Return to Index of 2020 Minutes
MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 8th 2020
Meeting held via Zoom videoconference
Voting Members in Attendance: David Card, David Kaplan, Richard Cohen, Chris Spitz, Matthew Quiat, Jenny Li, Karen Ridgley, Joanna Spak, Sue Kohl, Brenda Theveny, Craig Natvig, Trish Bowe, Beth Holden-Garland, Alan Goldsmith, Steve Cron* (*arrived late)
Voting Alternates: John Padden, Kerri Kraft, Eric Dugdale
Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: Jack Coleman
1. Call to order and reading of Mission Statement. The Chair David Card called the meeting to order at 5:32pm and read the Mission Statement.
2. Introduction of Zoom engineer. The Chair welcomed everyone and introduced the technical engineer Alex Ponting. Introductions of the Board and audience were deferred.
3. Roll call of voting members and certification of quorum. The Chair called the roll of voting members and certified that there was a quorum.
4. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of September 24, 2020 were approved as corrected. Upcoming meetings: October 22, 2020: (1) (Tentative) Three Chairs Committee announcement of nominees and Board election of Area & At-large Alternate Representatives; (2) Presentation by LADOT Senior Transportation Engineer Tim Fremaux and CD11 Transportation Director Eric Bruins regarding improvements to Chautauqua/PCH and Chautauqua/Sunset intersections; (3) (Tentative) motions recommended to member-councils by the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC). November 12, 2020: topics to be announced.
5. Consideration of Agenda. Agenda items may be taken out of order at the discretion of the Chair.
6. Treasurer’s Report.
The Treasurer Richard G. Cohen reported that PPCC’s cash balance is $38,632.83. There were no significa transactions since the last report.
7. General Public Comment – None.
8. Reports, Announcements and Concerns.
8.1. From the Chair/Presiding Officer.
8.1.1. Welcome to incoming PPCC Board members (term beginning October 1, 2020). Area and At-large Representatives (new & returning) – two-year term ending September 30, 2022; Organizational representatives (new & returning) – one-year term ending September 30, 2021. See: https://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-2021-PPCC-Organizations.pdf
The Chair welcomed all new and returning Board members (both elected Representatives and Organizational Representatives). The Chair read the names of all incoming Area & At-large Representatives as well as the names of all incoming Organizational members and their representatives for this term [see attachment below].
8.1.2. Update on Ryu-Koretz motion for an ICO/temporary construction halt (committee hearing not yet scheduled as of agenda distribution; PPCC letter to be drafted per Board straw poll vote on 9/24).
The Chair reported that the City Council has been in recess this week and that as of this meeting the motion has not yet been scheduled for hearing in Committee; a letter will be drafted to be submitted as soon as possible to the Council File.
8.1.3. Executive Committee letter regarding Ryu-Bonin motion to update BMO-BHO (opposition to proposed citywide cap on home size); update on Oct. 1 PLUM committee hearing.
The Chair explained that this position letter was approved by the Executive Committee on an emergency basis because the motion was scheduled to be heard in the Council PLUM Committee before it could be considered by the full PPCC Board. As explained in the letter, we oppose amendment of the zoning code to impost a standard cap on home size citywide. He also reported that this motion passed on the PLUM Committee consent calendar, without debate by the Committee members, on October 1. It has not yet been scheduled for hearing by the full Council. If the motion passes in Council, then the Planning Dept. will conduct studies and prepare a report on the requested revisions to the Zoning Code, which will then go back to the Committee for further review/action. We will continue to monitor and may consider whether additional aspects of motion should be taken up by the PPCC Land Use Committee.
8.1.4. Executive Committee letter regarding Ryu-Koretz motion to expand the Hillside Construction Regulation District Ordinance/Pilot Program citywide; update on Oct. 1 PLUM committee hearing.
The Chair again explained that this position letter was approved by the Executive Committee on an emergency basis because the motion was scheduled to be heard in the Council PLUM Committee before it could be considered by the full PPCC Board. As explained in the letter, we do not oppose further study and mapping to determine which areas citywide should be included in the “Hillside Construction Regulation Supplemental Use District” (HCRD); we also support certain specific provisions of the HCRD ordinance dealing with restrictions on certain construction activities during windy and Red Flag days. The Chair further reported that this motion passed on the PLUM Committee consent calendar, without debate by the Committee members, on October 1. It has not yet been scheduled for hearing by the full Council. If the motion passes in Council, then the Planning Dept. will then prepare proposed amendments to the regulations and map all areas citywide which should be included within the HCRD; this will in turn go back to the Committee for further review/action. We will continue to monitor and may consider whether aspects of the motion (in particular the proposed regulations regarding hillside construction activities) should be considered by thePPCC Land Use Committee.
8.2. From Officers.
8.2.1. Chris Spitz (Secretary) advised that the beginning of the new term is a good time to remind everyone of SR 9 of the PPCC bylaws (Code of Conduct), which states that “all Board Members should prepare in advance of meetings and be familiar with issues on the agenda.” Please remember that the Chair and Secretary work hard to prepare informative agendas with background information whenever possible, especially on items where action may be taken. These agendas have for the last two years been distributed on the Friday before each Thursday meeting via our Mailchimp email blast. This is to give everyone time to open the email, click on the agenda, review the items to be considered, and get input whenever possible from the respective Representatives’ boards or constituents. Please look for these in your inbox and open the messages; please be sure that PPCC emails are not going into your junk or spam files. Please also note – opening the Mailchimp email is NOT the same as clicking on and actually reading the agenda. The Mailchimp message is a brief preview of the agenda, not the agenda itself, which voting Board members are expected to read before coming to the meetings. Thank you for complying with these basic obligations of Board members.
8.3. From At-Large and Area Representatives.
8.3.1. Steve Cron (Area 2 Representative) thanked CD 11 Palisades Field Deputy Durrah Wagner for assisting with the very clogged drains along Palisades Dr. The poor conditions were extensive and Ms. Wagner did an incredible job which greatly improved the situation.
8.4. From Organizational Representatives.
8.4.1. Beth Holden-Garland (PPRA) announced that PPRA, along with the Edlen real estate team, has arranged for free flu shots to be given this coming Saturday, Oct. 10 and the following Saturday, Oct. 17, at CVS (parking lot upper deck). Hours: 10am-2pm. Seniorcitizen doses will be offered. Register at PPRA Facebook page.
8.4.2. Craig Natvig (Palisades Beautiful) reported that during the month of September, Palisades Beautiful (PB) teamed up with Heal the Bay during Coastal Clean Up month. PB was involved with Heal the Bay on a beach area cleanup that had hundreds of participants overall and 20 PB participants. It was a successful effort and a lot of trash was picked up.
8.5. From Government Offices / Representatives. Contact information available at: https://pacpalicc.org/index.php/government-contacts/.
8.5.1. Zachary Gaidzik, Metro/West LA Representative, LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. Mr. Gaidzik was not available to stay for the entire meeting but provided a written report in advance. [See: https://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SD3-Update-10-08-20.pdf.]
8.5.2. Jeff Klein, civic engagement manager, LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office (see Item 11.1 below).
8.6. From PPCC Advisors.
8.6.1. Jack Coleman (Youth Advisor) reported that students are getting back to school online. The recent power outages in the Palisades were difficult for students. He would like information from LADWP as to whether the outages were due to lines being down.
9. Reports from Committees.
9.1. Three Chairs Committee (Maryam Zar, Committee Chair). Applications now being accepted for Alternate Area & At-large Representative positions; see Alternates Application notice: https://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Alternates-Application-Notice-2020.pdf. Deadline to apply: 5pm, October 18.
In the absence of the Committee Chair, Chris Spitz (as a Member of the Three Chairs Committee) announced that we are continuing to accept applications for Alternate Area & At-large Representative positions. The deadline to apply is roughly one week away: October 18 at 5pm. The Three Chairs Committee encourages all interested and eligible Palisadians to apply. She noted that the terms of the most recent Alternates have expired as of 9/30/20 and they must reapply if they wish to be considered again. The process: the Committee will review the applications and may interview candidates as needed. They will select nominees who may be presented at the Board meeting on October 22. Following presentation of nominees, the Board will elect the new Alternate Area & At-large Representatives, who will then serve the same terms as their respective primary Representatives, with their terms ending on September 30, 2022.
9.2. Palisades Forestry Committee (PFC; Cindy Kirven, Committee Chair). (Tentative) report on matter involving replacement of dead parkway trees at 15539 W. Via de las Olas; property owner invited to attend. Possible Committee recommendation for Board action.
The PPCC Chair (David Card) “handed the gavel” to PPCC Vice-Chair David Kaplan to preside over this agenda item, since he (David Card) would be participating in the PFC’s presentation and recommendation to the Board. The Presiding Officer (David Kaplan) noted that the PFC Chair Cindy Kirven and the property owner, Ira Jay Boren, were both present. He invited the PFC Chair first to give a presentation, to be followed by a presentation by Mr. Boren. Discussion and Q&A with both presenters will then follow.
The PFC Chair proceeded to give the PFC’s report about the matter, which included a slide show of relevant documents and photographs which were distributed in advance to the Board as well as to Mr. Boren [materials also posted on PPCC’s website: https://www.beautiful.ai/player/-MHr8ImgXO4Ro_e_R3Rb/PFC-Via-de-las-Olas-replacement-trees-2020].
The PFC Chair spoke in detail about the history of this matter and the current status. She described the documents and photographs being shown and reiterated the points made in the written PFC report. She summarized the requests recommended by the PFC, as set forth in the draft letter contained within the report. She emphasized that the PFC supports preservation of all of the urban canopy which is enjoyed by the community as a whole, and that the PFC seeks restoration, not punishment.
Mr. Boren then spoke, first presenting background information about himself. He has lived with his family in the same house in Pacific Palisades for 35 years and raised children here. He has been active in the Palisades, believes he is part of the community and is disappointed and sorry that this matter has caused a problem for the community. He has worked with LAPD for 25 years and helped fund a special place for officers with COVID to gather. As to the parkway trees matter, he maintained that he was given only a day to prepare for this meeting, was surprised that the matter had come to this and was disappointed that he had not been reached out to in advance as a neighbor. He then explained the history of the matter from his point of view and presented a slide show with several documents and photographs. He stated that the process to remove the trees took eight months, starting in 2014. The sidewalks in front of his property were clearly lifted and the parkway trees were not in good condition. He showed an Arborist’s report describing the poor health of the trees and said that a determination was made by the City’s Urban Forestry Dept. that the trees would be removed and he (Mr. Boren) would be responsible for removing the trees and replacing them. The “double-trunk” tree died on its own. Urban Forestry came and removed the tree and left the trunk; Mr. Boren stated that he did not take out that tree. He further maintained that the trees were never properly planted and blocked sidewalks, that the City had abandoned the street and that no one was taking care of the parkway trees.
According to Mr. Boren, the City told him that in order to fix the sidewalk he had to take out the trees. The Presiding Officer then asked Mr. Boren to please explain what permit he had to do this. Mr. Boren explained that the process took eight months and resulted in a hearing in February 2015. He showed a copy of a Board of Public Works hearing agenda for that date, reflecting an open public hearing at which a recommendation was made to approve removal of “three Manna Gum Trees for the restoration of off-grade sidewalk located at 15529 W. Via de Las Osas,” with tree replacements required. It was his understanding that this was all that he needed and that a further “tree permit” was unnecessary. The document he saw giving approval to remove the trees had no expiration date. When it was time to take the trees down, he mistakenly didn’t realize he needed another permit. He stated that he dug exactly where “DigAlert” told him to dig. As to a broken water pipe, this was three feet from the location where he was told the water pipe would be. He followed all protocol and instructions. It was not his intention to cause any problems for neighbors or to cause water supply to be shut off.
There was a local uproar after the trees were removed and the water pipe was broken. The Council office became involved and LADBS put a hold on construction. He was eventually told, as part of an agreement with the City to allow construction to resume, to plant six Brisbane Box replacement trees in the parkway. Urban Forestry choose the type, size and placement of the trees. They came out to the property, did all markings and measurements and put stakes down. Mr. Boren explained that he then planted the trees in exactly the locations where Urban Forestry wanted them to be planted; he had no say in the matter; and did everything he was told to do. He tried maintaining the trees and put in water tubes because he thought this would help with watering, but he was not given instructions on tree maintenance. He has replaced the dead trees and advises that the trees are being watered. He has also posted the required bond. He stated that he would have been happy to show all documents to the PFC if he had been asked.
Mr. Boren then showed photographs of parkways on Via de Las Olas and Mt. Holyoke, reflecting a total of nine street trees in a two-block radius. He has added six street trees in the parkway at his property. He would be willing to make a donation to plant trees in other nearby parkways that are without street trees. The PFC’s requests — that he be required to plant more than six trees and to extend the bond — seem punitive to him. In addition, he argued that too many trees that produce a large canopy are a fire hazard. People have been shooting off fireworks and there have been recent brush fires on or below the Via de Las Olas bluff. He summarized his position: These trees were sick and dying. He removed the trees thinking he had full permission and just didn’t pull the final permit. The trees were all tagged. He is putting in a new sidewalk, planted the replacement trees and posted a bond as per the City’s requirements. He has replaced the ones that died. He is trying the best he can.
Discussion then ensued, with questions directed either to the PFC Chair or Mr. Boren.
Jenny Li (Area 7 Representative); Q for Boren: What was the plan when he received permission in terms of landscaping on the parkway? A: He didn’t remove trees without permission and there was an agreement with Urban Forestry. They told him exactly what trees to replace and how many to replace.
PPCC Treasurer; Q for Boren: Have you studied the letter that our PFC is recommending? What do you think about maintenance requirements, extending the survival date for release of the bond and confirmation that the bond is proper? Do you object? A: Yes, the bond agreement was already made and he put up a $20,000 bond. There was nothing about starting the bond again. He is trying to use best practices with watering. Urban Forestry should give instructions to property owners on how to maintain street trees; they don’t do that. He isn’t an expert. He put tubes in thinking the trees weren’t getting enough water. They were staked according to Urban Forestry guidelines. He then showed emails that came from Urban Forestry which he stated indicated they approved the planting and placement in accordance with their agreement. He stated that he is in total compliance with the agreement they already reached. PPCC Treasurer: How does Mr. Boren see his responsibilities regarding these trees going forward? A: He wants the trees to live. He has paid twice for these trees, he has put up the required bond, and he is trying to take care of the trees as best as he knows how to; he welcomes suggestions on how to care for the trees.
Karen Ridgley (Area 4 Representative); Q for PFC Chair: Once street trees are planted, are there still requirements for owners who want to mitigate the tree canopy? Are they allowed to trim and keep their view? Are there regulations regarding upkeep? A: Any resident with a tree in the parkway must obtain a permit for any trimming, planting or removal. Karen Ridgley: Where does a normal homeowner get information about what they have to do? A: It is incumbent on the homeowner to find the information; you can Google “street trees in Los Angeles.”
Alan Goldsmith (At-large Representative); Q for Boren: What’s his major objection? A: He has already made his agreement with Urban Forestry and he’s in total compliance. This is not the place to make a new agreement.
Matthew Quiat (Area 6 Representative); Q for PFC Chair: What is the protocol for the young trees currently there? Whose responsibility is it to replace them? A: The property owner posted a bond to ensure the trees will be maintained appropriately 3 years from planting.
Eric Dugdale (PP Historical Society Alternate): We have landmarked Eucalyptus trees before in the Palisades. We really miss these particular trees when we walk by. They were worth a lot to the community. The reason the community reacted so strongly is because the trees were gorgeous and they are now gone.
Craig Natvig (Palisades Beautiful): He grew up at the other end of Via de Las Olas, where there are many large Eucalyptus trees; it seems as if Urban Forestry didn’t space the trees accordingly on Mr. Boren’s end of Via de Las Olas. Mr. Boren: You would have to ask Urban Forestry; he just planted where they told him to plant.
David Card (ex officio member of the PFC): A few weeks ago, he (David Card) spoke with Urban Forestry and Stephen Duprey of Urban Forestry. Mr. Duprey told him that people from Urban Forestry spotted where the trees should go and they weren’t planted there. There’s a dispute with what Mr. Boren is saying. DigAlert doesn’t tell you where all the pipes are. Hand-digging is safer than the backhoe used by Mr. Boren. Urban Forestry originally wanted eight trees to be planted; there’s plenty of room in the parkway to put in more trees. There is no reason not to plant trees now just because of threats of fire. We need trees for oxygen; without them we would die. We know how to plant safely. Homes are inspected annually for fire safety. We need more trees for survival on the planet.
Chris Arvin and Monique Lafia (residents): They have lived here twenty years and are near the Borens. They specifically moved here because of the gorgeous trees on the bluffs. Questioned why Mr. Boren didn’t consider just trimming the trees. Mr. Boren: He is sure his neighbors are unhappy that he’s been in construction for the last year and a half. That’s not the point of this topic tonight. An agreement was made, a bond was put up, he is in full compliance and there’s a legal document. Stephen Duprey didn’t come up to the property himself. Mr. Boren is willing to testify under oath that he planted the trees according to what Urban Forestry told him.
Reza Akef (resident; former Area 8 Representative): Emphasized three points: 1) there is nothing on the Urban Forestry website about best practices on how to water and maintain street trees for three years; 2) the PPCC Executive Committee should be disappointed that there hasn’t been transparency; the PFC never called or met with the owner or held a public meeting about this as the Land Use Committee normally does; 3) this isn’t the way that the Community Council typically acts.
Linda Andrews (resident): Questioned why no one knew anything about this from 2014-2019. Mr. Boren has had other properties where trees have died. The neighborhood is being degraded.
David Card: Moved that the PPCC Board adopt and send the draft letter recommended in the PFC report which was distributed prior to the meeting; he read the draft letter out loud (see draft letter attached). Second: Steve Cron.
Discussion on the motion ensued. PPCC Treasurer: Opposes the motion. He loves trees and is sad about the way the appearance of the street has changed. However, he cannot think of a previous occasion when the PPCC has weighed in against a homeowner on a matter in which the homeowner is dealing privately with the City. We have generally acted with greater humility. He would want to know that the homeowner is in violation, but the homeowner here has indicated that he hasn’t been ruled in violation. The Treasurer is not ready to have PPCC write a letter that the homeowner water his trees in a particular manner. Certainly, we should not be asking for punitive measures. It’s for the City to determine whether the homeowner has violated any rules or the agreement and what the consequences should be.
David Card: On March 27 this year, we took a position regarding removal of trees on the Marinette property; we asked in our letter that the permit conditions be amended to say where trees would be planted and how many. PPCC Treasurer: the Marinette matter was a different situation involving a property owner’s request for permission from the City for a lot split.
PPCC Secretary: She has lived for many years on Friends St. near Via de las Olas. She was very upset that the Eucalyptus trees in this parkway were removed, but having now heard both sides she is uncertain about all the facts and concerned that there’s information we don’t know. She shares concerns about the process expressed by Mr. Akef and wishes this had been handled similar to the way in which the Land Use Committee holds public meetings. She agrees with the Treasurer’s comments.
Beth Holden-Garland (PPRA): There should be some responsibility from the City as to care of the trees. She feels in-between on this matter. The right trees for the location should have been planted.
Reza Akef: You can’t fit more than a tree with 24” box in that area due to the parkway size. The owner planted the trees required by the City but did not receive instructions as to care.
The PFC Chair: It is not difficult to look up Brisbane Box maintenance on the Internet. We’re requesting that new trees be planted in accordance with Urban Forestry’s guidelines. The Brisbane Box tree was selected based on the location and situation. Urban Forestry’s specification of tree for this parkway was correct.
The Presiding Officer (David Kaplan) stated that he wished to make a comment on this matter and therefore “passed the gavel” to the Treasurer (Richard Cohen) to serve next as the Presiding Officer on this item.
David Kaplan: The City has made a deal with the property owner, rightly or wrongly. They didn’t notify the neighbors. The City and Mr. Boren are on the same page and he’s doing what the City is asking him to do. The Vice-Chair is mainly concerned with the first paragraph of the letter which is asking the City to overturn its agreement with Mr. Boren. The Vice-Chair has heard nothing that conclusively tells him that Mr. Boren hasn’t done what he was supposed to do under the agreement.
The Presiding Officer (Richard Cohen) then called the question and noted that a 2/3 vote was required. A roll call vote of members in attendance was held. Result: Motion passed (9-4-0).
The PPCC Chair (David Card) resumed presiding over the meeting at the conclusion of this item.
10. Old Business.
10.1. (Tentative) LADWP update on power pole replacement project/environmental mitigation plan. Possible Board action. No update; matter deferred.
11. New Business.
11.1. Presentation on the November 2020 Election Voting Process. Guest speaker: Jeff Klein, civic engagement manager, LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office. Discussion only.
Jeff Klein introduced himself as manager of civic engagement and outreach for the LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RRCC). He oversees all civic engagement and community relations for the RRCC. His presentation included a PowerPoint, “Voting in a Time of Pandemic” [https://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/General-Election-2020-Standard-Presentation-100520.pdf.]. He explained that the County had moved to a vote center model in the primary and is continuing with this model. The County is very large and includes 5.6 million registered voters. Vote-by-Mail ballots have been sent out to all registered voters. Vote centers will also be available to anyone who wishes to vote in-person. The centers will follow all public health protocols. Voters can go to any vote center in the County that is convenient for them. There are also many drop box locations throughout the County. Ballots need to be signed and can be placed inside the slot in the drop box; his office picks up the ballots from the boxes. Drop boxes are noted in the Vote-by-Mail packet that all voters will receive. The voter’s signature on the ballot is important. The ballots will be secure because the RRCC will check the signature on every ballot that’s returned. Ballots may also be sent via U.S. Mail. Ballots will be accepted and counted if postmarked by Election Day (November 3) and received by the RRCC up to 17 days after Election Day. Voters can track the status of their ballots at the app, “Where’s My Ballot.” The deadline to register to vote is October 19. Early voting in-person will start on October 24 at some vote center locations and on October 30 at the remaining locations. The vote centers are strategically placed throughout the County. For early voting, the vote centers will be open from 10am-7pm; on Election Day they will be open from 7am-8pm. Sample ballots will be in the mail in the next day or so. There will be expedited check-in at the vote centers if voters bring in their sample ballots with the bar code. Postcards will also be sent out, and voters will receive a booklet with all 750 vote center locations listed. This will arrive in the mail in the next week or so. When voting in-person, the process will be similar to the process used in the primary; the ballot will be paper, not electronic; voters will insert the paper ballot in the marking device. Voting will be private and independent. Voters will need to wear masks at the vote centers and social distancing will be enforced. Hand sanitizer will be available at the entrances and exits. Voting machines will be six feet apart and wiped down after each use. Visit the County’s “lavote” website for more information about the process (www.lavote.org).
Questions and comments from board members then took place. The PPCC Chair noted that he had placed his completed ballot in the mail slot inside the U.S. Post Office. He used a felt tip pen to mark his ballot; this is ok as long as the mark doesn’t bleed into the circles on the reverse page. The PPCC Treasurer asked questions about signature comparison: With which signature (i.e., driver’s license, or something signed many years ago) is the signature on the ballot compared? His 97-year old mother wants to vote, but her signature is now very shaky; how will RRCC deal with this? Mr. Klein: Signature comparison will be based on the most recent voter registration signature. If the signature on the ballot doesn’t match, a letter will be sent out to the voter to verify the ballot, which must also be signed and returned (i.e, there will be a second chance to sign and return the ballot). A letter will also go out to voters who forgot to sign their ballot. Mr. Klein noted that the RRCC has a record of all the different signatures of voters over time and they will try to match the signatures using this record. He suggested that voters who have concerns may also re-register to vote by October 19 so that a current signature will be on file. If voters can no longer sign their names, there’s an option to make a simple mark in lieu of a signature. Karen Ridgley asked whether voters need to sign using the same name as when they first registered. Mr. Klein: Sign as closely as possible using the signature you believed you used when you registered; if the RRCC is unable to verify the name/signature, they will send out a letter to the voter. Mr. Klein advised that he will be happy to respond directly to questions sent to him via email [email@example.com]. The Chair thanked Mr. Klein for his presentation.
11.2. As time allows: Motion by Councilmember Bonin regarding land use & planning related to the VHFHSZ and evacuation routes (CF 20-1213). Possible Board action. See motion: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2020/20-1213_mot_09-22-2020.pdf . Matter deferred due to lack of time. The Secretary reported that CD11 Deputy Durrah Wagner advised us by email shortly before the meeting began that the motion will be heard in the Council Public Safety Committee this coming Tuesday. The Executive Committee may consider whether to take a position on the motion before the Tuesday meeting.
12. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm.
Item 8.1.1 – Names of Incoming Representatives
Area & At-large Representatives (2020-2022 Term)
Area 1 – Joanna Spak
Area 2 – Steve Cron
Area 3 – Haldis Toppel
Area 4 – Karen Ridgley
Area 5 – Sue Kohl
Area 6 – Matthew Quiat
Area 7 – Jenny Li
At-large – Alan Goldsmith
Organizational Representatives (2020-2021 Term)
1. Standing Organizations
Chamber of Commerce
Alt.: Sarah Knauer
PP Historical Society
Alt.: Eric Dugdale
Temescal Canyon Association
Alt.: Susan Orenstein
Alt: Bobbi Thompson
2. Rotating Organizations
Cultural and Aesthetics:
Alt.: Theatre Palisades
Corpus Christi School
Alt.: Paul Revere Charter Middle School
PP Civic League
Primary: PP Rotary Club
Alt.: American Legion
Item 9.2 – PFC Report/Draft letter to Urban Forestry
October ___, 2020
Mr. Tim Tyson, Chief Forester
Urban Forestry Division
StreetsLA, City of Los Angeles By email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: Replacement Street Trees at 15539 W. Via De Las Olas, Pacific Palisades
(at the corner of Mt. Holyoke Ave.)
Dear Chief Forester Tyson,
The Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) has represented the Palisades as its broadest based community organization since its founding in 1973. We coordinate with the Urban Forestry Division (UFD) through its representative on our PPCC Palisades Forestry Committee.
On June 3, 2019, PPCC was dismayed to hear from community members that several large and healthy parkway trees were removed by the owner of the adjacent property at 15539 W. Via De Las Olas, Pacific Palisades (“the Parkway”), which resulted in the City of Los Angeles June 28, 2019 “Stop Construction Notice and Notice of Intent to Revoke Building Permits” letter to the owner.
Under a resulting agreement between the owner and the City, 6 new Lophostemon confertus / Brisbane Box trees were planted in the Parkway in remediation of the unauthorized removals. A Protected Tree Bond (“Bond”) was required for the six new trees (24” box size) to be replanted and watered for a survival period of 3 years from planting on February 14, 2020.
Four of those six new replacement trees died.
Recently, the owner has planted another 4 replacement trees in the same places as the dead ones.
The PPCC Board has voted _____________ to urge the City to:
1. Require the owner to increase the number (same species and container size) of remediation trees that shall be planted in the Parkway from 6 to as many as 10, in order to maximize the number of parkway trees along Mt. Holyoke and Via De Las Olas, using UFD measurement criteria, rather than leaving the current big open spaces where the original street trees were removed. Locations to be selected by UFD.
2. Require the best practices of maintenance of the parkway trees, including: (a) removing the nursery stakes tied to each tree; (b) removing the deep water tubes, with instructions to water the basins from the top to imitate rainfall; and (c) comply with the proper staking and watering of Newly Installed Trees pursuant to the protocols of the International Society of Arboriculture.
3. Amend the survival date for release of the Bond (or its replacement bond) to reflect the planting date of October 2020 (8 months longer than the original date), to restart the 3 year period for the newly replanted replacement trees. Additional parkway trees required to be planted by UFD should also be covered by a similar or amended bond.
4. Confirm that the Bond (or its replacement) is issued by an insurer and to a beneficiary that is acceptable to UFD and the Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Thank you for your help in re-foresting Pacific Palisades.
Very truly yours,
David Card, Chair
cc: Mike Bonin, CD 11 Councilmember, email@example.com
Rachel Malarich, City Forest Officer, firstname.lastname@example.org
Durrah Wagner, CD11 Pacific Palisades Area Rep., email@example.com
Stephen Du Prey, Supervisor, UFD, firstname.lastname@example.org
Andrew Nave, Inspector, Building & Safety, Andrew.Nave@lacity.org