{"id":9234,"date":"2021-02-26T18:59:42","date_gmt":"2021-02-26T18:59:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/?page_id=9234"},"modified":"2021-04-10T15:36:37","modified_gmt":"2021-04-10T15:36:37","slug":"ppcc-minutes-2021-03-25-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/ppcc-minutes-2021-03-25-2\/","title":{"rendered":"PPCC Minutes — 2021 \/ 03 \/ 25"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

MINUTES FROM MARCH 25th 2021<\/h5>\n

Voting Members in Attendance: \u00a0<\/strong>David Card, Richard Cohen, Chris Spitz, Karen Ridgley, Sue Kohl, Matthew Quiat, Joanna Spak, Reza Akef, Alan Goldsmith, Beth Holden-Garland, Steve Cron, Haldis Toppel, Peter Powell, Brenda Theveny, Eric Dugdale<\/p>\n

Voting Alternates:<\/strong> \u00a0John Padden, Rick McGeagh, Mary Mueller, Janet Anderson<\/p>\n

Non-voting Advisors and Alternates:<\/strong> Cindy Kirven, Mary Mueller, Kimberly Bloom, Andrew Wolfberg, Bruce Schwartz<\/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 6:00 pm. \u00a0Karen Ridgley 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\u00a0<\/em>Approval of Minutes.<\/strong>\u00a0 The minutes of March 11, 2021 were approved. Upcoming meetings: April 8, 2021: (1) City Redistricting 2021 presentation (Michele Prichard, Commissioner\/CD 11 Representative to the Redistricting Commission); (2) Appointment of Nominating Committee, 2021 Officers Election. April 22, 2021: Update on the Gladstones redevelopment project (by the concessionaire\u2019s representative).<\/p>\n

5.\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.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>The Treasurer Richard G. Cohen reported that PPCC’s cash balance is $35,454.22. There were no significant transactions since the last report.
\n
\n<\/strong>7.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>General Public Comment<\/strong> \u2013 None.<\/em><\/p>\n

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

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

8.1.1.\u00a0 \u00a0 Letter re SB 55: https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/PPCC-EC-Letter-SB55-amendments.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Chair explained that SB 55 (Stern & Allen) is the bill that would ban all new development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. At Sen. Stern\u2019s invitation, on March 19 the Executive Committee sent this additional letter linked in the agenda, with further comments on bill amendments proposed by Sen. Stern (we were told that our comments had to be submitted by 3\/24).\u00a0 In this latest letter, the Executive Committee reiterated and explained the points that were made in our March 15, 2021 letter about amendments to the bill.<\/p>\n

8.1.2.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0New:\u00a0 Traffic signal at Sunset-Chautauqua intersection.\u00a0 The Chair announced that a new left turn signal has been installed at this intersection.\u00a0 He drove through it the other day; the signal is operating and it works.\u00a0 The installation has made the intersection much safer. The Chair thanked Councilmember Bonin, his staff, LADOT, Patti Post and other members of the community who supported this project.<\/p>\n

8.1.3.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0New:\u00a0 Potrero Canyon.\u00a0 The Chair explained that the bids for landscaping have come in and were a little under the BOE estimate of $10 million; they came in at around $8.9 (the lowest bid). That was the base bid number but there may be extras.\u00a0 The City is now analyzing the bids. We have also learned that there is a possibility of federal funding for a pedestrian overcrossing at the mouth of the park at Potrero Canyon, to allow safe crossing over PCH. The overcrossing was supported by the Potrero Canyon Community Advisory Committee.\u00a0 A government sponsor (city or state) is needed for the request for federal funding, which in turn will require community support. We expect to learn more about whether a government sponsor may be possible in the coming days.<\/p>\n

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

8.2.1.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Chris Spitz (Secretary). \u00a0WRAC and legislation update.<\/p>\n

The Secretary reported that Congressmember Ted Lieu was the special guest at the last WRAC meeting. He presented information about the American Rescue Plan as well as \u00a0infrastructure legislation and possible earmarks.\u00a0 Dave Card was able to bring Rep. Lieu\u2019s attention to the proposed pedestrian overcrossing over PCH at Potrero Canyon as a possible infrastructure project that the Congressman might support. The Secretary also noted that WRAC members and Rep. Lieu praised Janet Turner during the meeting for her work for the Westside community. She further reported that the WRAC Board voted to recommend the motion to oppose the appeal fee increase, which the PPCC Board will consider later this evening.<\/p>\n

On the legislation front: \u00a0SB 10 and SB 290, which PPCC opposes, passed in the Senate Housing Committee on March 18 and will next be heard in the Governance & Finance Committee (date TBA).\u00a0 It is worth noting that PPCC\u2019s objection to SB 290 was specifically cited in the Senate\u2019s written Analysis of the bill, along with a response from the bill\u2019s author (a rare occurrence).\u00a0 The Secretary will include a link in the meeting recap and minutes. [See Analysis:<\/em>\u00a0 https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB290<\/em><\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n

A bill that PPCC supports, SB 15, also passed in the Housing Committee. We don\u2019t know when the Committee will next agendize SB 9, which we also oppose.\u00a0 Meanwhile, the City still hasn\u2019t taken up the two Koretz resolutions in opposition to SB 9 and 10; we\u2019ll continue to monitor.<\/p>\n

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

8.3.1.\u00a0 \u00a0Reza Akef (Area 8) reported that area residents are still dealing with the Riviera Country Club Longworth maintenance gate issue. He expressed concern with the lack of response by authorities. The Tennis Club has been using the maintenance gate for participants in a tennis clinic and there is a continuing steady stream of traffic on the nearby residential streets.\u00a0 He requested that PPCC demand swifter action by the authorities.<\/p>\n

The Chair asked CD 11 Planning Deputy Len Nguyen (who was in attendance) to respond to these concerns.\u00a0 Mr. Nguyen explained that the Planning Dept. has asked for more time to address PPCC\u2019s request for a Zoning Determination letter. The Department has been engaging in very thorough research and conducting observations at the site.\u00a0 We will have a report back from Planning next month and will move on from there. The Councilmember understands that residents want enforcement, but there must also be a sound basis for the letter we are seeking.\u00a0 The Chair reiterated that this is an important issue for area residents as well as for Paul Revere Middle School, which has additional safety concerns due to the increased traffic.<\/p>\n

8.4.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0From Organizational Representatives<\/u> \u2013 None.<\/em><\/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\u00a0LAPD Officer Omir Perez, acting SLO for the Palisades \u2013 unable to attend.<\/em><\/p>\n

8.5.2. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Durrah Wagner and Len Nguyen, respectively, CD 11 Palisades Field Deputy and Planning Deputy.<\/p>\n

Ms. Wagner announced that she will be leaving CD 11 on April 1 to spend time with her family.\u00a0 She thanked everyone who had reached out to her for the kind emails, and stated that it was an honor working with the Palisades community.\u00a0 The Chair thanked Ms. Wagner for her excellent service; we will miss her. Len Nguyen, CD 11 Planning Deputy, will temporarily take over Ms. Wagner\u2019s responsibilities and fill in as our Field Deputy while waiting for her replacement. \u00a0Mr. Nguyen\u2019s contact information can be found on the PPCC website under Resources\/Government contacts [linked above].\u00a0 See also Mr. Nguyen\u2019s remarks in Item 8.3.1 above.<\/em><\/p>\n

8.5.3.\u00a0 \u00a0 Janet Turner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Representative Ted Lieu.<\/p>\n

Ms. Turner provided figures from the American Rescue Plan that she believed may be of interest to the Palisades community:\u00a0 The City of Los Angeles will receive $1.35 billion; LA County will receive about $1 billion; and the State will receive $26 billion. LAUSD will receive $2.9 billion, 20% of which must be used for \u201clearning loss.\u201d\u00a0 There will be a child tax credit of up to $3,600 for each child under 6 and $3,000 for kids under 18.\u00a0 Close to $5 billion will go to assist state and local governments with homelessness, including funding for services and for housing\/shelters.\u00a0 The allocation for new Section 8 housing vouchers will be $5 billion.\u00a0 Other funding to assist lower income individuals will include renters\u2019 assistance.\u00a0 Regarding \u201ccommunity investment projects\u201d (also known as earmarks): Rep. Lieu can submit a total of ten projects, and there must be large community support in order for projects to be picked.\u00a0 The Chair stated that at our April 8th meeting, we may be asking this Board to vote in favor of sending a letter in support of a City application for one of these earmarks (the pedestrian bridge over PCH).<\/p>\n

8.5.3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 CD 11 Transportation Deputy Eric Bruins \u2013 See Item 11.1 below. <\/em><\/p>\n

8.6.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0From PPCC Advisors<\/u> \u2013 None.
\n<\/em>
\n9.\u00a0 \u00a0 Reports from Committees<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

9.1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Executive Committee<\/u>.\u00a0 WRAC-recommended motion to oppose proposed increase in land use decision appeal fee (sponsored in PPCC by the Executive Committee). Request for Board support of motion.<\/p>\n

The Secretary announced that the Executive Committee moved for the PPPC Board to approve the WRAC-recommended motion as set forth in the agenda [see attachment below].<\/em>\u00a0 She then read the motion text out loud.\u00a0 A second was not necessary as the motion was made by a committee of more than one voting member.\u00a0 The Secretary explained that the City\u2019s Administrative Officer (CAO) was proposing the increase from $89 to $16,097 and that this was a supposed \u201ccost recovery\u201d amount.\u00a0 Five WRAC board members have already passed this motion.\u00a0 This proposal will be heard in the Council Planning and Land Use Management Committee on April 6.\u00a0 The Executive Committee unanimously agrees that this enormous increase is discriminatory and will prevent the vast majority of Los Angeles stakeholders from exercising their right to appeal any city land use procedure.<\/p>\n

One question was asked as to the reason for the huge proposed increase. The Secretary explained again that the CAO maintains that this is the amount needed to recover the cost of processing these appeals; this information is contained in the supporting documents that were linked in the agenda.\u00a0 She has been told that the CAO is serious about requesting this fee increase.\u00a0 There was no further discussion.\u00a0 A vote was then called.\u00a0 Result<\/u>:\u00a0 Unanimous in favor of the motion by all members voting (one abstention).<\/p>\n

9.2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Land Use Committee<\/u> (LUC; Howard Robinson, Chair).\u00a0 Update on investigation and research re 16796 Marquez residential project and related zoning matters. See LUC Interim Report:\u00a0 https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/PPCC-Land-Use-Committee-Interim-Report.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the Committee Chair\u2019s absence, the Secretary (who is also an LUC member) summarized the Interim Report.\u00a0 She further noted the following updates since the report was written: Councilmember Bonin\u2019s staff advises that the developer complied with the order and submitted plans for review before the March 17th deadline.\u00a0 We understand that the stop work order is still in effect while the Building Dept. completes its review (timing unknown). The Secretary noted that the LUC\u2019s research and investigation are continuing, and the committee expects to present a final report at public LUC and Board meetings in the near future (dates TBA).\u00a0 There will be a full opportunity for public input at these meetings.<\/p>\n

Sue Kohl (Area 5 Representative) asked about the timing of construction and why there was seemingly such a long delay after permit issuance.\u00a0 The Secretary explained, as described in the Interim Report, that the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) was issued in 2017, that plans were then submitted and approved during 2017-2019, that building permits were then issued in February 2020, and that to our knowledge construction began in 2020 after the building permits were issued.\u00a0 She does not know why the process took this long, or when construction actually began after the building permits were issued.<\/p>\n

Stephanie Shaner (resident of Marquez Knolls) advised that a group of residents is protesting the construction.\u00a0 She stated that she was unclear about the role of the committee and wanted to know what the committee is doing in terms of trying to stop the construction.<\/p>\n

The Chair explained the advisory role of the LUC and of PPCC, which as a volunteer organization is not part of the City\u2019s decision-making process and does not have authority to stop projects.\u00a0 Residents have the right to lobby their Councilmember, the Mayor and City agencies about this issue.\u00a0 Ms. Shaner stated that the opponents are already contacting City authorities but she wants to know what the committee will do to help mitigate the construction. \u00a0The Secretary reiterated that the LUC is continuing its investigation with respect to this project and the larger ramifications for zoning in the Palisades.\u00a0 A stop construction order has been issued by the Building Dept. and we are awaiting the City\u2019s determination on permit revocation.\u00a0 She also read from the introductory statement in the Interim Report as to what specifically the LUC was charged to do, and explained that its role is solely to research and report its conclusions and possible recommendations to the PPCC Board.\u00a0 The committee does not and would not take actions or positions independently with respect to the Marquez\/Ida project or any other project.<\/p>\n

The Treasurer then explained further that PPCC typically does not take positions in opposition to or support of homeowners on single-family residential projects; our general policy is not to become involved with disputes among individual neighbors as to a home\u2019s compliance with building code or zoning rules.\u00a0 Neighbors are welcome to appeal, file a lawsuit or lobby the authorities. PPCC attempts to influence policy and we also call for strict enforcement. In many years the only time he can recall that the Board has taken a position to oppose a single-family project was the unique situation with the Greentree property in Rustic Canyon, which involved an egregious set of circumstances.\u00a0 He also cautioned that a few years ago, when the City was developing new anti-mansionization rules, there were widely divergent opinions among Palisades residents as to whether more restrictions should be placed on the size of homes.\u00a0 PPCC bylaws require a 2\/3 majority vote on policy issues; this voting threshold could not be reached on the mansionization issue because the community was evenly divided between those who favored more restrictions and did not want to see high homes blocking views (such as residents of Marquez Knolls), and those who wanted fewer restrictions in order to be able to maximize property value as their neighbors had been able to do under existing rules (such as some residents in Area 5).<\/p>\n

The Secretary also noted that PPCC represents all Palisades stakeholders, including owners\/developers. Per PPCC\u2019s Guiding Principles we support strict scrutiny and adherence to all land use and zoning laws, including the 45-foot height limit applicable to non-hillside Coastal areas.\u00a0 She reiterated that the LUC will issue a final report in the near future and will hold a public meeting at which time these matters can be fully discussed.<\/p>\n

Len Nguyen (CD 11 Planning Deputy) then reminded everyone that the owner\/developer of the Marquez\/Ida project has the right to develop the project pursuant to the CDP, but the City also has the right to make sure the project plans are in compliance with code.\u00a0 That is the reason why the developer was asked to revise the plans.\u00a0 The City can require an adjustment in the plans in accordance with code. With respect to enacting possible new anti-mansionization rules in the Palisades, Mr. Nguyen cautioned: there was an uptick in applications to build larger homes right before we enacted more restrictive rules a few years ago. Many homeowners wanted to be able to build under the old, less restrictive rules. The new, more restrictive rules can\u2019t be applied retroactively to require compliance by owners who file applications to build larger homes under existing rules before the new rules go into effect.<\/p>\n

Ms. Shaner thanked everyone for these explanations. She further noted that opposing residents maintain that the Marquez\/Ida structure violates code in several respects and they question the construction\u2019s actual height. According to Ms. Shaner, the opponents believe that the measurements were incorrectly based on the assumption that the bottom floor is the basement; in their view the bottom floor is not the basement. \u00a0She asked the committee to support the opposing residents\u2019 position as to code violations.\u00a0 The Secretary repeated that the LUC is continuing to investigate and monitor the situation and will report its conclusions and recommendations to the Board and public in the coming weeks.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Haldis Toppel (Area 3 Representative) again referenced PPCC\u2019s Guiding Principles which support strict adherence to code requirements.\u00a0 She thanked the LUC for its work.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

11.1.\u00a0 \u201cPersonal Delivery Devices<\/span>\u201d (PDDs; remote-controlled\/robotic delivery devices; proposed City regulations & pilot program) \u2013 Eric Bruins, CD 11 Transportation Deputy.<\/p>\n

The Chair welcomed Eric Bruins, CD 11 Transportation Deputy.\u00a0 Mr. Bruins explained that the City does not yet have a regulatory program for these robotic delivery devices (PDDs).\u00a0 He provided context: Councilmember Blumenfield (second by Councilmember Bonin) brought a motion in Council last November for a report by LADOT on possible regulation of PDDs.\u00a0 LADOT has not yet reported back with a draft regulatory program\/ordinance.\u00a0 The reason for the motion is that there seemed to be an emergence of PDD companies looking into spaces for deliveries in Los Angeles. This has become a huge business during the pandemic. The motivation is to do more deliveries more quickly and at lower cost.\u00a0 However, there are issues with these devices, such as crowded and\/or broken sidewalks, and locations where there may not be enough space to accommodate the devices.<\/p>\n

The Blumenfeld\/Bonin motion was an attempt to address possible problems.\u00a0 Issues to be considered include:\u00a0 Sidewalk accessibility; visual management tools; public right of way and use fees; limitations on advertising; enforcement capacity; consumer\/public privacy (potential to collect data).\u00a0 Basic questions to be asked:\u00a0 Are there real public benefits and what are the trade-offs?\u00a0 Mr. Bruins advised that state law authorizes PDDs but the City has the right to regulate them locally.\u00a0 Absent a regulatory program the devices are legal under California law, so we see them operating in some locations without regulation by the City.\u00a0 He hopes that LADOT will report back in the next month or so with a draft program.<\/p>\n

The Chair:\u00a0 \u00a0We submitted a list of questions in advance to Mr. Bruins, but the basic question is, what will be the safeguards for pedestrians and motorists?\u00a0 Mr. Bruins:\u00a0 That is Councilmember Bonin\u2019s top priority. He wants to have a safe public right of way for all users.\u00a0 Mr. Bruins explained that we have started to see two types or models of PDDs.\u00a0 The first type involves fully autonomous devices. We have a great deal of concern over whether this technology is ready for prime time.\u00a0 Mr. Bruins is skeptical of the autonomous model.<\/p>\n

The Chair: \u00a0What about permitting bicycle or motor scooter deliveries?\u00a0\u00a0 Mr. Bruins: That\u2019s a good question; he doesn\u2019t know why we don\u2019t have more demand for these in Los Angeles.<\/p>\n

Eric Dugdale (PPHS):\u00a0 \u00a0The Alphabet Streets are very narrow streets.\u00a0 We would be looking at real traffic issues with PDDs in this area, and there is also an invasion of privacy concern.<\/p>\n

The Secretary:\u00a0 She submitted the list of advance questions, but will wait to respond to what LADOT reports.\u00a0 She asked if there will be an opt in or opt out provision for communities such as the Palisades?\u00a0 Mr. Bruins: We are waiting to see what LADOT reports as to appropriate regulations.\u00a0 We don\u2019t yet know where the companies want to operate or whether this will even be a citywide effort at this point.<\/p>\n

The Chair: What type of program has San Pedro launched?\u00a0 Mr. Bruins:\u00a0 Councilmember Buscaino welcomed a PDD company there.\u00a0 This was a very limited arrangement with the City and there were no regulations; they are only operating under the state authority. Mr. Bruins has not heard anything positive or negative about how this is working.<\/p>\n

Mr. Bruins then explained that the second type or model of PDD is a remote-controlled robot, in which an operator controls the device\u2019s motions. The operator can see if someone is coming and can move the device out of the way.<\/p>\n

Karen Ridgley (Area 4 Representative): What is the radius where these are practical? \u00a0The Palisades has hillsides, we are spread out, and some areas have no sidewalks. PDDs are not convenient in a place like the Palisades.\u00a0 She also noted that people are very concerned about invasion of privacy and she has questions about liability: Could terrorists use robots to deliver bombs?\u00a0 Who has liability?\u00a0 Mr. Bruins:\u00a0 We have asked for an explanation of the public benefit so we can weigh the trade-offs.\u00a0 There are congestion and climate benefits as well as public health benefits from contactless delivery during the pandemic.\u00a0 But we need to weigh the negatives against the positives.<\/p>\n

Ms. Ridgley also asked about enforcement: How can we enforce regulation of these devices, given the already-existing demands on LAPD?\u00a0 Mr. Bruins:\u00a0 That is a good question.\u00a0 StreetsLA is the enforcement wing for streets, so they will have a role in enforcement.\u00a0 It is important for the City to have data-sharing, as we do with scooters, so that we have real time data about what is happening with the devices.\u00a0 StreetsLA has a \u201cfor hire\u201d division that works with enforcement.<\/p>\n

Steve Lantz (resident; PPCC representative to WRAC Transportation Committee): How do PDDs get through intersections?\u00a0 Can we charge the companies to put in curb cuts?\u00a0 Mr. Bruins:\u00a0 He would love to be able to charge a high enough fee to manage the right of way in this manner. He is skeptical about autonomous PDDs, which now cross intersections by waiting for other pedestrians to cross and then by moving along with the pedestrians.\u00a0 The PDD companies are mapping City sidewalks to see where the curb cuts are.\u00a0 Mr. Lantz:\u00a0 How do we deal with cars making right hand turns and potentially running over PDDs?\u00a0 He is worried about cars not seeing the devices and ending up crushing someone\u2019s dinner.\u00a0 Mr. Bruins: \u00a0He shares the concern.<\/p>\n

Bruce Schwartz (Area 2 Second Alternate): How do we know that these devices won\u2019t be stolen?\u00a0 Mr. Bruins:\u00a0 Another good question; the solution that we\u2019ve seen is for the PDDs to be slim in profile but heavy enough so that they can\u2019t be picked up.\u00a0 The companies also use different technologies to secure the cargo hatches.\u00a0 We are looking to the private sector to innovate more in this area.<\/p>\n

The Chair thanked Mr. Bruins for presenting to us.\u00a0 He also thanked him for the left turn signal on Sunset & Chautauqua.\u00a0 The Chair noted that PRIDE is working on landscaping the additional islands in that intersection so that the area of the intersection will even nicer when this is all completed.<\/p>\n

11.2.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Community Forest Advisory Committee<\/span> (CFAC; appointed committee of volunteers and City representatives, under the Dept. of Public Works) \u2013 Isabelle Duvivier, FAIA, CD 11 CFAC volunteer representative.\u00a0 Discussion only.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Chair welcomed Ms. Duvivier, CD 11\u2019s volunteer representative to the CFAC.\u00a0 Ms. Duvivier explained that she is an architect from Venice and our representative on the committee.\u00a0 She and the other members were appointed by the Council office and approved by the Mayor.\u00a0 The CFAC meets once a month to help shape City policy around the urban canopy which is in decline due to various factors.\u00a0 The CFAC was able to convince the City to do an inventory of street trees, the first such inventory done in a long time.\u00a0 Interested persons can go online and see tree species and condition by each Council District.\u00a0 In CD 11, they will be doing the inventory in Venice in July, but they won\u2019t be getting to the Palisades until an unknown time.\u00a0 They have already mapped about 1\/10 of tree species in the City.\u00a0 We have a new City Forest Officer, Rachel Malarich. The CFAC also was the impetus for the Dudek Report dealing with forest management.<\/p>\n

Ms. Duvivier has been on the CFAC for four years and needs an alternate.\u00a0 She has been trying to find an alternate and has been meeting with Councilmember Bonin\u2019s office for several years, encouraging them to appoint an alternate.\u00a0 She lives in the flats of Venice.\u00a0 Lots of areas in CD 11 are tree-canopy deprived.\u00a0 That is not true of the Palisades, but we see in hillside areas throughout the City large numbers of requests for protected tree removals.\u00a0 She feels we need someone as her alternate to help the City create policy to protect some of these trees. The tree removals don\u2019t come to the City until the end of the development process instead of at the beginning.\u00a0 There are other interesting things happening on the CFAC and she has worked with Cindy Kirven.\u00a0 The CFAC was involved with the City\u2019s recent expansion of protected tree species to include Toyon and Elderberry trees.\u00a0 The CFAC has also requested that the Citywide Sign Ordinance include information on trees; many trees are butchered so that billboards can be viewed.\u00a0 The CFAC has written a letter to the Planning Commission requesting more permitting requirements and fines for unpermitted tree removals. The committee has also issued a letter to LAFD.\u00a0 Currently none of the LAFD literature regarding brush clearance says anything about protected trees.\u00a0 Many people have removed protected trees such as Black Walnuts because in the winter these trees look dead.\u00a0 Information about all protected trees should be in the brush clearance literature.\u00a0 Another letter the CFAC has written relates to the City budget.\u00a0 The City is currently spending only 1\/4 of 1% on street trees; the CFAC has requested that the street tree allocation be elevated to 1% of the budget.<\/p>\n

As the CD11 representative for trees, she has been trying to get other neighborhoods in CD11 to plant more trees.\u00a0 There are now new groups, such as the Mar Vista Arbor Group and the Verdant Venice Committee, that encourage street tree planting.\u00a0 The City is actively working in disadvantaged communities for residents to take advantage of the free street tree program.<\/p>\n

Ms. Duvivier also explained that the City of Los Angeles has issued a new biodiversity index.\u00a0 We are a biodiversity hot spot. The City put out a 2020 Biodiversity Report which she recommends to everyone. [See: <\/em>https:\/\/www.lacitysan.org\/san\/sandocview?docname=cnt052553<\/em><\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n

The Mayor\u2019s goal is no net loss of biodiversity in ten years.\u00a0 One of the things we can do is register our gardens with the National Wildlife Federation.\u00a0 The City wants to be the largest city in the country with wildlife gardens.\u00a0 [See: <\/em>https:\/\/www.nwf.org\/certify<\/em><\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n

The Chair thanked Ms. Duvivier for her interesting presentation and service to CD11.<\/p>\n

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

ATTACHMENT:\u00a0 ITEM 9.1<\/strong> \u2013 WRAC-Recommended Motion to Oppose Increase in Land Use Decision Appeal Fee<\/p>\n

Background Information:<\/p>\n

WRAC: \u00a0https:\/\/westsidecouncils.com\/motion\/opposition-to-raising-land-use-appeal-fee\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Council File: \u00a0https:\/\/cityclerk.lacity.org\/lacityclerkconnect\/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=09-0969-S3<\/a><\/p>\n

CAO Report: https:\/\/clkrep.lacity.org\/onlinedocs\/2009\/09-0969-S3_rpt_CAO_02-24-2021.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Text of motion:<\/p>\n

The Westside Regional Alliance of Councils opposes the proposal by the City’s Chief Administrative Officer (Rich Llewellyn), to raise the fee for a citizen (or a community group, such as an HOA) to file an appeal of any city land use (or Building & Safety) decision, from the current $89 to the discriminatory amount of $16,097. This amount that has no basis in reality will prohibit the majority of stakeholders in the City of Los Angeles from having meaningful access to any city land use appeal procedure. Council File 09-0969-S3<\/p>\n

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

Return to Index of 2021 Minutes MINUTES FROM MARCH 25th 2021 Voting Members in Attendance: \u00a0David Card, Richard Cohen, Chris Spitz, Karen Ridgley, Sue Kohl, Matthew Quiat, Joanna Spak, Reza Akef, Alan Goldsmith, Beth Holden-Garland, Steve Cron, Haldis Toppel, Peter Powell, Brenda Theveny, Eric Dugdale Voting Alternates: \u00a0John Padden, Rick McGeagh, Mary Mueller, Janet Anderson […]<\/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-9234","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9234","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=9234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}