\n\nMINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 27th 2014<\/h4>\nVoting Members in Attendance<\/span>: \u00a0Barbara Kohn, Chris Spitz, Jennifer Malaret, Donna Vaccarino, Jim Rea, Paul Glasgall, Jack Allen, Janet Turner, Stuart Muller, Sue Kohl, Dick Wulliger, Andrew Wolfberg and Gil Dembo.<\/p>\nVoting Alternates<\/span>: \u00a0Amy Kalp, Marc Lasky, Quentin Fleming, Brenda Theveny and Carol Bruch.<\/p>\nNon-voting Advisors and Alternates<\/span>: \u00a0John Glasgow, Bruce Schwartz, Jennifer Zeller and Richard Cohen.\u00a0(Kelly Comras was present but left prior to any topic where a vote was at issue.)<\/p>\nStart of Business Meeting<\/p>\n 1. \u00a0 \u00a0Reading of Community Council’s Mission<\/span>. \u00a0Dick Wulliger read the Mission Statement.<\/p>\n2. \u00a0 \u00a0Call to Order and Introduction of the Board and Audience<\/span>. \u00a0Barbara Kohn called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Introduction of the Board and audience.<\/p>\n3. \u00a0 \u00a0Certification of Quorum<\/span>. \u00a0The President certified that a quorum was present at 7:07 pm.<\/p>\n4. \u00a0 \u00a0Adoption of Minutes<\/span>. \u00a0The President deemed the February 13, 2014 minutes adopted as corrected. Next Meetings: March 13, 2014 and March 27, 2014. Barbara stated that the issue of the Bylaws would be discussed at the March 13, 2014 meeting.<\/p>\n5. \u00a0 \u00a0Consideration of Agenda<\/span>. \u00a0The President considered the agenda.<\/p>\n6. \u00a0 \u00a0Treasurer’s Report<\/span> — No report given.<\/p>\n7. \u00a0 \u00a0Reports, Announcements and Concerns<\/span>.<\/p>\n7.1. \u00a0 \u00a0Announcements from the President, Barbara Kohn<\/span>.<\/p>\n7.1.1. \u00a0 \u00a0PPCC Membership\/Citizen of the Year Flyer \u2013 Look for it in Your Mailbox!!!! Barbara reported that more than 12,000 mailings went out. Copies were made available to those in attendance.<\/p>\n 7.1.2. \u00a0 \u00a02014 Citizen of the Year and Gala Dinner Event, Thursday, April 24, 2014 at the Riviera Country Club. \u00a0The Citizen of the Year Award will be given to Rob Weber, President of the Pacific Palisades Parade Association (“PAPA”) 4th of July Parade & Concert 2013. In addition, a special honor, “Pride of the Palisades” will be given to Bill Bruns. Gala Dinner Committee Chair Janet Turner; Program Chair Jim Rea.<\/p>\n 7.1.3. \u00a0 \u00a0PPCC’s Sparkplug Awards. \u00a0See Criteria Below. Nominations remain open until February 28, 2014. Email nominations to info@pacpalicc.org. 2014 Sparkplug Committee Members: Chris Spitz (Chair), Ted Mackie (Executive Board Representative), Andrew Wolfberg (Area Representative), Joyce Brunelle (Organizational Representative), and Andy Frew (Organizational Representative).<\/p>\n 7.1.4. \u00a0 \u00a0Mayor’s Budget Day, Wednesday February 26, 2014, 6:00 pm \u2013 8:00 pm, Mar Vista Recreation Center, 11430 Woodbine Street, Los Angeles. \u00a0Mayor Garcetti, Councilmember Mike Bonin and Councilmember Paul Koretz attending. Janet Turner reported that the event was very successful. The Mayor reported that the pension budget continues to be an issue for the City. The Mayor spoke for a while and the City is very proud that safety has improved to the highest level since 1947. Job increases at Silicon Beach have been very helpful to the City’s revenue base.<\/p>\n 7.1.5. \u00a0 \u00a0Caruso Affiliated invites input on Village Properties, Wednesday February 26, 2014, Mercer Hall, 6 PM Palisades Charter High School, 15777 Bowdoin Street, Pacific Palisades, CA. \u00a0Caruso Affiliated representatives are tentatively scheduled to attend the PPCC Board meeting on February 27, 2014. Kelly Comras reported that approximately 500 persons attended and that the event was very positive in spirit. Audience feedback was given on architectural style and restaurants. For over one and a half hours, there was question and feedback interchange was engaged in between the residents and Caruso Affiliated. Other board members spoke with positive sentiments.<\/p>\n 7.1.6. \u00a0 \u00a0Council District 11 is seeking qualified applicants to fill positions on the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Design Review Board (DRB). \u00a0See information below. Barbara stated that there is approximately one week to nominate yourself or another qualified individual.<\/p>\n 7.2. \u00a0 \u00a0Announcements from Governmental Representatives<\/span>.<\/p>\n7.2.1. \u00a0 Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) \u2013 SLO Officer Moore — None in attendance.<\/p>\n In lieu of SLO Moore, Richard Cohen reported that at the CPAB meeting last week (1) policing and the homeless was the sole topic. The information given was not positive due, in part, to the Consent Decree that the LAPD operates under. The homeless persons under various court decisions are entitled to be in public places and can sleep on the sidewalk between 9 PM and 6 AM. The standard for blocking the sidewalk is that a person can navigate around them, else LAPD will not intervene. The homeless are entitled to urinate and defecate in public such that this is a human need which cannot be denied in the situation that public restrooms are not available. Jennifer Malaret reminded the board about discussions last year involving a state assembly bill that died wherein City parks would need to make their public restrooms available 24\/7. Patrick Hart commented that homeless are sleeping in Temescal Canyon despite having beds available elsewhere in the City. Richard stated that in the Palisades there are beach restrooms and park restrooms available at certain hours such that LAPD can issues citations under certain circumstances. Donna asked about programs in Beverly Hills. Richard stated that the key element is what happens to a homeless person’s stuff. The City of LA does not have resources to bag, tag, store and safeguard the belongings of homeless persons whereas Beverly Hills has greater resources.<\/p>\n 7.2.2. \u00a0 \u00a0Los Angeles City Council, District 11; Councilmember Mike Bonin’s Office. www.11thdistrict.com — None in attendance.<\/p>\n 7.2.3. \u00a0 \u00a0Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Daniel Tamm Westside Area Representative, Mayor’s Interfaith Liaison (*attending on the 4th Thursday of each month). Mayor’s Website: www.lamayor.org. City Services webpage: http:\/\/www.lacity.org\/CitywideServices\/index.htm. MyLA Phone App: http:\/\/www.lacity.org\/\/MyLA311\/index.htm — None in attendance.<\/p>\n 7.2.4. \u00a0 \u00a0California State Assembly, Office of Assemblymember Richard Bloom’s Office. http:\/\/www.asmdc.org\/bloom — None in attendance.<\/p>\n 7.3. \u00a0 \u00a0Announcements from Board Members and Advisors<\/span>.<\/p>\n7.3.1. \u00a0 \u00a0Area Representatives \u2013 Report on Behalf of Areas.<\/p>\n (1) Paul Glasgall reported that there has been a response by Verizon to requests to paint the cell towers and cabinets. There are still two towers in contention and Paul estimates that the towers will be operational in a month or so. There will be a grand opening for the Palisades Drive Shopping Center. (2) Andrew Wolfberg reported that the Northern Trust Open has come and gone and he asked that if any residents had problems this year to please contact him and Andrew will work on further changes designed to mitigate impacts to neighbors. (3) Stuart Muller reported that he obtained a commitment from the post office building owner to have the abandoned phone booth outside of Citibank removed.<\/p>\n 7.3.2. \u00a0 \u00a0Organizational Representatives \u2013 Report on Behalf of Organizations.<\/p>\n (1) Gil Dembo circulated a report regarding the development of adjacent retaining walls in Potrero Canyon that do not require aesthetic ‘skirting.’ \u00a0Gil is concerned with the impact on views from the canyon and that the City and LADBS strictly enforce the rules set by the City and the Coastal Commission regarding development of ‘rim’ properties. \u00a0Chris Spitz reminded the board that the LUC and the Council had discussed this issue for years. As a result, in part, there was a ZI Bulletin issued and there has been constant interaction with private property owners and the LUC regarding individual developments. Chris stated that there have been ongoing efforts and discussions to protect the view shed. Gil urged the City to review the requirements to make them more stringent. Jack Allen suggested that there remains a need for a Hillside Retaining Wall Ordinance; Barbara reminded the Board that this issue has been discussed for years.<\/p>\n 7.3.3. \u00a0 \u00a0PPCC Advisors — None in attendance.<\/p>\n 8. \u00a0 \u00a0Reports from Committees<\/span>.<\/p>\n8.1. \u00a0 \u00a0Land Use Committee (“LUC”) \u2013 Chris Spitz, Chair<\/span>.<\/p>\n(A) Report of ZA Hearing regarding an appeal involving15225 DePauw, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272. \u00a0See letter previously reported and submitted. The Commissioners continued the matter to April 2, 2014. Chris Spitz reported that the very technical issue was how grade is to be measured when a property owner used dirt “spoils” left over from construction to establish existing grade vs. an adjacent owner who used the ‘natural’ grade. Various City officials have been invited to attend the next LUC meeting where this issue will be a topic of discussion. Jack Allen stated that he researched the zoning code and Chris Spitz responded that while the Senior Grading Inspector may agree with Jack’s view there are others that do not. (B) Next LUC Meeting: March 6, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Palisades Branch Library. All board members and public are welcome. Barbara stated that an additional topic at the LUC meeting will be the existing Specific Plan. This topic will be on-going and eventually there will be a board discussion regarding the Specific Plan and what is allowed and not allowed in terms of use, height, etc.<\/p>\n 9. \u00a0 \u00a0Old Business<\/span>.<\/p>\n9.1. \u00a0 \u00a0Notice of March 7, 2014 Board of Public Works Hearing, 9:30 am at City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Room 350, Los Angeles, CA, 90012<\/span>.<\/p>\nMotion submitted by Patrick Hart regarding appeal from the City Engineer’s approval of Coastal Development Permit 13-02 for Temescal Canyon Park Storm Water Best Management Practices Project, Phase II (W.O. EW40029D). \u00a0Please refer to discussion and minutes from the January 23, 2014 PPCC Board meeting.<\/p>\n Presentation: Patrick asked for two board members to present and second a motion that would endorse his appeal referenced above. Patrick reported that late this afternoon he received a reply from City Engineers in response to his points and comments from the last PPCC meeting. Patrick is also concerned about the lack of monitoring of the facility that will be built next to adjacent homeless campfires. The last component of the objection is that there is Phase 2 will measure no metric the City has to measure how much pollutant and how much the Santa Monica Bay will be cleaned.<\/p>\n Discussion: Carol Bruch asked about the legal basis for pumping requirements. Andrew Wolfberg stated that the existence of houses that drain into the canyon without pumps create a flow that the City is trying to deal with. Richard Cohen asked why we are talking about a single family residence when the issue before us is to oppose Phase 2 of a project after Phase 1 has already been built wherein Phase 1 captures a tremendous amount of public water for treatment prior to it being disposed into the Santa Monica Bay. Richard stated that Phase 2 deals with the treatment of some of the water wherein it is treated with bleach and used to water parkland rather than the water being wasted. Patrick responded that the City of LA can legally collect storm water from Temescal Canyon Park itself not from private property surrounding the park. Jack Allen stated that the City can legally collect water from storm water from storm drains when that water comes from private property. Richard noted that the council previously stated the Proposition O project to reuse water for public parks. Why should the council interfere with Phase 2 of that effort? The City has to trap the water before it contaminates the Santa Monica Bay so the question is should that water be wasted or treated and reused to water the grass? Chris Spitz pointed out that these concerns are directed towards Phase 1 and not Phase 2; Patrick feels that public health and safety is being sacrificed (fire and terrorist risk v. undeterminable benefits). Patrick is objecting to the treated water being dumped into the Coastal Inceptor that is broken in numerous places before it gets to the Hyperion Treatment plant. Gil Dembo agreed with Richard’s comments, i.e., that the Proposition O project is a good project; it has been researched and the re-use of water for parkland is a worthy cause.<\/p>\n Action: Barbara asked if there was a board member willing to sponsor his motion and second the motion such that the council would vote on the language therein. No motion was proffered.<\/p>\n 9.2. \u00a0 \u00a0Bylaws Committee \u2013 George Wolfberg, Chair<\/span>.<\/p>\nSee Bylaws Committee Report with documents circulated before the January 23, 2014 meeting; the documents are also available on the PPCC website. Second reading of the revised bylaws. Discussion and voting to take place March 13, 2014.<\/p>\n 9.3. \u00a0 Discussion of Policy and Process Relating to Distribution of Information from PPCC’s Member Organizations and Seated Board Members<\/span>.<\/p>\nBarbara solicited input from organizations regarding the obligation of the Council and\/or Chair to distribute information via emails, flyers or otherwise. \u00a0In the past, organizational members have made their announcements while physically present at PPCC Board meetings. Discussion: (1) Gil Dembo stated ‘once is enough’. (2) Richard Cohen stated that organizations should be able to send the Chair announcements for the agenda that are then redistributed in the minutes (totaling 4 times including draft and final circulation). Richard does not think PPCC’s valuable email list should be used to distribute information regarding outside events and those events that PPCC does not sponsor. Too many emails from PPCC will endanger the organization because people will become overwhelmed and our email list becomes devalued. (3) Jack Allen agreed with Richard. (4) Janet Turner disagreed and felt that member organization announcements should be generously accommodated. Janet stressed that member organizations have the obligation to reciprocate and send out PPCC emails to their members as well. (5) Jim Rea suggested that there be a list of recognized events that PPCC agree to announce. (6) Donna Vaccarino said that a council that represents the community should freely distribute information from member organizations when requested. (7) Jennifer Malaret stated that the topic is whether member organizations are happy to leave this issue to the discretion of the Chair per the Bylaws, whether member organizations want a committee or policy and\/or whether member organizations have guidelines they want adopted by the council. (8) Quentin Fleming supported leaving this matter to the discretion of the Chair. (9) Jack Allen supported Richard and reiterated that the PPCC should not be involved in distributing information that is not Council business nor should PPCC try to be a substitute for the Palisadian Post. (10) Amy Kalp suggested that the Council consider how it is structured to increase outreach to the community. (11) Carol Bruch suggested that a good solution would be for PPCC to have a community outreach bulletin board on the PPCC website and that nothing be distributed by the Chair at all. (12) Paul Glasgall [no further statement recorded]. \u00a0Action: Richard suggested that the issue of notices be left to the discretion of the Chair with a bit of reservation and that any notice sent out be sent out once [no further action recorded].<\/p>\n 10. \u00a0 \u00a0New Business<\/span> \u2013 None.<\/p>\n11. \u00a0 \u00a0General Public Comment<\/span>.<\/p>\n11.1. \u00a0 \u00a0Brian Deming suggested that Facebook be used for general discussion and that PPCC’s email be reserved for official organizational notices.<\/p>\n 11.2. \u00a0 \u00a0Stuart Muller said that the owner of the Spectrum building came to the Design Review Board with plans for new signage, highlights and exterior planting.<\/p>\n 11.3. \u00a0 \u00a0Stuart Muller suggested that the Council use its funds to hire a paid, professional Secretary for minute taking and administration of the organization.<\/p>\n 11.4. \u00a0 Donna Vaccarino announced that the UCLA student’s work for CPIPP would be presented on March 16, 2014. There will be three plans presented as options for the community. Sunday 10:30 \u2013 1 PM at the empty U.S. Bank Building.<\/p>\n 11.5. \u00a0 \u00a0Andrew Wolfberg announced that George and Diane Wolfberg celebrated their 50th Wedding Anniversary. \u00a0Richard Cohen and various board members congratulated the Wolfberg family on this most special day.<\/p>\n 12. \u00a0 \u00a0Adjournment<\/span>. \u00a0Barbara Kohn adjourned the meeting at 8:50 PM.<\/p>\nATTACHMENTS <\/strong><\/p>\nITEM 7.1.1 \u2013 PPCC SPARKPLUG AWARD CRITERIA<\/strong><\/p>\nAWARD DEFINITION: The Golden Sparkplug Award honors those citizens who ignite ideas and projects into community action that affects all of us.
\nCRITERIA:
\nThe person must have launched a new idea or project of substantial benefit to the Palisades community.
\nThe project must have been initiated, in progress, or completed during the previous calendar year [no bold]. The action must have been voluntary and not related to one’s business or occupation.
\nRECIPIENTS:
\nBoth adults and youth are eligible for the award
\nOnly one member of a given group or committee
\nHave broad community appeal and represent a cross section of the community
\nSelected based on quality of work versus quantity of nominations<\/p>\n ITEM 7.1.6 \u2013 COUNCIL DISTRICT 11 IS SEEKING QUALIFIED APPLICANTS TO FILL POSITIONS ON THE PACIFIC PALISADES COMMERCIAL VILLAGE AND NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB).<\/strong><\/p>\nThe DRB plays an important role in implementing the design goals of the Pacific Palisades
\ncommunity within the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan
\narea. The DRB serves as an advisory body to the City decision makers and provides
\nrecommendations on design matters, by evaluating the placement of mass, form, spatial
\nelements, and overall quality of the design of proposed projects in the Specific Plan area.<\/p>\n The DRB consists of seven members, including at least one member who is qualified in the
\ndiscipline of architecture, one who is qualified in the discipline of landscape architecture, and
\none who is qualified in either the discipline of landscape architecture or urban planning.<\/p>\n Applicants should have:<\/p>\n *_knowledge of, or interest in, architecture, urban design, and the development process;<\/p>\n * the ability to evaluate projects based on design guidelines;<\/p>\n _ *the ability to listen and communicate effectively at public meetings; and<\/p>\n _*a passion for, and vision of, design in the Pacific Palisades community.<\/p>\n DRB members must live or work within zip code areas 90272 and 90402
\n(City of Los Angeles portion). Special consideration will be given to applicants who
\ndemonstrate formal qualifications and experience in architecture,
\nlandscape architecture, and urban planning.<\/p>\n DRB members will be appointed by Councilmember Mike Bonin.
\nThe DRB meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month, and
\nDRB members serve up to two four-year terms.<\/p>\n If you are interested in serving on the DRB, please submit an application consisting of a\u00a0resume and a cover letter detailing your interest in and qualifications for the position.<\/p>\n Applications should be submitted by email to Tricia Keane,
\nDirector of Planning for Council
\nDistrict 11, at tricia.keane@lacity.org.<\/p>\n Please use “Palisades DRB Application” as the email subject line.
\nApplications are due by Friday, March 7, 2014.<\/p>\n ITEM 8.1.1 \u2013 LETTER RE: 15225 DE PAUW, PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272<\/strong><\/p>\nITEM 9.1 —\u00a0FEBRUARY 27, 2014 PPCC BOARD TCPBMP MOTION DOCUMENTATION<\/strong>
\nDear PPCC board member-
\nAt tonight’s PPCC board meeting I, Patrick Hart, PPCC Advisor\/Liaison to the Los Angeles Department of Public Works will ask two of you to make a motion and a second respectively for a vote in support of PPCC Agenda ITEM 9.1 which is as follows. Putting aside my admonitions re: the Temescal Canyon Park Best Management Practices project’s underground storage tank could be used by terrorists as a bomb enclosure and the Phase II chemical storage bunker as the ignition device, I am respectfully asking all voting PPCC board members to read this document in its entirety. At issue is if the PPCC will or will not pass a motion to deny the Bureau of Engineering a Coastal Permit to build Phase II of the TCPBMP. If the permit is granted Pacific Palisadian property owners would, in essence, become the California coastline test case, the first of its kind, for home owner’s property rights vis-\u00e0-vis rain water that falls on our homes. That is, this project can go into operation only if we Palisadians allow our inherent ownership of the rain that falls on our individual properties to be taken away. Here are the facts:
\nAs the project manager\/presenters of the project have clearly stated in their presentations previously, the City of Los Angeles has no Coastal Plan.
\nWith the Temescal Canyon Park Best Management Practices (TCPBMP) project the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE) is attempting to usurp our private property groundwater rights to claim ownership of the rain, or so-called storm water, that falls on our properties. Please refer to d) below.
\nPacific Palisades is an un-adjudicated area of Los Angeles. This means the legality of what the City is attempting to do re: usurpation of rainwater falling on private property by the City has yet to be decided by a court of law. Again, refer to d) below for an example of the City’s rain water usurpation agenda my wife and I encountered when three years ago we wanted to build an entertain\/barbeque space in our back yard which overlooks Temescal Canyon Park from the El Medio bluffs neighborhood.
\nPlease refer to and Guy-Hart residence overlooking Temescal Canyon Park.jpg above. When my wife and I built this $90K deck in 2010-2011, an 18-month project, the City tried to force us to put $20K worth of pumps buried underground at 282′ elevation in the lower right corner of our property that overlooks Temescal Canyon Park. (seen in the .jpg in the top middle to upper right corner).
\nThe City’s plan: During a rainstorm the pumps would activate and pump the rainwater captured from the drain in the center of the deck, and pump the water back up and into the gutter at the front of our Erskine Drive home at 302′ elevation, instead of just letting the rain water run off down our hillside into the park. Acting as the project manager on our build, I was instead able to convince, over two months of trips downtown, the City permitting office to allow us to instead build the ~$3K quarter-round “gutter wall” you see at the top of the picture. A key phrase I used to convince the City permit guy I could substitute the gutter wall for the pumps was “As God intended” (rain water run-off to work). This is an example of how intrusive the City could become on all Pacific Palisades property owners in their quest to usurp our rights to the rainwater that falls on our own properties if the TCPBMP is allowed to go into operation.
\nHere is my proposed Motion: Discussion on each Item point follows:
\nITEM 9.
\nFEBRUARY 27, 2014 PPCC BOARD TCPBMP MOTION DOCUMENTATION
\nDear PPCC board member-
\nAt tonight’s PPCC board meeting I, Patrick Hart, PPCC Advisor\/Liaison to the Los Angeles Department of Public Works will ask two of you to make a motion and a second respectively for a vote in support of PPCC Agenda ITEM 9.1 which is as follows. Putting aside my admonitions re: the Temescal Canyon Park Best Management Practices project’s underground storage tank could be used by terrorists as a bomb enclosure and the Phase II chemical storage bunker as the ignition device, I am respectfully asking all voting PPCC board members to read this document in its entirety. At issue is if the PPCC will or will not pass a motion to deny the Bureau of Engineering a Coastal Permit to build Phase II of the TCPBMP. If the permit is granted Pacific Palisadian property owners would, in essence, become the California coastline test case, the first of its kind, for home owner’s property rights vis-\u00e0-vis rain water that falls on our homes. That is, this project can go into operation only if we Palisadians allow our inherent ownership of the rain that falls on our individual properties to be taken away. Here are the facts:
\nAs the project manager\/presenters of the project have clearly stated in their presentations previously, the City of Los Angeles has no Coastal Plan.
\nWith the Temescal Canyon Park Best Management Practices (TCPBMP) project the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE) is attempting to usurp our private property groundwater rights to claim ownership of the rain, or so-called storm water, that falls on our properties. Please refer to d) below.
\nPacific Palisades is an un-adjudicated area of Los Angeles. This means the legality of what the City is attempting to do re: usurpation of rainwater falling on private property by the City has yet to be decided by a court of law. Again, refer to d) below for an example of the City’s rain water usurpation agenda my wife and I encountered when three years ago we wanted to build an entertain\/barbeque space in our back yard which overlooks Temescal Canyon Park from the El Medio bluffs neighborhood.
\nPlease refer to and Guy-Hart residence overlooking Temescal Canyon Park.jpg above. When my wife and I built this $90K deck in 2010-2011, an 18-month project, the City tried to force us to put $20K worth of pumps buried underground at 282′ elevation in the lower right corner of our property that overlooks Temescal Canyon Park. (seen in the .jpg in the top middle to upper right corner).
\nThe City’s plan: During a rainstorm the pumps would activate and pump the rainwater captured from the drain in the center of the deck, and pump the water back up and into the gutter at the front of our Erskine Drive home at 302′ elevation, instead of just letting the rain water run off down our hillside into the park. Acting as the project manager on our build, I was instead able to convince, over two months of trips downtown, the City permitting office to allow us to instead build the ~$3K quarter-round “gutter wall” you see at the top of the picture. A key phrase I used to convince the City permit guy I could substitute the gutter wall for the pumps was “As God intended” (rain water run-off to work). This is an example of how intrusive the City could become on all Pacific Palisades property owners in their quest to usurp our rights to the rainwater that falls on our own properties if the TCPBMP is allowed to go into operation.
\nHere is my proposed Motion: Discussion on each Item point follows:<\/p>\nRECOMMENDED MOTION SUBMITTED BY PATRICK HART ASKING\u00a0PPCC TO OPPOSE ISSUANCE AT THIS TIME OF A COASTAL COMMISSION PERMIT\u00a0FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING, TO BUILD PHASE II\u00a0OF THE TEMESCAL CANYON PARK BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PROJECT. \u00a0[MOTION NOT PROFFERED]<\/p>\n 1. WHEREAS PPCC is concerned with Public Safety and Health issues should the TCPBMP
\nbecome fully operational specifically related to: (a) earthquake risk given that current fault mapping\u00a0efforts have not yet been completed, (b) hillside fires, (c) the on-site gathering of storm-water, (d)\u00a0future exhaust fumes from ground level and Phase II bunker vents, and (e) the handling of Sodium\u00a0Hypochlorite (as required by post-January 2013 California Department of Public Health & Safety\u00a0laws) near residential properties, public open spaces, and within limited and heavily trafficked\u00a0transportation corridors;
\n2. WHEREAS current metrics may be insufficient to measure the before and after public health gains relative to the Santa Monica Bay; and
\n3. WHEREAS PPCC has not been presented with information as to how operations of the TCPBMP will be fully funded by Prop. O funds or otherwise.
\nTHEREFORE, THE PPCC OPPOSES AT THIS TIME THE ISSUANCE OF A CALIFORNIA
\nCOASTAL COMMISSION PERMIT FOR PHASE II OF THE TEMESCAL CANYON PARK
\nBEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PROJECT.
\nBarbara Kohn has graciously granted me three minutes to explain\/expand on Motion items 9.1.1. a) thru e); Item 9.1.2.; and Item 9.1.3. with a few minutes for discussion before the vote.
\nWhen I present my case before you Thursday night I hope to convince two thirds of you voting board members that irrespective of the usurpation of property owner’s rain water rights issues, in my opinion from my years of extensive research into this issue, Los Angeles’ Bureaus of Engineering, Sanitation, and Parks and Rec have a multitude of legal and inter-departmental issues, as well as county, state and federal issues which must be worked out before the BOE is granted a Coastal Commission permit.<\/p>\n Background information in support of Motion Item 9.1.1 c) Onsite gathering of storm water, 9.1.1 b) Hillside fires and 9.1.1 e) Safe handling of Sodium Hypochlorite
\n9.1.1 c) Onsite gathering of storm water; By existing law the City can only process the rain storm water which actually falls on Temescal Canyon Park per this document by the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, Environmental Health:
\nhttp:\/\/www.publichealth.lacounty.gov\/eh\/docs\/ep_cross_con_cistern.pdf Document title:
\nREQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION FOR SAFE REUSE OF RAINFALL \/ RUN-OFF, NON-POTABLE CISTERN WATER AND URBAN RUN-OFF WATER (Rev. 09.21.09)
\nThus, the City appears to be acting illegally if they are simply taking storm water from neighboring Palisades storm drain systems that surround Temescal Canyon Park.
\n9.1.1 b) Hillside fires and 9.1.1 e) Safe handling of Sodium Hypochlorite \u2013 These two items pertain specifically to the TCPBMP Phase II Sodium Hypochlorite storage bunker. Here is the January 2013 document which gives newly revised regulations regarding the safe handling of Sodium Hypochlorite. At our previous meeting the TCPBMP project engineers have appeared totally unaware of this January 2013 document; thus they could site only vague platitudes about the safety of transporting, handling, and placing Sodium Hypochlorite in an environment, adjacent to multiple homeless campsites, known to have open flames in close proximity to overhanging eucalyptus tree branches.
\nhttp:\/\/www.cdph.ca.gov\/services\/DPOPP\/regs\/Pages\/DPH-03-017APublicPools.aspx<\/p>\n Note: The January 2013 document found on this website covers the safe handling of Sodium Hypochlorite in Public Pools. Since the vast majority of Los Angeles-run public pools are enclosed, this is the closest document that would appear to be applicable to the TCPBMP project. Therefore, other than this document the BOE would appear to have no way to justify any approved protocols for the safe handling of this chemical in an unguarded, unmonitored environment such as Temescal Canyon Park as this project environment is inconsistent with the laws applied to Los Angeles’ two dozen plus public pools.<\/p>\n Background information in support of Motion items 9.1.1 a) Earthquake risk, 9.1.1 d) Odors, and 9.1.2. Inadequate, qualitative and quantitative pre-facility and post-facility storm water measurement techniques
\nThe Temescal Canyon Park Stormwater Diversion Project now known as the Temescal Canyon Park Best Management Practices Project (TCPBMP) has been designed and built as a result of the passage of 2004’s Prop. O, “a general obligation bond which would fund storm water management projects that protect water bodies and meet water quality standards”. According to Prop. O, the primary performance parameter for the TCPBMP is that it meet the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Dry and Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL.
\nProp. O’s bond measure passed overwhelmingly in 2004 by Los Angeles voters as a reaction to the City losing an August 2004 USDOJ and Santa Monica Baykeeper $2 Billion dollar lawsuit which resulted in a Sewage Spill Agreement with the City of Los Angeles with terms which were to include improved sewer lines, wetlands restoration, and fines. Here is the link >>
\nhttp:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/pr\/2004\/August\/04_enrd_542.htm
\nThe fifth paragraph down in this document is the most applicable to agenda Item 9.1.1 c). It reads (author’s underline) >>
\n“This settlement is a groundbreaking effort to address all causes of sewage spills and odors* in the City of Los Angeles. The terms of the settlement require a proactive approach designed to prevent problems from developing in the city’s system. The city is required to undertake more aggressive maintenance practices and advanced planning to identify and repair or replace problem sewers before they spill.”**
\n*Note “and odors”. This is important because if one delves into the legalese in the $2 Billion settlement against the City of Los Angeles one finds the Santa Monica Baykeeper et al did not win the settlement predominately on actual sewage spills (because the City would immediately clean up all sewage spills). No, in actuality, much of the settlement’s legal standing hinged on odors, experienced in most instances by poorer, inland Los Angeles communities.
\n**About sewage spills: There only a couple of ways in which a sewer can “spill”. For instance, through a total back up of the sewer. i.e. A completely full of human sewage large diameter sewer main flowing into a smaller diameter sewer main causes the sewage to back up and blow backwards up and out of a manhole cover. This type of spill is common in the San Fernando Valley and poorer sections of inland Los Angeles. Or, agenda Item 9.1.1 a), as is the case of our 1924-built Coastal Interceptor Sewer (CIS) under PCH, “spills” are the euphemism attached to the earth-tremor-caused multiple breaks of this old 30″ diameter force main which runs from the Los Angeles County line at Malibu down to the Hyperion sewage treatment plant in El Segundo. The City has been making revenue off of the CIS from Malibu and Santa Monica for decades though actual details of how much revenue is not revealed in the City’s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP).
\nPacific Palisades now becomes unique in two ways;
\nWe have the almost-at-surface-level, active, Potrero Canyon earthquake fault bisecting the 1924 Coastal Interceptor Sewer (see Sludge level human fecal coliform on ocean bottom from broken CIS.jpg above) which the BOS has acknowledged (in an email to this author) was severely ruptured during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. And per the .jpg above appears to have not been repaired for at least thirteen years afterwards! This Google Earth satellite shot was taken July 31, 2007.
\nWith the advent of Google Earth maps, the USGS earthquake fault overlay software used here, and Google Maps history placed at July 31, 2007, any person in the world can now see, looking through the clear ocean water, and confirm the massive quantities of heavy, sludge level (human) fecal coliform sitting on ocean floor at the shoreline. Such a massive quantity could have only come from one source over many decades of capillary flow, in a liquefaction, wet-sand environment; the 1924 Coastal Interceptor Sewer which runs under Pacific Coast Highway.
\nWhy the foregoing paragraphs so important to voting in favor of the motion before you:
\nBecause as late as five years after Prop. O’s passage, 2009-2010, the Santa Monica Baykeeper continued to claim as a source of contamination, fecal coliform from storm water represents only 3%; sewage presumably from broken sewer pipes (the CIS), represented only 9%; other 6% and a whopping 81% of the sources was from “unknown sources” in the their testing the surface (or so-called scum level) Santa Monica bay waters off our Will Rogers State Beach (see 2009 NRDC testing the Waters report .jpg).
\nNow look at the “Sludge level human fecal coliform on ocean bottom from broken CIS” .pdf. Note PPCC board members:: This is Not anecdotal evidence of where 81% of unknown sources really resides. This is proof I discovered in 2009 utilizing probabilistic analysis techniques that the Santa Monica Baykeeper (NRDC) and Heal the Bay’s surface level-only SM bay measurements were in fact measuring only 3% ! of Santa Monica Bay’s pollution sources. And that 3% is storm water run-off from fertilizer on lawns, and grease and oil from our streets washed into Pacific Palisades’ storm drains surrounding Temescal Canyon Park during a rainstorm which is the sole reason for the TCPBMP’s existence and viability.<\/p>\n Lastly, Background information in support of Motion Item 9.1.3.; operational funding of the TCPBMP
\nI can find No provision in Prop. O for the continued funding of transportation of Sodium Hypochlorite, or maintenance, or on-site or off-site monitoring of the TCPBMP once it becomes operational.<\/p>\n In closing, it is my hope you voting members of the PPCC while have adequate time to review this email before our February 27, 2014 meeting. I will answer via email any questions you may have beforehand, or at the meeting proper. Thank you for reading!
\nRespectfully submitted,
\nPatrick Hart
\nPPCC liaison to the Los Angeles Department of Public Works<\/p>\n Addendum:
\nhttp:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/pr\/2004\/August\/04_enrd_542.htm<\/p>\n U.S. ANNOUNCES $2 BILLION SEWAGE SPILL AGREEMENT FOR CITY OF LOS ANGELES
\nTerms Include Improved Sewer Lines, Wetlands Restoration, And Fines
\nLOS ANGELES – In one of the largest sewage cases in U.S. history, the Department of Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Monica Baykeeper, and a coalition of Los Angeles community groups have reached a $2 billion settlement with the city of Los Angeles over years of sewage spills.
\nUnder the terms of the historic agreement, the city of Los Angeles will rebuild at least 488 miles of sewer lines, clean 2,800 miles of sewers annually, enhance its program to control restaurant grease discharges, increase the sewage system’s capacity, and plan for future expansion.
\nWith approximately 6,500 miles of sewer lines serving almost 4 million residents, the city operates the largest sewage collection systems in the country. Since 1994, the city has experienced over 4,500 sewage spills.
\nThe United States and the regional board are settling their civil penalty claims against the city for a total of $1.6 million, which they will share equally. The city will pay $800,000 to the U.S. Treasury. The regional board is directing its $800,000 to local environmental improvement projects that the city will perform.
\nThis settlement is a groundbreaking effort to address all causes of sewage spills and odors in the city of Los Angeles. The terms of the settlement require a proactive approach designed to prevent problems from developing in the city’s system. The city is required to undertake more aggressive maintenance practices and advanced planning to identify and repair or replace problem sewers before they spill.
\n“The joint enforcement action will bring long-term significant improvement to Los Angeles’s sewer system,” said Tom Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “This demonstrates that federal and state agencies and local organizations can work together to achieve compliance with our environmental regulations.”
\n“Today’s settlement recognizes and memorializes the city’s commitment to repair and replace its aging sewage infrastructure, to serve the needs of generations to come,” said Wayne Nastri, administrator of the EPA’s Pacific Southwest office in San Francisco. “This investment will protect neighborhoods and millions of beachgoers from the ill effects of sewage spills.”
\n“This settlement agreement is well worth the hard work that went into it,” said Francine Diamond, chair of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. “Soon it will not be commonplace to have spills resulting in raw sewage flowing down our streets and polluting our waterways. The agreement is a great victory for community members, as well as everyone concerned about public health and clean water.”
\nDraft responses to Pacific Palisades Community Council proposed motion, Item
\n10.2 of Jan. 23, 2014 meeting.<\/p>\n Motion concerns are in italics, followed (in bold) by City of Los Angeles responses.
\nDate prepared: Jan. 23, 2014, by the Bureau of Engineering<\/p>\n 1. Earthquake Risk?
\nCity Response: The California Department of Conservation, California
\nGeological Survey’s Seismic Hazard Zonation Program Map indicates that
\nthe project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The
\nnearest Alquist-Priolo zone to the project site is located approximately 0.4
\nmile to the south-southeast of the site. The Santa Monica Fault and the
\nMalibu Coast Fault are located approximately 0.4 mile south of the project
\nsite. Current fault mapping efforts are not complete. The project complies
\nwith current enforceable design standards.<\/p>\n Patrick Hart responds: See my response to Point 6. below. It is the cracked-and-ruptured-in-several-places Coastal Interceptor Sewer which directly connects to the output pipelines of the TCPBMP project. The fact that the project is not technically within the 1991 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone guidelines is irrelevant to the fact that the project’s output pipelines risk being cracked and\/or ruptured the same as the Coastal Interceptor Sewer into which they feed in any earth tremor >3.5 Richter, per Garcetti-appointed earthquake czar, Dr. Lucy Jones speaking at Northridge20, January 2014.<\/p>\n 2. Hillside Fires?<\/p>\n City Response: There are no ignitable above-grade structures associated
\nwith Phase I or Phase II; and consequently no increase of fire risk. The
\nwater disinfectant is sodium hypochlorite, or a type of household bleach
\nsolution. Bleach solution is a non-flammable agent. Once construction is
\ncompleted, the project site will be landscaped using native species
\nspecified by a qualified landscaper with knowledge of California native
\nspecies. The newly landscaped areas will use low-fire risk planting.
\nTherefore, Phase II will not increase fire risk.<\/p>\n Patrick Hart’s response: We are talking here about hillside fires caused by the Phase II adjacent, ongoing, homeless camp fires under eucalyptus trees during the on-site transportation, and transfer of sodium hypochlorite (SH), or for instance, if the electrical power running the storage bunker’s ventilation system fails causing fumes inside the Phase II facility to escape such that the SH oxygenates the air around the homeless fires, exacerbating the possibility of a hillside fire. Phase II therefore will increase hillside fire risk.<\/p>\n 3. The On-Site Gathering of Stormwater<\/p>\n City Response: Stormwater collection for re-use is a sustainable,
\nenvironmentally sound practice that will conserve imported drinking water.
\nThe project will use disinfected storm water for irrigation, in-lieu of drinking
\nwater, and reduces Los Angeles’ dependence on imported water. The
\nTemescal Cyn project, like other Prop O projects, collects, disinfects, and
\nstores storm water. The project safely removes trash and other storm water
\npollution. The cleaned storm water is discharged into the sewer system,
\nand not allowed to spill onto Will Rogers Beach.<\/p>\n Patrick Hart’s response: As discussed in the details of Item 9.1.1 c) The On-site (meaning Temescal Canyon Park proper) gathering of storm water is legal. Item 9.1.1 c) should be changed to reflect the off-site gathering of storm water that will take place in the sixteen hundred acres of homes and streets surrounding Temescal Canyon Park which is illegal because the issue of ownership of rain water falling on private property remains un-adjudicated.<\/p>\n 4. Future Exhaust Fumes
\nCity Response: Monitoring equipment will be installed to control feeding
\nand mixing of the sodium hypochlorite, bleach solution. The sodium
\nhypochlorite bleach solution is stored in a double-hulled tank and there is
\nno atmospheric contact.<\/p>\n Patrick Hart’s response: The City is speaking here of pumping the SH from the Phase II storage bunker into the 1.25 million gallon underground Phase I holding tank, a transfer process. They do not address the two exhaust fumes issues; the exhaust fumes which will be emitted from both the 4′ x 6′ Phase I surface level vent which will be constant 24\/7\/365, or as described above, for Hillside Fires from Phase II.<\/p>\n 5. Handling of Sodium Hypochlorite (as required by post January 2013 California
\nDepartment of Public Health & Safety laws) near residential properties, public
\nopen spaces and within limited and heavily trafficked transportation corridors.
\nCity Response: The City discussed this issue with the California
\nDepartment of Public Health and confirmed no such law exists that apply to
\nthis project. The project does comply with specific Los Angeles County
\nDepartment of Public Health guidelines for storm water disinfection and
\nreuse, to ensure public health and safety.<\/p>\n Patrick Hart’s response: If no such laws or regulations exist, as the BOE claims, for the safe handling of SH in the TCPBMP project environment (what about spills?) how can the BOE claim that they are “complying with the Los Angeles Department of Public Health guidelines”.<\/p>\n 6. Public Health Metrics to Measure Before & After Gains?
\nCity Response: Evaluation of safety operations was conducted during predesign
\nand design. The Project used storm water pollution models to
\npredict pollution levels and expected pollution reduction. Once completed,
\nthe project will reduce both dry-weather and wet-weather storm water runoff
\ncoming from the Temescal Canyon watershed. In an average annual rain
\nyear, up to forty-four (44) percent of pollutants and bacteria are estimated
\nto be removed. The cleaned storm water is diverted away from Will Rogers
\nBeach and sent to the Hyperion Treatment Plant for final treatment.
\nBeach surf zone water samples are collected on a regular basis by the City
\nof Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Data obtained from ongoing
\nsampling will evaluate storm water quality, disinfection effectiveness, and
\neffectiveness of diverting storm water away from Will Rogers Beach.<\/p>\n Patrick Hart’s response: “The Project used storm water pollution models to
\npredict pollution levels and expected pollution reduction.” Why were “models” utilized when the Santa Monica Baykeeper, NRDC and Heal the Bay have over 25 years of surface-level measurement data? As my background information to Item 9.1.1 c) explains: One, the TCPBMP can only hope to reduce fecal coliform pollution by 3% maximum if the facility were 100% efficient; and secondly, it has been proven in my Google Earth\/USGS map that at least 81% of the fecal coliform pollution in the Santa Monica bay eventually ends up on the ocean floor, having traveled by capillary action from the Coastal Interceptor Sewer under PCH.<\/p>\n 7. How Will Operation of TCPBMP Be Fully Funded by Prop O?
\nProposition O is a $500 million Clean Water Bond Measure approved by the
\nvoters of the City of Los Angeles. To date, the Prop O program has
\ncompleted 21 projects. The Bureau of Sanitation has taken responsibility
\nfor these projects and is funding operations through their annual
\nbudgetary process.
\nFor this project specifically, after project completion the project will go
\nthrough an optimization phase. During optimization, the Bureau of
\nSanitation will fine-tune operations to ensure a high level of project
\neffectiveness. It is anticipated optimization will last for up to 2-years, or
\ntwo rainy seasons, to allow the Bureau of Sanitation to complete
\noptimization. After optimization, routine operation and maintenance costs
\nwill be part of Bureau of Sanitation’s annual budget process.
\nPatrick Hart’s response: Thank you BOE. It is confirmed Prop. O funds will not be utilized.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Return to Index of 2014 Minutes<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Return to Index of 2014 Minutes MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 27th 2014 Voting Members in Attendance: \u00a0Barbara Kohn, Chris Spitz, Jennifer Malaret, Donna Vaccarino, Jim Rea, Paul Glasgall, Jack Allen, Janet Turner, Stuart Muller, Sue Kohl, Dick Wulliger, Andrew Wolfberg and Gil Dembo. Voting Alternates: \u00a0Amy Kalp, Marc Lasky, Quentin Fleming, Brenda Theveny and Carol Bruch. […]<\/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-959","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/959","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=959"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/959\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pacpalicc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} |