{"id":9121,"date":"2021-01-30T16:17:40","date_gmt":"2021-01-30T16:17:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/?page_id=9121"},"modified":"2021-03-26T15:29:58","modified_gmt":"2021-03-26T15:29:58","slug":"ppcc-minutes-2021-01-28-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/ppcc-minutes-2021-01-28-2\/","title":{"rendered":"PPCC Minutes — 2021 \/ 01 \/ 28"},"content":{"rendered":"

Return to Index of 2021 Minutes<\/a><\/p>\n

MINUTES FROM JANUARY 28th 2021<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Voting Members in Attendance: \u00a0<\/strong>David Card, David Kaplan, Richard Cohen, Chris Spitz, Matthew Quiat, Jenny Li, Karen Ridgley, Joanna Spak, Sue Kohl,* Brenda Theveny,* Craig Natvig, Beth Holden-Garland, Alan Goldsmith, Steve Cron, Haldis Toppel, Fay Vahdani, Richard Blumenberg, Eric Dugdale, Jim Kirtley (*left meeting before vote on Item 11.2)<\/em><\/p>\n

Voting Alternates:<\/strong> \u00a0Andrew Wolfberg, \u00a0Kimberly Bloom* (*after primary Sue Kohl left meeting)<\/em><\/p>\n

Non-voting Advisors and Alternates:<\/strong>\u00a0 Zennon Ulyate-Crow, Jack Coleman, Melanie Bouer, Mary Mueller<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 \u00a0 Call to order and reading of Mission Statement. \u00a0<\/strong>The Chair David Card called the meeting to order at 5:31pm. \u00a0Dave Card read the Mission Statement.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 \u00a0 Introduction of Zoom engineer. <\/strong>\u00a0The Chair welcomed everyone and introduced the technical engineer Alex Ponting.\u00a0 Introductions of the Board and audience were deferred.<\/p>\n

3. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Roll call of voting members and certification of quorum. <\/strong>The Chair called the roll of voting members and certified that there was a quorum.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Approval of Minutes.<\/strong>\u00a0 The minutes of January 14, 2021 were approved. Upcoming meetings: February 11, 2021 — (Tentative) Public Safety Forum with new acting SLO James Allen; additional speakers\/details to come.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>Consideration of Agenda.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong> Agenda items may be taken out of order at the discretion of the Chair.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Treasurer\u2019s Report.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Treasurer Richard G. Cohen reported that PPCC’s cash balance is $37,725.82. There have been no significant transactions since the last report.\u00a0 PPCC has received an offer of renewal for our D&O liability insurance.\u00a0 The Treasurer will take care of this before the March renewal deadline.
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/strong>7.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>General Public Comment<\/strong> \u2013 None.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

8. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Reports, Announcements and Concerns.<\/strong><\/p>\n

8.1.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0From the Chair\/Presiding Officer<\/u>.<\/p>\n

8.1.1.\u00a0 \u00a0 Riviera Country Club – Longworth Maintenance Gate. \u00a0The Chair explained that following up on PPCC\u2019s letter regarding this matter, he and the Area 8 Representatives Reza Akef and Andrew Wolfberg recently met with Mike Bonin and his team.\u00a0 The Chair explained the background as set forth in PPCC\u2019s letter requesting a determination letter from Planning [see: <\/em>https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/PPCC-EC-Letter-re-RCC-Longworth-Gate.pdf<\/em><\/a>].<\/em> The Chair stated that Councilmember Bonin supports the neighbors and is insisting that the City agencies address their concerns about the illegal use of the gate. CD11 Senior Planning Deputy Len Nguyen is following up with the Planning Dept. \u00a0[see Item 8.5.3 below].\u00a0 <\/em>Andrew Wolfberg<\/u> expressed thanks to the Councilmember, Mr. Nguyen and CD11 Palisades Deputy Durrah Wagner for stepping up and putting the neighborhood first.\u00a0 He noted that the safety of the students at nearby Paul Revere Middle School is also important.\u00a0 He also stated that he appreciates the support not only from the Council office and also from the PPCC Executive Committee.<\/p>\n

8.1.2.\u00a0 \u00a0 Potrero Canyon Park \u2013 naming for George Wolfberg.\u00a0 The Chair announced that as result of Mike Bonin\u2019s motion and the approval of the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners (RAP), the new name of the park in Potrero Canyon will be \u201cGeorge Wolfberg Park at Potrero Canyon.\u201d This will be in honor of our long time PPCC board member and multiple past PPCC Chair, the late George Wolfberg. Andrew Wolfberg<\/u> [George\u2019s nephew] thanked Councilmember Bonin and everyone for their assistance with this effort. He stated that the neighborhood and community will love the park; it\u2019s been a year since his passing and this honor for George is an honor for all in the family and for everyone who participates in volunteering and helping the community. The Chair<\/u> then noted George\u2019s long history of service, as detailed in PPCC\u2019s resolution\u00a0[<\/em>see <\/em>https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/Resolution-re-Wolfberg-Park-Approved.pdf<\/em><\/a>].<\/em>\u00a0 As to the project\u2019s status, the Chair explained that RAP closed out the grading contract and the contract is complete.\u00a0 There is a small credit.\u00a0 Much of the work on the park has already been done.\u00a0 He described all the elements that have been completed and what is visible now.\u00a0 The tentative schedule going forward is: the bid package has been approved for the landscaping contract; bids will be solicited in Feb. 2021 and will be received in March; the landscaping contract will be awarded in April or May, with landscaping work to start this summer.\u00a0 Spring 2022 hopefully will be the completion time (a 9-10 month timeframe is expected for completion). The Chair thanked Mike Bonin, Durrah Wagner, Lisa Cahill and all the CD11 team, including former CD11 senior counsel Norman Kulla, for their work in pushing this project along and making the park a reality for the community.<\/p>\n

8.2.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0From Officers<\/u>.<\/p>\n

8.2.1.\u00a0 \u00a0Richard Cohen (Treasurer).\u00a0 Harry Sondheim (past PPCC Chair and Area 4 Representative) \u2013 In Memoriam.\u00a0 The Treasurer reported that we are saddened to learn of the passing of Harry Sondheim on January 16 from complications caused by COVID. Harry was chair of PPCC from 2000 to 2002, a long-time Area 4 representative and an important member of the PPCC bylaws committee. Harry will be remembered as a strong voice for ethics, independence and civility. He was a true gentleman who was greatly admired for his volunteer work including being a board member of the Friends of the Palisades Library and work for the California State Bar Association which earned him recognition and which named an award after him [https:\/\/www.calbar.ca.gov\/Portals\/0\/documents\/awards\/SondheimAwardSheet_06-27-12_r.pdf].
\nHarry was truly the embodiment of community leadership, professionalism and ethics. We will miss him. \u00a0\u00a0Karen Ridgley<\/u> (Area 4 Representative) thanked the Treasurer for this tribute and noted that Harry\u2019s efforts on behalf of Area 4 were appreciated by the neighbors.<\/p>\n

8.2.2.\u00a0 \u00a0 Chris Spitz (Secretary).\u00a0 WRAC motions and legislation.\u00a0 The Secretary reported on motions that PPCC supported that have now become adopted WRAC positions.\u00a0 WRAC chair Matt Wersinger has submitted a position letter regarding the \u201cdockless mobility devices\u201d motion [deny permits to providers that do not comply with law enforcement; see <\/em>https:\/\/westsidecouncils.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/WRAC-Dockless-Permit-Denial-1_20.pdf<\/em><\/a>],
\n<\/em>which PPCC passed a year ago and sponsored in WRAC; the Secretary read aloud CD 5 District Director Debbie Dyner Harris\u2019 email reply [see Attachment below].<\/em>\u00a0 The WRAC chair also submitted a position letter on the Community Plan update process [see <\/em>https:\/\/westsidecouncils.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/WRAC-Community-Plan-Motion-12_3.pdf<\/em><\/a>]<\/em>;<\/em> the Planning Dept.\u2019s response was to thank WRAC and state only that they will take note of the requests. The Secretary also reported that the following additional motions (supported by PPCC) have passed by a majority or more of WRAC member councils and have been adopted by WRAC: eliminate gut and amend, support CF 20-1536 (Bonin STAP program motion) and oppose BONC social media policy.\u00a0 Position letters will be submitted soon. Regarding state legislation, the Secretary noted that SB 55 (Allen & Stern; prohibit new development in the VHFHSZ) has not yet been assigned to a Senate committee and we are awaiting a further discussion with the Senators about possible amendments.\u00a0 SB 9 and 10 will be discussed later in Item 11.2.<\/p>\n

8.3.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0From Area and At-large Representatives<\/u>.<\/p>\n

8.3.1.\u00a0 \u00a0 Alan Goldsmith (At-large Representative):\u00a0 A recent water sprinkler problem caused a ceiling to collapse at one of the units in his townhome complex.\u00a0 A team of firefighters came to the scene and he was concerned because none of the firefighters was wearing a mask. He asked if anyone else had noticed firefighters not wearing masks and there was no response.<\/p>\n

8.4.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0From Organizational Representatives.<\/u><\/p>\n

8.4.1.\u00a0 \u00a0 Eric Dugdale (PP Historical Society).\u00a0 Dick Wulliger \u2013 In Memoriam.\u00a0 Dick Wulliger was a very bright, respected and energetic man who served the community again and again in many capacities.\u00a0 He was on the PPHS and TCA boards and also served on the PP Democratic Club.\u00a0 He was an example of service to the community and was a truly great Palisadian. The Secretary noted that Dick served as the PPHS primary representative to PPCC for many years. The Chair also remarked on Dick\u2019s service and expressed appreciation for his contributions to the community.<\/p>\n

8.4.2.\u00a0 \u00a0 Jim Kirtley (YMCA).\u00a0 During the pandemic, the Palisades-Malibu YMCA is pivoting and doing community service work.\u00a0 He would like to share at our next meeting a \u201cCOVID outcomes\u201d sheet showing everything that the YMCA is doing in the community.<\/p>\n

8.4.3.\u00a0 \u00a0 Beth Holden Garland (PPRA).\u00a0 PPRA has created signs that people can put up reminding everyone to wear masks.\u00a0 The Chair suggested that PPRA may want to ask businesses to post the signs and he noted that the signs should not be affixed to trees or placed in the public right of way.<\/p>\n

8.5.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0From Government Offices \/ Representatives<\/u>.\u00a0\u00a0 Contact information available at: <\/em>https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/government-contacts\/<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

8.5.1.\u00a0 \u00a0 Zac Gaidzik, West\/Metro LA Field Deputy, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl (see Item 11.1 below).<\/em><\/p>\n

8.5.2.\u00a0 \u00a0 Janet Turner, Field Representative, Congressman Ted Lieu \u2013 not present. <\/em><\/p>\n

8.5.3.\u00a0 \u00a0 Durrah Wagner, Palisades Field Deputy, and Len Nguyen, Senior Planning Deputy, Councilmember Bonin\/CD11.<\/p>\n

Ms. Wagner<\/u>:\u00a0 Regarding the drop in water pressure in Area 5, an LADWP representative has informed her that the agency is conducting treatments related to reservoir recycling; as a result there are periods when the water pressure is low.\u00a0 Ms. Wagner still needs to be told how long this will last; she is trying to get information about the timeline on when the situation will get back to normal.\u00a0 Sue Kohl<\/u> (Area 5 Representative):\u00a0 She is glad that CD11 is keeping the pressure on LADWP, but neighbors say this is continuing to happen at various times, including within the homes of individual homeowners, and the drop in pressure at the hydrants continues to be a concern due to the fire danger.\u00a0 The Chair<\/u> noted that this sounds like an engineering problem that needs to be solved with infrastructure.\u00a0 Ms. Wagner<\/u> also reported that Councilmembers Bonin and Raman have called for the City to expand Project Roomkey and have asked the City Attorney to investigate and report on how to get federal funding for the effort.<\/p>\n

Mr. Nguyen<\/u>:\u00a0 Regarding the RCC\/Longworth gate, he has spoken to the Chief Zoning Administrator for the Planning Dept., who has assigned staff to do research about the approvals for the gate.\u00a0 He gave her the background on what he was able to find when this came up in 2018 and will have an update for us in about a week.<\/p>\n

8.6.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0From PPCC Advisors<\/u> \u2013 None.
\n<\/em>
\n<\/strong>9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Reports from Committees<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

9.1.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Community Plan Update Committee<\/u> (CPUC; David Card, Committee Chair).\u00a0 The Chair explained that we have received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Initial Study for the City\u2019s Housing Element update. There were scoping meetings this week as part of the environmental review process. \u00a0Every 8-9 years the state housing agency gives their projection of how many housing units are needed in various jurisdictions in the state (this is known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment\/RHNA).\u00a0 The RHNA number assigned to our area may impact the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan (CP). When we receive the number that will tell us how we will need to accommodate X number of additional housing units in the Palisades and Brentwood. \u00a0We don\u2019t yet know what the numbers are but will find out at some point.\u00a0 The Housing Element update is due by October 2021, but we are told that the process of updating our CP will likely not even start until 2022. Written comments on the Housing Element NOP and Initial Study are due by February 15th.\u00a0 The CPUC is working jointly with the Brentwood Community Council\u2019s committee on draft letters; the board will likely be voting on a proposed comment letter at the February 11th PPCC meeting (to be submitted by the February 15th deadline, as part of the EIR process).\u00a0 The Secretary noted that the CPUC will attempt to provide information about the process to the board in advance.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Old Business <\/strong>\u2013 None.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

11.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0New Business.\u00a0 <\/strong>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

11.1.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0COVID 19 vaccinations update<\/u>.\u00a0 Guest speaker: <\/strong>Zac Gaidzik, West\/Metro LA Field Deputy, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl. \u00a0\u00a0Discussion only<\/em>.\u00a0 Also attending and speaking:\u00a0 Lonnie Resser, Health Program Analyst with the LA County Dept. of Public Health.<\/p>\n

Mr. Gaidzik introduced Ms. Resser, who described her job and explained that she addresses public health concerns primarily in the West LA community.\u00a0 She shared a Power Point with detailed information about COVID-19 and vaccinations.\u00a0 She first discussed what we know about the virus, how the virus works, and what the vaccines do.\u00a0 The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 94-95% effective at preventing the disease. These vaccines use mRNA technology; she described what this is and how it works.\u00a0 She emphasized that individuals cannot get COVID-19 from the vaccine.\u00a0 There may be brief side effects after getting the vaccine, including fever and aches, that last 1-2 days, but these are normal and are signs that the body is building immunity.\u00a0 Two doses are needed in order to get the best protection and the same vaccine should be administered for both doses.<\/p>\n

Ms. Resser also described how to make appointments for second doses.\u00a0 There is a different process depending on where you received your first dose.\u00a0 Vaccination is a safer way to prevent spread of the disease than natural immunity.\u00a0 She also spoke about the fast-track development of the vaccine and the steps taken to ensure safety.\u00a0 Manufacturing of the vaccine began during clinical trials.\u00a0 The FDA and CDC prioritized review and authorization.\u00a0 She described the studies for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.\u00a0 The FDA and CDC continue to conduct extra monitoring of the safety of the vaccines.\u00a0 \u201cV-safe\u201d is a new text messaging app used to follow up with people in the studies.\u00a0 This allows any possible problems to be investigated.<\/p>\n

Ms. Resser further described how the County is allocating and managing vaccine distribution; it is attempting to do this in an equitable way.\u00a0 There won\u2019t be enough vaccine for everyone until late spring or summer.\u00a0 She described the various phases of distribution.\u00a0 The County is currently vaccinating healthcare workers and anyone who is 65 and older.\u00a0 She showed a screenshot of the County website, www.vaccinateLAcounty.com<\/a> [see link on the PPCC website]. The County website has links to book an appointment and information about the vaccines.\u00a0 There are phone numbers for those without access to a computer.\u00a0 She gave a few tips: Look out for scams and report any scams to dcba.lacounty.gov; never give out personal or financial information.\u00a0 As to the steps necessary to stop the spread:\u00a0 nothing has changed; we must all continue to wear face coverings, avoid close contact, wash hands and sanitize.<\/p>\n

Q&A then ensued:\u00a0 Sue Kohl<\/u> (Area 5 representative):\u00a0 She has spent hours every day to try and get an appointment; those who went to a pharmacy such as Ralph\u2019s for first dose did not receive an appointment or any information about how to obtain a second dose; we were told good luck, you\u2019re on your own in getting a second dose. She hasn\u2019t been able to get an appointment for the second dose on her own, and is wondering if the first and second doses are the same.\u00a0 Ms.<\/u> Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 The vaccine supply is limited but the County is prioritizing second doses; there are shipments earmarked for second doses. She will check on whether the first and second doses are the same.\u00a0 Mr. Gaidzik<\/u>: \u00a0People can sign up for a second dose at the mega sites. \u00a0Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 She advises individuals to keep trying to obtain an appointment.\u00a0 Appointments for second doses can be up to a week after the recommended date and still be ok. Second doses are recommended 21 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and 28 days after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.\u00a0 \u00a0Mr. Gaidzik<\/u>:\u00a0 Keep trying on the County website by clicking refresh. There is also a new statewide \u201cmy turn\u201d website for appointments, myturn.ca.gov.\u00a0 It is best to check over the weekend.<\/p>\n

David Kaplan<\/u> (PPCC Vice-Chair):\u00a0 Regarding second doses, he received a white card after his first dose that said to return on February 13.\u00a0 He was told he would probably get an email telling him when to come.\u00a0 If he doesn\u2019t get an email, should he just show up?\u00a0 Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 If you don\u2019t receive the email then still show up on the date on the white card at the same time as your first dose.\u00a0 Jim Kirtley<\/u> (YMCA):\u00a0 What is the status for vaccination of children 16 and under?\u00a0 Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 She doesn\u2019t have that information.\u00a0 The Moderna vaccine was approved only for 18 and over.\u00a0 The Pfizer vaccine was approved for 16 and over.\u00a0 That is because those ages were included in the vaccine trials; children under those ages weren\u2019t in the trials. Some companies such as Johnson & Johnson may now be conducting trials on children but she doesn\u2019t know the ages or status.\u00a0\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Eric Dugdale<\/u> (PPHS):\u00a0 Are any companies better equipped to make adjustments for the new strains than other companies?\u00a0 Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 We don\u2019t have that information yet.\u00a0 The Public Health Dept. urges everyone to get the vaccine as soon as it is offered to you.\u00a0 We don\u2019t know enough about how the vaccines respond to the new strains to make a different recommendation.\u00a0 Alan Goldsmith<\/u> (At-large Representative):\u00a0 His wife got an appointment via email for a second dose but he did not; they were vaccinated in Long Beach.\u00a0 Can he just go with her?\u00a0 Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 Long Beach County is different from LA County so she can\u2019t speak directly to his question. \u00a0Haldis Toppel<\/u> (Area 3 Representative):\u00a0 Balboa Park allows walk-ins at the end of regularly scheduled appointments.\u00a0 If you wait in line in the park, at the end of the last appointment a staff person goes through the waiting line and picks out anyone over 65 and they will give them any leftover shots.\u00a0 About 20 persons over 65 were in line when she was there and they all got their shots.\u00a0 Mr. Gaidzik<\/u>:\u00a0 We are not recommending that people take that option but at the same time they aren\u2019t going to waste the vaccine and will put any leftover doses in arms if people are there.\u00a0 Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 We are asking people not to show up and get the vaccine at the end of the day at LA County sites.<\/p>\n

PPCC Chair<\/u>:\u00a0 Teachers\/educators do not yet have the green light for vaccinations; when will that happen?\u00a0 Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 We must keep transmission\/community spread down.\u00a0 The last she checked, that tier would be early February; she noted that the website still says that, but it will take time to get through the first tiers.\u00a0 Chair<\/u>: \u00a0When will we be getting increased supplies?\u00a0 Mr. Gaidzik<\/u>:\u00a0 We hope as soon as possible. Chair<\/u>:\u00a0 What are the holdups?\u00a0 Mr. Gaidzik<\/u>:\u00a0 Everything.\u00a0 There was a lot of historic coordination and planning did not happen during the prior administration.\u00a0 Chair<\/u>:\u00a0 It has been reported that Blue Shield may take over statewide distribution; can you explain this?\u00a0 Mr. Gaidzik<\/u>: He can\u2019t comment as he doesn\u2019t have any information about this. \u00a0Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 She doesn\u2019t know about this either.\u00a0 Eric Dugdale<\/u>:\u00a0 Should we be double-masking?\u00a0 Ms. Resser<\/u>:\u00a0 She hasn\u2019t heard yet from Dr. Ferrer about this but it couldn\u2019t hurt.\u00a0 We need to keep wearing masks as well as getting vaccinated.<\/p>\n

There were no questions or comments from the audience.\u00a0 The Chair thanked Mr. Gaidzik and Ms. Resser for the presentation and for answering our questions.<\/p>\n

11.2.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Motion recommended to member-councils by the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC)<\/u>: \u00a0A) Oppose SB 9 (Atkins); Support CF 21-0002-S18 (Koretz) B) Oppose SB 10 (Wiener); Support CF 21-0002-S21 (Koretz). See attachment below for motion text. Background: https:\/\/westsidecouncils.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/Background-re-SB-9-and-10.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Motion A): \u00a0On behalf of the Executive Committee, the Secretary introduced the motion and referenced the background information that had been provided in the agenda. She stated that the Committee was including a new first \u201cWhereas\u201d paragraph in the motion that was inadvertently omitted from the motion text in the agenda (\u201cWhereas, Senate Bill 9 violates principles of democratic process. . .\u201d). \u00a0She then moved on behalf of the Executive Committee that the board vote to support the motion with the new first \u201cWhereas\u201d paragraph and substituting the name \u201cPacific Palisades Community Council\u201d for the name \u201cWestside Regional Alliance of Councils\u201d in the last \u201cTherefore\u201d paragraph [see attachment below for text of motion].<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0 No second was necessary as the motion was made by a committee of more than one voting board member.\u00a0 Discussion:\u00a0 None.<\/p>\n

A vote was taken.\u00a0 Result: \u00a0Unanimous in favor of the motion.<\/p>\n

Motion B):\u00a0 On behalf of the Executive Committee, the Secretary introduced the motion and referenced the background information that had been provided in the agenda. She then moved on behalf of the Executive Committee that the board vote to support the motion, substituting the name \u201cPacific Palisades Community Council\u201d for the name \u201cWestside Regional Alliance of\u00a0 Councils\u201d in the last \u201cTherefore\u201d paragraph [see attachment below for text of motion].<\/em> No second was necessary as the motion was made by a committee of more than one voting board member.\u00a0 \u00a0Discussion: Matt Quiat<\/u> (Area 6 Representative): \u00a0He supports this bill as he believes we need more affordable housing which should be located near transit corridors. The Chair<\/u> explained that PPCC\u2019s position has consistently been to oppose state legislation that would remove local control over planning and zoning and\/or would add additional density in our Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.\u00a0 The Secretary<\/u> commented that SB 10, among other things, is unconstitutional because it includes a provision that allows for City Councils to override voter initiatives and further, it does not provide for any affordable housing.\u00a0 She stated that it is important to acknowledge that we do have an affordable housing crisis; she is working on a draft motion to be introduced in WRAC, acknowledging the crisis and supporting other bills now pending the legislature that address the crisis in a positive way, consistent with the principles that we support.<\/p>\n

Jenny Li<\/u> (Area 7 Representative): She wonders how these state housing bills would impact the Community Plan process.\u00a0 The Secretary<\/u> and Chair<\/u> both noted that state legislation takes precedence but we don\u2019t know now if the bills will pass and what their impact will be. Karen Ridgley<\/u> (Area 4 Representative): She wonders about the impact of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and whether these would be allowed on R1 parcels in addition to the extra dwelling units that the new bills call for. The Secretary<\/u> explained that state legislation passed last year allows an ADU and a junior ADU by right on R1 parcels, in addition to the main dwelling unit. As she noted to the board last year, as a practical result this legislation eliminated most R1 zoning in the state. PPCC did not take a position because, after discussing the matter at PPCC LUC meetings, we learned that many residents want to be allowed to construct ADUs on their property and there wasn\u2019t a consensus on the issue one way or the other. \u00a0However, now that ADUs are allowed by right on most parcels, if SB 9 and 10 were to pass that would result in many more dwelling units being allowed by right on residential parcels.\u00a0 For example, under SB 9, a former single-family parcel would be allowed to have two <\/em>main dwelling units, plus a junior and \u201cregular\u201d ADU, for a total of four<\/em> dwelling units; or if the lot is split under SB 9, up to eight<\/em> units (four main dwelling units plus a junior and \u201cregular\u201d ADU on each of the split parcels) \u2013 all on a former \u201cone-unit\u201d single family parcel.<\/p>\n

A vote was taken.\u00a0 Result:\u00a0 17-1-1; motion passed by more than a 2\/3 majority.<\/p>\n

12.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Adjournment.<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0The meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm.<\/p>\n


\nATTACHMENTS<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Item 8.2.2 (Response of Debbie Dyner Harris\/CM Koretz to WRAC position letter):<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThank you very much for letting Councilmember Koretz know of this motion.\u00a0 As you may know, the Councilmember has been a champion for ensuring safety relating to these dockless scooters from day one, and has made several motions to ensure compliance.<\/p>\n

During COVID, both LAPD and LADOT have been overall successful in getting these companies to comply with City requirements such as you reference in your letter, and the Councilmember will continue to press this forward to ensure safety throughout the City.<\/p>\n

Please let me know if you have any questions, Debbie\u201d<\/p>\n

Item 11.2 (Text of adopted motions \u2013 A & B): <\/strong><\/p>\n

A) Oppose SB 9 (Atkins); Support CF 21-0002-S18 (Koretz).<\/p>\n

Motion text<\/u>:<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates principles of democratic process and local control by mandating local governments to ministerially approve lot splits and\/or development projects allowing for two main residential units on parcels in single-family residential zones (under specified conditions), thus substantially eliminating single-family zoning in California;<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code \u00a7\u00a730000 et seq.) by failing to exempt parcels within the Coastal zone, by purporting to eliminate hearings for Coastal Development Permits, and by requiring by-right\/expedited approval of all projects permitted under the bill, including projects within the Coastal zone which otherwise require discretionary review, including hearings, under the Coastal Act;<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code \u00a7\u00a7 21065 and 21080) and shortcuts required CEQA review by declaring preemptively that a project permitted under the bill is not a \u201cproject\u201d under CEQA, without regard to the test established by controlling caselaw, that is, whether the ordinance in a given case is \u201ccapable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment\u201d (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission, Real Party in Interest), (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171);<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 compromises public safety and puts the lives and property of thousands of California residents in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) at risk from increased density by failing to provide any exemption for parcels within the VHFHSZ;<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 fails to address the state\u2019s affordable housing crisis or to further the purported goal of \u201censuring an adequate supply of affordable housing\u201d by not specifying or requiring any particular amount or level of affordable housing (low to moderate income\/workforce housing) in projects permitted pursuant to the bill;<\/p>\n

Whereas, Councilmember Paul Koretz has introduced a resolution in Los Angeles City Council, CF 21-0002- S18, calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 9;<\/p>\n

Therefore, Pacific Palisades Community Council opposes Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) and supports the resolution in CF 21-0002-S18 (Koretz) calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 9.
\nB) Oppose SB 10 (Wiener); Support CF 21-0002-S21 (Koretz).<\/p>\n

Motion text<\/u>:<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 10(c)) and principles of democracy and true local control by allowing local governments (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) to upzone single family residential properties and speed approval processes for increased density\/multi-unit housing, without stakeholder involvement and by overriding community-driven local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances,\u00a0including restrictions enacted by voter initiatives;<\/em><\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code \u00a7\u00a730000 et seq.) by failing to exempt parcels within the Coastal zone and by allowing by-right\/expedited approval of development projects with up to 10 dwelling units on properties that are upzoned under the bill, including projects within the Coastal zone which require discretionary review under the Coastal Act;<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code \u00a7\u00a7 21065 and 21080) and shortcuts required CEQA review by declaring preemptively that an ordinance by a local government (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) to upzone a single family residential property pursuant to the bill is not a \u201cproject\u201d under CEQA, without consideration of whether the ordinance in a given case is \u201ccapable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment\u201d (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission, Real Party in Interest), (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171);<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 potentially compromises public safety and may put the lives and property of thousands of California residents in single family residential areas that are also in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) at risk from increased density by failing to provide for an unconditional exemption from upzoning under the bill for properties in the VHFHSZ;<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 prevents public scrutiny and bypasses democratic process by providing that state agencies alone, without local community input, would identify and maintain a controlling map of so-called \u201cjobs-rich\u201d areas throughout the state for purposes of upzoning single family residential properties under the bill;<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 circumvents controlling caselaw by, in effect, allowing for \u201cspot zoning\u201d by local governments (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) without consideration of whether upzoning a single family residential property would be of substantial benefit to the public in a given case (Foothills Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302);<\/p>\n

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 fails to address the state\u2019s affordable housing crisis or to further the purported goal of \u201censuring an adequate supply of affordable housing\u201d by not requiring any particular amount or level of affordable (low to moderate income\/workforce) housing in development projects to be built on properties that are upzoned under the bill;<\/p>\n

Whereas, Councilmember Paul Koretz has introduced a resolution in Los Angeles City Council, CF 21-0002- S21, calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 10;<\/p>\n

Therefore, Pacific Palisades Community Council opposes Senate Bill 10 (Wiener) and supports the resolution in CF 21-0002-S21 (Koretz), calling for the City of Los Angeles City to oppose Senate Bill 10.<\/p>\n

Return to Index of 2021 Minutes<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Return to Index of 2021 Minutes MINUTES FROM JANUARY 28th 2021 Voting Members in Attendance: \u00a0David Card, David Kaplan, Richard Cohen, Chris Spitz, Matthew Quiat, Jenny Li, Karen Ridgley, Joanna Spak, Sue Kohl,* Brenda Theveny,* Craig Natvig, Beth Holden-Garland, Alan Goldsmith, Steve Cron, Haldis Toppel, Fay Vahdani, Richard Blumenberg, Eric Dugdale, Jim Kirtley (*left meeting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page-template.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-9121","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9121\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}