MINUTES FOR APRIL 12th 2018
Minutes taken by George Wolfberg
Voting Members in Attendance: Maryam Zar, George Wolfberg (acting Secretary), Richard Cohen, Reza Akef, Janet Anderson, Sarah Conner, Peter Culhane, Gil Dembo, Andy Frew, Lou Kamer, David Kaplan, Sue Kohl, Rick Mills, Cathy Russell, Danielle Samulon, Richard Wulliger
Voting Alternates: Kelly Comras
Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: Leah Cox, Alan Goldsmith, Andrew Sacks, Andrew Wolfberg, Brenda Theveny
1. Certification of Quorum. Chair Maryam Zar called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm and certified that a quorum was present.
2. Reading of Community Council’s Mission. The Chair read the Council’s Mission.
3. Introduction of the Board and Audience. The board and audience were introduced.
4. Approval of Minutes & Upcoming Meetings. 1) Approval of Minutes – The minutes of March 22, 2018 were deemed approved. 2) Upcoming Meetings – 4/26/18, 5/10/18.
5. Consideration of Agenda. Chair announced that the agenda was as distributed.
6. Treasurer’s Report. Richard Cohen (Treasurer) reported as follows:
“Our bank balance is $40,052 and since the last meeting we paid the premium for renewal of our general liability insurance which cost $965 vs. $799 last year.
“At the top is last year’s report to meet the Chair’s request for a review of the period of her incumbency. Since our reporting year per the Bylaws begins June 1st, last year’s number began at that date.
“As you can see, last year we increased our funds overall by $3,533. However we had an operating loss of $3,285. The difference was due to the unusually successful Holiday Gala which netted $6,818. Additionally, my employer made a gift of $2,000 to PPCC.
“Turning to this year…
“The first thing to note is that regular contributions are a pathetic $132
“Insurance cost has increased by about $300 vs. last year
“Our operating expenses so far are just over $4,000 and will go somewhat higher through year-end
“The Gala result is our one bright spot contributing almost $4,700.
“As a result of all of this our accumulated funds are up about $600 year to date.
“Note: this is just a partial year. Tax preparation fees and other expenses will likely be incurred.
“We used to raise about $2,000 with individual membership contributions from the community and this amount was sufficient to run the Council. Since we no longer send a newsletter with an envelope this revenue has disappeared. Also, expenses are about double now due to rising insurance and data costs. We need to discuss the revenue issue. We are now entirely reliant upon the Gala and associated tribute book. I think that this is risky for several reasons among which are the tremendous amount of work involved and the possibility that it will become impractical due to a lack of venue or other unknown factors. These issues should be addressed in the coming year. Fortunately our accumulated funds give us some breathing room.”
Richard indicated that there will be some expense to initiate the “per person” voting scheme which replaces the old one-vote-per-household system. A robust discussion ensued regarding the source of funds and options available to an organization that does not charge dues. Alan Goldsmith suggested that shirts, caps and other paraphernalia be sold at the car show and 4th of July, for example, and maybe a table at Farmers Market.
(See attached report for the financial details.)
7. General Public Comment on local issues.
7.1. Robert Flick complained PPCC Board member and Officer attendance of an event held at the Woman’s Club sponsored by Rony Shram for supporters of the proposed eldercare center at 1525 Palisades Dr. which was attended by two or three board members in their private capacity. Diane Bleak added that persons were transported to the event from the Highlands and that she had been prevented from attending meetings of the Highlands Presidents Council. Maryam explained that board members have a private voice, and in that capacity, are free to attend any public meeting. She made clear that any PPCC policy is only approved by a vote of the Board members at a duly announced meeting.
8. Reports, Announcements and Concerns.
8.1. From the Chair.
8.1.1. We are expecting a briefing from LA County Beaches and Harbors on both the bus turn-aorund planned for the County lot at the bottom of Sunset (and PCH) as well as beach access restriction concern that has been brought up before.
8.1.2. Committee Announcements.
8.1.2.a. Mobility & Safety Committee. The Chair appointed Lou Kamer as a committee of one and requested he search out and recommend possible members for appointment to the new Committee.
8.1.2.b. Committee of Elders. The Chair has appointed former Chairs Janet Turner, Joan Graves and Barbara Kohn to be a resource to the Chair.
8.1.3. Palisades Ambassadors Recognition. These volunteers from Palisades High have been very helpful and they have been recognized by the City Councilman. Does the PPCC also want to recognize their volunteer service to the community with certificates of recognition? The Chair explained that she’s talked to Palisades High School Principal and CM Bonin, and they are happy to sign the certificates along with PPCC Chair and Vice-Chair, to recognize the graduating Seniors among the Ambassadors. The board indicated an eagerness to support this idea. Some board members raised their hands to vote for a motion, but the Treasurer suggested a “sense of the board” which the Chair affirmed she had gotten in the positive.
8.1.4. 1525 N. Palisades Drive Project. See letter submitted to the West LA Area Planning Commission prior to the 4/18 hearing, attached.
8.1.5. Issues being referred to the Bylaws Committee. See letter from Chair, attached. George Wolfberg encouraged all parties to submit suggestions for consideration by the Bylaws Committee.
8.2. From Officers.
8.2.1. George Wolfberg (Vice-Chair) gave a detailed report regarding yesterday’s PCH Task Force Meeting in Malibu:
Tim Harter is leaving Assemblyman Bloom’s office to take the position of Government Relations Director for the Byrd scooters.
PPCC Transportation Advisor Patti Post and George met last week in Calabasas with Senator Stern’s deputy Jeremy Wolf who will be the lead person going forward with Tim Harter’s moving on and Lila Kalaf of Senator Allen’s office on extended leave. Jeremy took many notes in our meeting and Patti and George were pleased to see that he had engaged an intern to take notes of yesterday’s task force meeting in Malibu.
The state legislature is looking at creating four pilot projects (two in Northern California and two in Southern California) to develop congestion pricing concepts. Also, there is preliminary consideration of legislation to penalize texting while walking in the street.
CHP. The Highway Patrol is making distracted driving a point of emphasis. A distracted driving handout was distributed.
Chautauqua at PCH. Caltrans expects the new traffic directional signs to be delivered this month with installation probably sometime in May or June.
Malibu Signal Synchronization (12 signals between Topanga Canyon and John Tyler). Project in preliminary design phase.
Santa Monica Pier Bridge. EIR comment period is closed—many comments received. May delay project past current estimated completion date of 2020
Pier Parking Lot Stormwater project. The spoils from the big dig are being spread along the beach with Coastal Commission approval.
Potrero Canyon Park. Lisa Cahill reported that construction of the rough grading phase of the project is expected to start in the summer with an estimated 14 months of work.
Office of Traffic Safety Grant. Project is moving along on many fronts led by consultant Pat Hines. On April 29 Pat will be present at the Palisades Farmers Market. Expect interactive maps of where accidents are happening, the opportunity to blend your own smoothie on a blender bike and more. Other issues: parents are teaching their children potentially fatal habits by not stopping at stop signs. People with little or no bike riding experience, are renting electric bicycles and riding at 30 miles per hour on the coast highway — another recipe for disaster.
Camping Vehicles along the Highway. These are prohibited in Malibu and (overnight) in Los Angeles. Enterprising entrepreneurs are fixing up old campers for homeless people and others. Some vendors are renting RVs in a manner similar to Airbnb rentals. Coastal Commission, so far, thinks this is a splendid idea. By the way, Sharon Kilbride and George requested replacement of the defaced “No Overnight Parking” signs near Gladstones and police are again enforcing these restrictions.
Bus turnaround. Speaking of Gladstones, Patti Post called out the County to be mindful of the provision in the RFP for a new restaurant to allow a “turnaround” for buses and the message was acknowledged by Supervisor Kuehl’s representative. Patti and Maryam Zar will continue to press the County to put the turnaround in place as soon as possible, but implementation is likely many years away.
Highway Service Patrol initiative. LA Metro has operated a very successful Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) for many years. The City of Malibu and Supervisor’s Kuehl’s approached Metro to see if such a service could be tried on PCH. Since PCH is a highway, not a freeway, some adjustments to the program would be necessary. Also, the FSP has been capped for years, but SB1 could provide additional funding to add another corridor. Under SB1, Metro would fund 80% of the program costs, with the remaining 20% provided by local sources.
The Task Force was given a PowerPoint presentation by a Metro consultant on the possibility of extending the service to PCH to scoop up vehicles in distress, change a tire, and provide a jumpstart or a free gallon of gasoline. Providing those services could reduce the time that disabled vehicles block lanes and thereby reduce congestion and frustration.
After many slides, the presenter concluded that, although not a freeway, PCH would meet minimum criteria of traffic levels to qualify for this service at selected hours. Issues included where to haul off nonoperable vehicles, how to coordinate among all the law enforcement agencies, long distances to cover and, of course, where to get the 20% balance of the cost. Senator Kuehl’s office was amenable to provide any funding not coming from Malibu or SB1. Stand by! Even with all agencies cooperating, it is likely to take at least a year to get a demonstration started.
8.2.2. George Wolfberg also reported that he and David Card along with Lisa Cahill from Councilman Bonin’s office attended the Rec and Parks Commission meeting last week to observe Joe Halper in action (he had to run a subcommittee without the absent chair and did a fine job). George and David also wanted to see the Potrero project actually take some baby steps. David gave an excellent presentation advocating for the City to let the second contract for landscaping as soon as possible so the many plants, especially in one gallon containers, can be purchased now and have at least a year’s growth before planting. This first contract is only for rough grading with a second finishing contract to come later. David also cautioned that the plant list needs to be carefully reviewed to avoid any possibility of monoculture mistakes because of limited diversity and to reflect possible global warming impact of some of the selected plantings.
8.3. From At-Large and Area Reps.
8.3.1. Peter Culhane (Area 2 Representative) attended Planning 101 (noticed by the Chair since Peter Culhane had to leave at 8pm. Alan Goldsmith served the remainder of the meeting in his stead).
8.3.2. Kelly Comras (Area 1 Second Alternate) stressed the importance of the Bus turnaround at the Gladstones location.
8.4. From Organizational Reps.
8.4.1. Gil Dembo (TCA) stated that he had inspected Potrero Canyon last week with Lisa Cahill along with George Wolfberg and David Card.
8.4.2. Dick Wulliger (Historical Society) reported that applications for Chief of Police have come in from throughout the world and the plan is to identify the top three contenders for consideration by the Mayor.
8.4.3. Sarah Conner (PPRA) reported that her organization had sent a letter to the West LA Area Planning Commission in opposition to the 1525 Palisades Drive proposed development of an eldercare center.
8.5. From Government Offices/Representatives.
8.5.1. LAPD SLO, Michael Moore — Not present, no report.
8.5.2. Office of Councilmember Mike Bonin, CD 11.
Field Deputy Lisa Cahill stated that they are investigating two houses under construction on Will Rogers Park Rd. to determine whether it is possible to save trees on the sites. Porto Marina Way is being repaved. Residents are urged to report issues with Via De Las Olas to 3-1-1. Finally, residents in Brentwood are forming a homeless task force modeled after the successful organization in Pacific Palisades.
8.5.3. Office of Congressman Ted Lieu, Janet Turner.
Janet reported that the current VA Master Plan implementation through an incremental process of separate RFPs is not working and the VA will be advertising for a master developer for the entire VA campus with a hearing scheduled for April 26 at the VA Hospital. See announcement and letter of support from Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Lieu, at https://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/West-LA-VA-Campus-Implementation-letter-and-hearing-announcement.pdf.
8.6. From PPCC Advisors – None.
9. Reports from Committees – None.
10. Old Business – None.
11. New Business.
11.1. The Riviera Country Club.
The Riviera Country Club (RCC). Andrew Wolfberg, Area 8 Second Alternate, indicated that RCC has a service/maintenance entrance at the end of Longworth Avenue which is seeing possible construction/improvements, causing great concern to nearby Polo Field residents. Laurie Kraus [resident] lives on Longworth near the gate and is concerned that RCC may be converting the gate to an entrance for club patrons/tennis players who now drive in at the main entrance on Capri. She has gathered 90 signatures from neighbors in three days. She is concerned about traffic safety and especially lack of outreach from RCC. She believes there should be a study of traffic impacts and requests notice of environmental and traffic studies.
Reza Akef, Area 8 Representative, expressed concern about serial or incremental permits which may avoid environmental study; vague security booth with circular driveway, a possible complete remodel via Title 24 permits and a 2017 grading pre-inspection, expansion of multipurpose room and basement and removal of a tennis court for a possible parking lot. (See permits obtained by Len Nguyen at https://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/125020capri20permits.pdf.)
Kelly Comras wondered about notice to neighbors and whether such piecemeal permitting was legal. An audience member stated that the tennis courts were being accessed from Longworth 100% of the time.
Donald Emery, the RCC general manager, responded. The Riviera used to own the polo fields. There are several issues with the Longworth Gate area including pavement, an aging sewer line and a bridge that need strengthening. There is no expansion in this area, in fact a reduction of one tennis court and a new part time security hut so there will be safer access for patrons walking to the courts or who live in the polo fields area and would like to avoid driving up to Capri. The gate will be used by staff at tournaments and Revere students coming to play tennis. He denied the gate is for new access. He did not know if there would be an increase in traffic on Longworth.
Richard Cohen asserted that there should be no increase in traffic. Lisa Cahill stated that the entire CD11 planning team is looking into the issue. Another neighbor complained that Big Rigs arrive at 4 AM in the morning with no advance notice disrupting the tranquility of the neighborhood. Sarah Conner requested a copy of the CUP. David Kaplan asked what steps would be taken to keep gate usage as it has been historically. Lou Kamer stated that Longworth is on the “Safe Routes to School” map and safety is a matter of concern.
Mr. Emery stated that he would bring the stated concerns to his management. He was asked to return and urged to open a dialog with the community. He pledged that he would.
See PPCC Letter re Riviera (sent to the Council District, prior to the meeting), attached.
12. Adjournment. Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:10 pm.
(Attachments begin on next page.)
ITEM 6 – Treasurer’s Report
|Treasurer’s Report – Richard G. Cohen
|as of April 12, 2018
|Report June 1, 2016 – May 31, 2017
|Increase in Funds
|Regular Contributions (includes $2,000 from MS)
|Data and Election Related
|Total Operating Expenses
|Operating Loss *
|Dinner & Tribute Revenue
|Event Profit *
|Increase in Funds Last Year
|Report June 1, 2017 – April 10, 2018 Fiscal Year-to-Date (1)
|Increase in Funds This Term
|Chamber Event Tickets
|Total Operating Expenses
|Operating Loss *
|Dinner & Tribute Revenue
|Event Profit *
|Increase in Funds Fiscal Y-T-D
|Total increase in funds since June 1, 2016
|(1) – Partial year. Tax prep and other expenses will be incurred through end of year.
|* – PPCC is a Not-for-Profit 501(c)3 corporation and as such does not have “profit” or “loss”.
|These terms are used as substitutes for “revenues in excess of expenses” or the reverse.
ITEM 8.1.4 — Letter to West LA Area Planning Commission regarding 1525 Palisades Drive
April 10, 2018
Esther Margulies, President
West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission
Henry Medina WLA Parking Enforcement Facility
11214 W. Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Re: 1525 Palisades Drive, Proposed Eldercare Facility
Case No. ZA-2017-2170-ELD-CDP-SPR and ENV-2017-2171-CE
On November 2, 2017, I wrote to inform the Zoning Administrator (ZA) of the PPCC Board’s motion regarding the eldercare facility proposed for 1525 Palisades Drive, Pacific Palisades (Property) pursuant to the above-referenced Case (Eldercare Project).
As a recap, on October 26, 2017, the Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) Land Use Committee considered the Eldercare Project and produced an advisory opinion to the PPCC Board that the Eldercare Project was an appropriate use for the Property. The full board of the PPCC then discussed the matter and passed the motion below, after hearing presentation from both sides and listening to testimony from residents.
PPCC finds that the proposed eldercare facility is an appropriate use. We note community concerns about height, safety, access, noise, disruption and proximity to zoned open space. The developer assures us that the Palisades Dr. driveway will be modified to exit only. Further, the developer assures us that he will be responsive to complaints about outdoor light.
Since that time, questions have been raised as to the breadth of the PPCC’s finding and the extent of the affirmation the finding conveyed with respect to the Eldercare Project. In the interest of full and complete communication, I now offer the following additional comments, which are intended to clarify and contextualize the PPCC Board’s action.
- With its motion, the Board intended to say only that we thought an eldercare facility was an appropriate land use at the Property. The finding was limited to the appropriateness of the use. The motion was not intended either to imply support for the design of the proposed building or to address the question of whether the Eldercare Project was in conformity with the California Coastal Act or applicable City of Los Angeles regulations including the required findings for approval of a Coastal Development Permit (LAMC 20.2) or Site Plan Review (LAMC 15.05).
- The Board declined to consider, or make any determination, about the Eldercare Project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and whether or not the City acted properly in June, 2017 when it determined the project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The Board made this decision after making clear that we lacked the requisite knowledge and expertise to engage in a well-informed debate on this aspect of the project.
- The Board and its Land Use Committee, in aggregate, spent approximately three hours on October 26, 2017 hearing from local residents and deliberating the Board’s position on the Eldercare Project. In its adopted motion, the Board noted “community concerns about height, safety, access, noise, disruption and proximity to zoned open space.” A large number of residents attended these meetings to express their support or opposition, indicating an extreme level of community engagement in this issue. Our intent in noting the areas of concern in our motion was to communicate the types of concerns expressed by many residents, to City decision makers.
- In our letter to the ZA, we noted that the developer acknowledged community concerns with respect to the height and scale of the building at the October 26, 2017 meeting, and made a verbal commitment to be mindful of those concerns. Our intent in making these statements was to bring the primary scope of community feedback to the attention of the City decision-makers, in case they had relevance in the ZA crafting of conditions or requirements for the Eldercare Project, should it be approved.
- The PPCC Guiding Principles state in part, that “the PPCC maintains that planning and zoning regulations, building codes, rules, restrictions, and ordinances have been established for the good of the community. They should be applied, upheld and enforced by the Zoning Administrator, Building and Safety, and other governing bodies with jurisdiction over the approval, execution, and enforcement processes.” These principals were drafted purposefully, and are found in our Bylaws. Without expressly stating this in each of our positions, we incorporate them by inference and insist that all laws be scrupulously applied. The Guiding Principles also include, by inference, all applicable State and local laws and regulations affecting development in the Coastal Zone.
It is my hope that this letter helps clarify the limited scope of the finding adopted by PPCC, i.e., that the Eldercare Project would be an appropriate use, and that it assists the West LA Area Planning Commission in its evaluation of appeals of the Zoning Administrator’s January 26, 2018 decision regarding the Case.
Chair, Pacific Palisades Community Council
ITEM 8.1.5 – Bylaws Suggestion from Chair
PPCC Bylaws referral issues; April 12, 2018; Submitted by the Chair
For consideration by Bylaws Committee, and findings advised to the board by May 24, 2018.
Election related issues:
Independent oversight/administration of elections
In NC elections, ballot counting and certification is done by an independent office (The City Clerk), not the individual councils. It can be perceptually damaging when our elections are administered by board members and individuals who at times have been very vocal about their preferences for people and issues that have impacted the board. Perceptions can be just as important as conduct when it comes to maintaining the public trust. When candidates have clearly been preferred by the counters, there is a perception of impartiality and a question of conflict that must be addressed. The election Committee can be made of board members – preferably those whose positions on issues and candidates are not obvious – but those tasked with tallying the vote must be independent and unconnected to the outcome of the vote.
Suggestion for Consideration: to appoint the non-voting legal advisor as the Chairman of the election committee, with the final authority over the appearance of the ballot, which ballots are disqualified, and the final certification/count.
PPCC Logo on Campaign Materials
Just as using the city seal on campaign materials is a disqualifying offense in NC elections, using the PPCC logo on campaign materials should be expressly prohibited in the Bylaws. This could be interpreted as a Council’s endorsement of the candidate.
Paper ballots must be preserved for those who do not feel comfortable with digital ballots. Voters should not be dissuaded from voting one way or another by members of the EC. Voters should not, for example, approach the Farmers Market table ready to vote and then be told it is preferable that they vote online.
Release of Results
Full results of the election, including vote totals should released publicly, all at once, when available.
The same people (or substantially the same people) may not administer the elections and also be the ones who nominate the Alternates. This creates a tension whereby a candidate cannot challenge the EC’s conduct during the campaign, or the results of the election, without fearing retaliation during the Alternate selection process.
Suggestion 1: Having the newly elected Rep nominate their alternates, and then have them confirmed by the council voting members at a subsequent meeting.
Suggestion 1: Having a second place finisher (within a certain vote differential) automatically qualified as the 2nd Alternate.
Non election related matters:
Recording or live broadcast of Proceedings
All PPCC meetings or committee meetings shall be audio recorded and made available to the public via the PPCC website.
Justification: The majority of Palisades residents do not choose to attend meetings unless there is an issue that interests them. There are other residents who do not want to attend full meetings but would be interested in what their elected representatives are doing on their behalf.
The minutes of the board meetings are broad and do not represent the complete discussions or supporting material that makes up board votes. Additionally, there have been multiple instances where both board members and participants have said things that are later contested or argued. This amendment would eliminate this unnecessary conflict and make everyone accountable.
Most modern public organizations and representative bodies make their proceedings available live or via online archive. The PPCC is no different and should be accessible to the public it serves in as many venues as possible, in keeping with the times, to fulfill its mission and remain relevant to the Palisades constituency.
The technical requirements to fulfill this responsibility is simple and free.
Statements of Conflict of Interest
The PPCC board consists of residents with broad professional experience and, in some cases, influential connections. These resources are invaluable when discussing particular subjects or motions before the board, but they can also give rise to conflicts, or the impression thereof.
Both the Bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order outline procedures for conflicts of interest, but do not include a method for board members or the public to systematically and defensibly ask about those conflicts, or a codified manner of addressing them.
A simple form or questionnaire distributed to members at the start of their service outlining their potential and real conflicts of interest through professional or social circles will ensure that the community can review and discover these potential conflicts, and the EC should have a tolerance for community or board members to question those conflicts and the appropriateness of members to serve on committees or vote on matters that may benefit them directly or indirectly. The Chair should be able to be required and able defend his/her appointees frankly and openly.
Consider whether Term Limits should be set for all officer roles. Consider whether term limits should be set for Area representatives. Please advise the pros and cons that were considered.
- Obvious interest: Should someone with an obvious interest that is of a controversial nature in our community be allowed on the board, as an organizational member (case currently worthy of highlighting: Rick Lemmo of Caruso Affiliated as well as representing our local Chamber).
- Private enrichment: If a Board member accepts an offer to become privately enriched (directly or indirectly) by an entity that has a matter before the board, should that be announced, and that person be prohibited from acting as a board member on that matter (advocating or voting).
- Newspaper interface: Letters to the Editor from Board members or Executive Committee members in the PPCC capacity should or should not be affirmed by the Chair? Can the Chair write without affirmation from the EC or a Communications Committee (to be appointed by each Chair)?
- Polling: In the modern day, when digital polling is so easy to do, should Area reps be required to show that they’ve reached out to their constituents before voting on a controversial matter.
ITEM 11.1 — Letter Re Riviera Country Club
April 5, 2018
Honorable City Councilman
200 N. Spring Street, Suite #475
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Expansion at Riviera Country Club (1250 Capri Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272)
Dear Councilmember Bonin,
The Executive Committee of the PPCC expresses our concern regarding the activities of the Riviera Country Club, located adjacent to the Palisades residential neighborhood known as “The Polo Fields”, along the eastern edge of our community (bordering Brentwood).
It has come to our attention that the Riviera Country Club (Riviera) has applied for a string of building permits with the City of Los Angeles which aggregate to represent an apparent expansion of its facilities in Pacific Palisades which may be unlawful. Among them is the expanded use of a gate on Longworth Avenue that has historically been prohibited, we believe pursuant to an agreement made many years ago, for the Riviera to coexist in harmony within the community and with its residential neighbors.
The Riviera has made these applications apparently without alerting the community or surrounding residences. The applications, submitted separately, have eluded scrutiny at the West Los Angeles Planning Department “planning counter” and permits have been granted without the necessary review that the full scope of the plans may merit. We also note that the shift in use will introduce an unknown number of vehicles onto Longworth Drive, which feeds into Allenford Avenue where Paul Revere Middle School lies. This move comes at a time when this community has focused on safety along the Paul Revere corridor, impacting students and residents on a daily basis.
For these reasons, and more, PPCC respectfully asks that your planning staff place a hold on this project until the PPCC Board can take up the matter, and until such a time that Riviera informs us of the full scope of their plans, and its impact on the community.
Thank you and your staff for your assistance with this matter.
Pacific Palisades Community Council
*This letter is being submitted by the PPCC Executive Committee pursuant to its authority under the PPCC bylaws to act for the board under emergency circumstances when the full board cannot act. In this case the full board cannot take up the matter until its next regularly scheduled meeting on April 12 and it is imperative that a hold be placed on any activities that may continue or commence before that time.