V, Sec. 3(B) of PPCC’s bylaws. The following factors were considered by the Executive Committee prior to taking action to authorize a letter in support of the City’s adoption of the MND:
- The vast majority of comments by Board members at our meetings and in communications with the EC have been positive.
- The majority of comments by the public have been positive.
- The negative comments by the public have been almost entirely with respect to considerations outside the scope of the MND. Examples: alcohol sales, nature of stores, design concerns, etc.
- Many of the negative comments by the public that were within the scope of the MND were refuted on a factual basis or were addressed by promises or assertions of the applicant. For example, the validity of the timing of traffic counts, parking by employees offsite, etc.
- The negative comments within the scope of the MND that were potentially valid have been fully expressed to the City by those who have these concerns. Examples: issues about parking adequacy, traffic, etc. These considerations are part of the City record and were either considered by the City and rejected or will be considered by the City and addressed.
- The majority of critical comments by the public have been accompanied by declarations of support for the project. This means that critics of certain aspects of the project nonetheless support the overall project and wish to see the development proceed. Key opponents have expressed support for the project in general.
- Based upon statements of Board members expressed at meetings and in communications with the Executive Committee it appears that approximately 19 of 22 members of the Board eligible to vote support Motion #2 (86% of Board members, > 2/3).
- Numerous Board members have communicated to the Chair and other EC members that they wish for the EC to take a position on behalf of the Community Council so that PPCC’s voice will be heard on the MND issue.
- Based upon conversations with our neighbors we have no reason to doubt CD-11’s observation that approximately 90% of comments have been supportive of the project.
- The MND is a technical document that does not assert that there will be no negative impacts, only that the impacts will be fully or partially mitigated to the extent that the result will be insignificant. Careful consideration of the issues by the VPLUC and its experts has concluded that the City’s methodology was appropriate and its conclusions were warranted given the regulatory framework that applies to such projects.
- Project critics acknowledge that the developer has engaged in productive dialogue with neighbors and taken many steps to address local concerns and the developer has pledged to continue to do so.
February 29, 2016
Deputy Advisory Agency/
Hearing Officer for the City Planning Commission
Department of City Planning
c/o Michelle Levy, City Planner via email: firstname.lastname@example.org
c/o Lakisha Hull, City Planning Associate via email: email@example.com
City Hall, 200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
To: Deputy Advisory Agency/Hearing Officer for the City Planning Commission:
Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) is the most broad-based community organization and the voice of the Palisades since 1973. During October and November 2015, PPCC held well-attended public meetings focusing on the Palisades Village Project. On February 25, 2016, the PPCC held a third noticed public forum to discuss the Palisades Village Project, which incorporated the ENV-2015-2715 MND, committee reports and related motions. A full discussion ensued, including input from Mr. Rick Caruso and public comment that reflected community support, questions, input and concerns.
PPCC, acting by its Executive Committee, recognizes that the City has determined, based on substantial traffic and other environmental studies, that the Palisades Village Project will have no unmitigated significant impacts. PPCC also acknowledges community concerns that, as with any project of similar size built within an existing neighborhood village, issues warranting attention may arise on an ongoing basis. PPCC therefore supports adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, provided that a new Village Project Committee is established under the auspices of Council District 11, to assess and address issues that may arise during construction and eventual Project operations. Such a committee should consist of one representative each from the applicant, Council District 11, the Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce and PPCC, and an area resident (to be appointed by Council District 11).
PPCC’s Village Project Land Use Committee (VPLUC) prepared and distributed the attached report (including summary biographies) in support of adoption of the MND. Support for the Palisades Village Project and for adoption of the MND was expressed in meetings and to PPCC’s Executive Committee by:
- Elected PPCC Area Representatives and Alternates eligible to vote representing thousands of residents from Area 2 (Palisades Highlands), Area 3 (Marquez Knolls, Bel Air Bay Club), Area 4 (El Medio Bluffs), Area 5 (Alphabet Streets), Area 6 (Via Mesa/Bluffs, Huntington), Area 7 (Santa Monica and Rustic Canyons), Area 8 (Riviera, Polo Fields), and PPCC’s “At-Large” Representative.
- A supermajority of PPCC primary organizational representatives (Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce, Temescal Canyon Association, Recreation/AYSO, Education/Village School, Civic Organizations/PRIDE, Service Clubs/Pacific Palisades Woman’s Club and Cultural, Ethics and Aesthetics/Pacific Palisades Garden Club).
- PPCC’s Transportation Advisor, Patti Post.
- All of PPCC’s Officers.
Finally, Councilmember Mike Bonin reported that the Council Office has received overwhelming expressions of community support for the Palisades Village Project, as has PPCC’s Executive Committee.
Thank you for your consideration.
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Encl.: Exhibits 1 (VPLUC Supplemental Report) and 2 (Summary Biographies)
cc (via email):
Hon. Mike Bonin, Councilmember, CD11 via email: firstname.lastname@example.org
EXHIBIT 1 – VPLUC SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 2/25/16
The Committee has previously reported its analysis of the applicant’s submission. The Committee had indicated it was waiting for the applicant’s traffic study to become available for review before it would be in position to recommend any action that the Board should take with respect to the Caruso Village Project.
Several weeks ago the Committee reported that the applicant, subsequent to its initial DRB hearing, had submitted revised plans reflecting changes in design or style and a withdrawal of its previous requests to deviate from Specific Plan setback requirements and Specific Plan height restrictions, in addition to removal of certain uses such as a Pilates studio, a reduction in the total amount of restaurant space and a removal of a request for shared parking plan.
On February 18 the City released its MND (mitigated negative declaration) that included the City’s sign-off and approval of the applicant’s traffic study. This traffic study concluded that there were no unmitigatable traffic impacts occasioned by the development. The Committee engaged the services of Patti Post, PPCC Transportation Advisor. She reviewed the MND as well as the underlying documents reviewed by LADOT and City Planning and found that the conclusions of the MND were substantiated.
It should be understood that the MND is not suggesting that there will be no increase in traffic but that the increase in traffic does not create, based on the standards that the City requires developers to comply with, any increase which cannot be mitigated.
As further due diligence, Ms. Post spoke with two separate community leaders who were initially opposed or skeptical of the impact of Caruso projects in their areas (Glendale and Thousand Oaks). She learned that although there were similar concerns to those which our community has voiced, the Caruso assertions proved to be correct. These community leaders were extremely satisfied with the Caruso team during construction and after opening. They were unanimous in their belief that since Caruso does not sell his properties that these properties are managed well for the long term.
Consequently, it is the Village Project Land Use Committee’s opinion that the proposed project will on balance offer residents a thoughtfully and responsibly managed shopping, restaurant and theater district that will be approved and enjoyed by the vast majority of residents. In that regard we offer the three motions which are set forth in the 2/25/16 PPCC Board meeting agenda.
EXHIBIT 2 – SUMMARY BIOGRAPHIES OF VPLUC MEMBERS AND TRANSPORTATION ADVISOR
David Kaplan (Chair): Area 6 Alternate Representative. Retired attorney and former Town Counsel to numerous Massachusetts municipalities/colleges and universities; extensive land use experience in that capacity.
Sue Kohl: Area 5 Representative. Long-time residential real estate agent and assistant manager of the Berkshire Hathaway office in Pacific Palisades.
Rick Mills: Area 4 Representative. Former Planner for the City of Santa Monica, handling planning and land use matters. Masters degree in City Planning, U.C. Berkeley. Long-serving past Chair of the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board. Real estate agent and condominium specialist with HomesUSA, Ltd. and the Law Offices of Paul DeSantis in Santa Monica.
Howard Robinson: Area 3 Alternate Representative. Professional land use consultant with more than 30 years of experience in real estate development, local government and the entitlement process. MBA degree (emphasis in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics), U.C. Berkeley. www.howardrobinson.net.
Cathy Russell: Area 7 Representative. Long-time residential real estate agent with Coldwell Banker in Pacific Palisades.
George Wolfberg: At-Large Representative. Retired City of Los Angeles official with extensive experience in local government process. Past PPCC President and Citizen of the Year. Chair of the Potrero Canyon Community Advisory Committee (PCCAC). Past member of PPCC’s former Land Use Committee. Long-serving and current PPCC representative to the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils Land Use & Planning Committee (WRAC-LUPC).
Chris Spitz (ex officio/non-voting): PPCC President. Attorney specializing in business litigation. Past Chair of PPCC’s former Land Use Committee. Member of the PCCAC. Past steering committee member, PlanCheckNCLA (educational organization that provides information about City Planning matters to interested community members Citywide). Member of WRAC leadership committee and PPCC Alternate representative to WRAC-LUPC.
PPCC Transportation Advisor Patti Post
- Voting member of the Board for 10 years as Area Alternate, Area Representative, Organizational Representative and Officer (Treasurer, 6 years)
- Transportation Advisor for about 10 years, alerting the Chair to transportation issues that could affect Palisadians and advising the Chair on transportation issues as requested
- 30+ years as transportation planning consultant, specializing in public transportation planning and operations
- Transportation planning for the LA Olympics
- Planning and operations positions with the regional transit operator in Los Angeles County
- B. A. from UCLA
- Master of City Planning (MCP) from Harvard University
 Acting pursuant to PPCC’s Bylaws, Art. V, Sec. 3(B). The public comment period on the MND expires 03/09/16. PPCC’s next board meeting date is 03/10/16. For procedural reasons a board vote could not be taken on 02/25/16 on motions then agendized for the Palisades Village Project and MND.