Counciimember Bonin 4. ‘GEES Re: Palisades DRB 2 messages Harden Carter Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:46 AM To: Sandra Eddy Harden Carter Bec: counciimember bonin@lacity.org Good moming Mrs. Eddy, | will forward your letter to the Planning Staff managing the Village Palisades Project, and your City Council office. ‘Thank you for your concems. Harden A. Carter Planning implementation ‘On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Sandra Eddy wrote: It was @ pleasure meeting you last night, Harden. As | expressed last night, leaving the final review of the Caruso project in the hands of city staff, although I'm sure they are competent, is unfair to our community when we have local professionals who can truly understand and emphasize with the community concems. Any guidance where best to Girect this letter would be most appreciated. ‘Thanks againt Best, Sandy Eddy Councilmember Bonin Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:28 PM ‘To: Sharon Shapiro , Tricla Keane ipssmal qoglecomimaila A= 28ik= 20043 7BOteviows plsqrPalisades X20VIagei20DRBAugs=tunkscarchsqueryih= 1696tcGebOAasesimIe16361.. 4/4Los Angeles Department of City Planning City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 621 Los Angeles, CA 90012 | NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PACIFIC PALISADES VILLAGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Board Members: Barbara Kohn; Chair, Vice Chair, David Hibbert, Kelly Comras; Secretary ‘Sarah Grifin, Donna Vaccarino, Stuart Muller, Paul Darrall DATE: March2, 2016 LOCATION: SIPHON. conc TIME: 7:00pm 15777 Bowdoin Street Special (Non-Regular) Pactic Palisades, CA 90272 Scheduled Design Reviow Board Meeting The Special DRB Meeting of March 2, 2016 has been CANCELLED due to a lack of a qualified quorum. ‘The DRB will hold its next regular meeting on March 9, 2016 to review new applications. ‘The DRB shall provide an opportunity in open meetings for the public to address on items of interest to the public {that are within the subject matter and jurisdiction of the DRB. Individual testimony within the public comment period shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person and up to ten (10) minutes per subject. However, the DRB ‘chairperson has the discretion to modify the {ime allotted on each subject, to each speaker and the number of ‘speakers per subject. PERSON WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING THE MEETING MUST COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S CARD AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY PLANNING STAFF. Under the provisions of the Brown Act (Gov. Code Sec. 54959-54960), the Pace Palleades Community Design Review Board is a “egislative body" end must: 1) Conduct all quorum meetings in public: and 2) Post all agenda liems or issues considered for discussion seventy-two (72) hours before public meetings. Public notices are Posted at the Offices of the Planning Department, the lobby of City Hall East, at the appropriate Councl Office, ‘and on the Pianning Department Website: + Department of City Planning City Hall Room 621, 200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Internet: Nezfetyplenninglecty.ora Staff Contact: Harden A. Carter Tel: 213.978-1175 Fax 213.978.1228 E-mail |Straet Room 475 LA CA 90012 Tel, 213.575.8461 ‘Corinth Ave. LA CA 90025 Tel 75-8461 ‘working days prior fo the meeting by caling the staff person referenced in this notice. Traductores u oto lpo do servicio er proveldo si se solcta. Para asegurar que este tipo de servicio soe disponible, favor de ‘olicitarlos por lo menos 3 dias (72 horas) antes dela audiencia lamando al teléfono mencionado. !AA Ay OID AEN IES Villee MeGtNg Canceled @ Bees Tricia Keane Fw: March 2, 2016 DRB/Palisades Village Meeting Cancelled Chris Spitz ‘Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM To: Mike Bonin , Tricia Keane , Debbie DynerHamis . Sharon Shapiro Ge: "Richard G. Cohen” Maryam Zar «Jennifer Malaret All ~ Lam receiving inquiries and expressions of outrage by PCC members and residents over the fact that there has been no explanation for the DRB meeting cancellation beyond the vague statement about a “lack of a qualified quorum.” Rumors are apparently abounding. Please provide an explanation as requested below. Chris Spitz PPCC President From: Chris Spitz Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 1:06 PM ‘To: Mike Bonin; Tricia Keane; Debbie DynerHarris; Sharon Shapiro Ce: Richard G. Cohen; Maryam Zar; Jennifer Mataret ‘Subject: Fw: March 2, 2016 DRB/Palisades Village Meeting Cancelled tips:simai google. com/maihst i= 28ik= 22007004838 view=piBsearch- inbox 1533008 163736asim=1533eCaB1dS7IEd nSEE AONE BE Ce Ny IS La WUERRS MOBENI CaN Gta Tricia Keane Fw: March 2, 2016 DRB/Palisades Village Meeting Cancelled ‘Tricia Keane ‘To: Chris Spitz Cc: mike bonin , Debbie DynerHamis . Maryam Zar ‘Jennifer Malaret . “Richard G. Cohen" Sharon Shapiro Chris, we appreciate that folks want more information and we are working on a message to provide additional clarity. As Tm sure you understand, there are aspects of the decision to cancel the meeting that were the result of attomey-client privileged communications. We have to make sure we are mindful of that fact in our communication. 'm sure you appreciate that challenge. We will do everything we can to make sure people get info about what's going on and what the next steps are, ‘This message is being sent from a mobile device. Plaese excuse any tupos. ‘np google: comimailiyOrhi=28i= 220870348 view=tsearch-inbaxdims= 1583 1604ebeSO2Asim=1533q 6040602fa COE NEC ERS RIAN RES Tricia Keane Fw: March 2, 2016 DRB/Palisades Village Meeting Cancelled Chris Spitz Wed, Mer 2, 2016 at 5:33 PM To: Tricla Keane Cc: mike bonin , Debbie DynerHarris , Maryam Zar ‘Jennifer Maieret *Richard G. Cohen" ‘Sharon Shapiro Tricla ~ Thank you. | understand there are challenges but hope you can impart meaningful information for the community soon, Regards, Chris 8. ‘Sent from my iPad ipsa google.com mailMY Ai 28ik= 2087 O34 38view=pt&seerch inboxes 1553 Tobs26AEsim|=15SGaTbbaSeTE4 "Tricia Keane @ A Geecs Fw: March 2, 2016 DRB/Palisades Village Meeting Cancelled Chris Spitz ‘Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:01 AM ‘To: Tricia Keane Cc: Mike Bonin , Debbie Dynertlaris . Maryam Zar “Jennifer Malaret "Richard G. Cohen” ‘Sharon Shapiro , Janet Anderson Hi Tricia: In an effort to be helpful, ! respectfully offer the following. ‘suggested announcement language: Pursuant to governing provisions of the Brown Act and the Los Angeles Municipal Code, DRB members are prohibited from discussing the Palisades Village Project (the Project) with anyone outside of public RB meetings while the Project is within their purview. All DRB members are aware of this prohibition and are aware that they should not attend other meetings when the Project is discussed. Nonetheless, four DRB members who are also PPCC members (the Dual Members) attended the PPCC meeting on February 25th when motions relative to the Project were discussed. This action disqualified the Dual Members from considering the Project. Because the Dual Members constitute a quorum of the DRB, a qualified quorum could not be present at the meeting scheduled for March 3, the DRB will be unable to consider the Project going forward due to lack of a qualified quorum, and the Director of Planning will make decisions on Project design without the recommendation of the DRB. Of course this doesn't address the future status of the Dual Members (that should probably be addressed separately; | and many others want to know whether the DRB membership will eventually be reconstituted as a result of the Dual Member's improper actions) — but an announcement such as this (made as soon as possible) would assist the community to understand why the DRB meeting did not occur, whether the DRB will consider the Project again (i.e., whether it stil remains within their purview) and what will occur in the process as a consequence (without revealing actual attorney-client privileged communications). Thanks so much, Chris (writing again in my individual capacity; PPCC Executive Cmtee members cc'd solely for informational purposes) bepslimal google. com/maiityi=24ik= a20070¢Hbviow= ptBseercheInbaxdmage 1598457 19SbebOObSsiml= 1533457 19508000 12From: Tricia Keane ‘Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 5:27 PM To: Chris Spitz (Ce: mike bonin; Debbie DynerHarris; Maryam Zar; Jennifer Malaret; Richard G. Cohen Sharon Shapiro ‘Subject: Re: March 2, 2016 DRB/Palisades Village Meeting Cancelled ‘ntpsufmail googie com/maiiutYhi=24ik= 2007034638 viow=ptRsearch=inboxBmsg 15%0457 195be/990Ssim= 1538057 beeapn ae Tricta Keane DRB matter - important Chris Spitz ‘Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:08 PM ‘To: Tricia Keane , Mike Bonin , Debbie DynerHlarris. , Sharon Shapiro Ce: "Richard G. Cohen” Jennifer Malaret Maryam Zar Janet Anderson All Ihave received a call from a member of the press advising me that a rumor is going around that the "PPC" caused the DRB meeting to be delayed. ‘That is of course outrageous and false. [request that CD11 set the record straight immediately. This situation is entirely the fault of the Dual Members' voluntary decision not to follow governing rules. It is not appropriate for this message to come from PPCC. The public should know the reasons and this notice needs to come from CD11. Thank you, Chris Spitz PPCC President ipe:simai google com/mailuCYAi=28kc- 2097034634 viow= laser ch=inboxBrsg 15%GotfbacHeSdidSsimI=1539eHBecteStd "eR A AAALAC NEU SAE MES HON SO) QPstacs Tricia Keane Palisades Village Project - Transfer of Jurisdiction (Case No. CPC-2015-2714-ZC-SP- DRB-SPP) Michelle Levy ‘Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:04 PM ‘To: Donna Vacearino Harden Carter , Kelly Comras, Kevin Jones , “maria.reyes@Jacity.org" . Paul Darrall Rick Mi Sarah Griffin STUART MULLER ‘Theodore Irving , Barbara Kohn Barbara Kohn ~ Beco: tricia. keane@lacity.org Dear DRB Members: Please see the attached memo regarding the transfer of jurisdiction from the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board to the Director of Planning regarding the Palisades Village Project ‘Thank you, Michelle Michelle Levy, City Planner Pian Impiementaton Dvision, Noighboreod Projets ‘West Unt Superior ‘Cay Pianning Department | Cty of Los Angeles ‘mlchelte.Jevy@lactty.org | 213.878.1203" Bj Memo to Boardmembers_Transfer of Jurisdiction. pdf 56K tps smal google com maiVufai=28see =20070SHb08 ew=ptBsearctr Inbox kimeg=158GeDedBAtZidssmls 153%tedB4t1234 uncrv PLANNING CITY OF LOS ANGELES 2ogn re Raa, CALIFORNIA tos Ancuus CA SOULE 480y CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ‘vce BeRToNG ACP Dam anon oncen si exmemaz, eNEDAgE SON sk oe cr one a Par eyez ‘counpcare rzarorse Jeena covventoon Stn ame rns arts ERIC GARCET Bina pena wae recom same Aus oma ronuation coun et EN rat “aise ep ning cy 9 March 3, 2016 TO: Palisades Village Design Review Board FROM: Plan Implementation Division, Neighborhood Projects, West Unit, SUBJECT: PALISADES VILLAGE PROJECT TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION AAs you are aware, the Department of City Planning cancelled the March 2, 2016 special Design Review Board (DRB) meeting regarding the Palisades Vilage project (Planning Case Number CPC- 2015-2714-GPA-ZC-SP-DRB-SPP) due to the lack of qualified quorum. Without a quorum on a given application, LAMC Section 16.50 provides for the case to be referred back to the Director of Planning, or his designee, for action, Effective March 2, 2016, the Palisades Village project is referred back to the Director of Planning who will review the application for conformance with the Palisades Commercial Village Specific Plan Pursuant to Project Permit Compliance provisions in LAMC Section 11.5.7, and make a determination. With the transfer of jurisdiction, the Design Review Board is not subject to the Brown Act notice and restrictions. The DRB members may act only in a private capacity as interested parties and not as DRB members. Effective March 2, 2016, the DRB members may attend meetings, have discussions ‘about the project, and provide input on the proposed project as members of the public.CRORES ENE NORIO SOREL AINE WOES lly NUKES, iN hewe No Sey on Caruso Proyect g Mees Tricia Keane Fwd: BREAKING: Palisades Design Review Board Members Violate City Rules; Will Have No Say on Caruso Project Sharon Shapiro ‘Thu, Mar 3, 2046 at 5:27 PM To: Tricia Keane ‘Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: ‘news @palipost.com> :22 PM PST To: "Sharon Shapiro” ‘Subject: BREAKING: Palisades Design Review Board Members Violate City Rules; Will Have No Say ‘on Caruso Project Reply-To: news @palipost.com View this email online ifit doesnt display correctly Palisadian-Post <= BREAKING: Palisades Design Review Board Members Violate City Rules; Will Have No Say on Caruso Project The Pacific Palisades Design Review Board will not have a say in the design of Caruso Affiiateds Palisades Village project due to improper ‘communications on the part of four board members, ‘according to Councilmember Mike Bonin. ‘Tho DRB was scheduled to hold a final design review ‘with Caruso on Wednesday, March 2, but the meeting was canceled. “Due to City laws specific to the Design Review Board, DRB members are subject to very strict rules regarding how they can discuss a project, and with ‘whom,” Bonin said in a statement. “Four members of the DRB had ex parte communications regarding the project, which was ‘scheduled for the DRB’s March 2nd agenda," the Councilmember continued, “The City Attomey ‘advised that those ex parte communications were in conflict with these rules, and the members’ ips: imei google comimaih vty =28ik= 32087 03H838 ion =pttsaarcheinboxdmeg= 1S3BIcABaaSe2iafsiml=153%tcConba2Ia 1"ements A hae A IMB = FA ERE FUNGIONS LOST Nawien Duara Memes Violets City Rules, Will Have No Say on Caruso Project ‘ecusal from considering the project, As a result, the sever-member body could not achieve a quorum, and the Planning Department cancelled the meeting. The DRB will not be able to hear and act on this matter.” ‘According to the Municipal Code, when the DRB cannot act, the Director of Planning will make the determination regarding project design, Bonin added. Read the full story in the March 10 issue of the Palisadian-Post, Photo caption: Barbara Kohn, chair of the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board Photo: Rich Schmitt/Staff Photographer Follow Palisadian-Post on Facebook and Twitter. wren Palisadian-Post Sh ae te es HIE DUES TEEN GONTEST rae SIGN om Sign Up for FREE Breaking News Email Alerts Not currently a subscriber? Click below to subsoribe and receive the Palisadian-Post delivered to your mailbox every Thursday. Become a Subscriber GED v= ‘About this communication: You are receiving this email because you opted to receive Breaking News Emsil Alerts from the Palisadian- Post. DONOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. Replies to this message are routed to an unmonitored mailbox. YoU would like send comments or letters to the editor, please emall itps:imei google comimaivsty2=28ik 2087034b38 view peascarch inboxes 1S3IGCASaaSeaIeBaim=1S3IABanEtaPalaadien-Post, 881 Aina Reel Dr Ste 218, Pacts Palisades, CA 90272, United States ‘You may unsubscribe or change vou contact detais ot any tine. ip:imei google cominailAvOi=28ike a208703Ab38 vin ldsearche inbox mage 1590KctSaSeZiatsiml=1530RoAbeasaata 8~ Ap a le GPO Ole = 2: PURER FRIIS LIS f g Macs Tricia Keane FW: Pacific Palisades DRB Sue Pascoe Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM To: “tricia keane@lacity.org” Trida, | also left @ phone message for you. People in Pacific Palisades are wondering why the DRB meeting was cancelled, Most knew that the 7 members were available to meet, so what happened? Thanks, ‘Sue Pascoe Editor Palisades News hitpmail google. com/mailRYuis2k= 2208703MbSéviews= plRsearch=inhax Sang 15S3decoAbeRDacasaimI=15SSdeca4etOaes ne Cstace Tricia Keane Fwd: Palisades DRB and Caruso Project Mike Bonin ‘Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:08 PM To: Tricia Keane ‘Sent from my IPhone (Please forgive any typos, odd phrases, or complete nonsense. | am using Siti, and she tries to make me look stupid.) Begin forwarded message: From: Michael Soneff Date: March 3, 2016 at 7:25:18 PM PST To: Mike Bonin ‘Subject: Palisades DRB and Caruso Project ‘This wes @ HUGE mistake. The DRB is commonly viewed as the voice of the Palisades on development issues, and the members are good people committed to being fair and honest. Whether they had ex-parte discussions or not (and while | was at the meeting, and | didn't notice any DRB members participating, | can't speak to that question). This is going to cast a pall over the entire Caruso development, and opens “up the accusation that itis being shoved down the throats of the community. Best, Michael Michael Soneff nlpssimail google. com/meiiyAi=28sh 42087034608 views pltsearch=inbaxBrnscr1S3SKOTOASZS4508sim=1SSSATTOAIZAES "ON tan a mie Weak = en Reem BAL PEN g eecs Tricia Keane Fwd: even more puzzling david grahamcaso Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:19 PM ‘To: Mike Bonin , Tricia Keane —— Forwarded message Fr Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:18 PM ‘Subject: even more puzzting To: “david.grahamcaso@latity.org" David, | continue to receive informationand questions—from readers about members of DRB Board being recused from ‘examining the Caruso Project. Donna Vacearino was not on the dais and did not participate in the February 28 meeting. She was in the audience. Supposedly, Donna was recused because of a question she asked Councilman Mike Bonin at a Farmers Market about DRB procedure, ‘The person's query "Because Mike knows the Brown Act rules backwards and forwards, why didn't he tell Donna he ‘couldn't answer her question because of the Brown Act or was he trying to entrap her?" ‘Additionally, it was known ahead of time that no vote was going to be taken on the Caruso project at the PPCC ‘meeting: Kohn, Comras and Muller did not make comments, did not participate in the discussion and told Chris Spitz ‘ahead of time they would not be participating. ‘Any information you have that would clear this up, would be welcome. ‘Sue - David Graham-Caso Communications Director & Environmental Policy Advisor Councilmember Mike Bonin City of Los Angeles 213473-7011 | Go Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates Download the City of Los Angeles MyL.A311 app for smartphones! MYLASIT links Angelenos with the services and information they noed to enjoy the oly, beauty ther community and stay connected with thet {ocal government. With MyLAST1, City of Los Angeles informaton and services are just afow tops away. itps:mal goecle.com/maiit72u=28ik =2007034bd6 views pllsear chr Inbox msg 15¥43400653107SeSsim=1SH4SACO63S107E "ae (City of tos Angees Mail - Fwar Pranning Letior ¢ i Beecs Tricia Keane Fwd: Planning Letter david grahamcaso Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5: AM ‘To: Mike Bonin , Chad Molnar , Tricia Keane ‘Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Sue Pascoe Date: March 3, 2016 at 9:39:07 PM PST ‘To: david grahamcaso Subject: RE: Planning Letter David, Even more confusing. DRB deals with awnings, signs, landscaping and lighting. They don't address traffic, ‘street vacations or zoning changes—which is what the PPC dealt with on Feb. 28. As a side note: none of the DRB members commented on any of the many negative public comments on traffic, vacation etc. | asked Sharon Shapiro if she could maybe get someone from City Planning to come address traffic. It was @ primary concem, There wes no vote taken. The historical rep asked for the three ‘motions to be delayed until March 10-which would have been after the DRB. If youve ever sat through @ Pacific Pelisades Design Review Board (and you can see the minutes on the Website), youl realize many hours are spent on colors of awnings and the width of flower boxes. For those of us who cant tell the difference between yellow, light yellow, lemon yellow, washed-out yellow and pale yellow, the DRB is an education. ‘There is absolutely and should not be any overlap between the Community Council and the DRB. ‘Starbucks was @ case in point. In October the Starbucks guy came to the DRB, he wanted approval for a railing and some plants, because they wanted to start selling beer and wine. The DRB went strictly for how the raifing would work, would it look nice, what color would it be painted, would there be no outdoor fumiture, etc. ‘The Starbucks guy came to PPCC in January asking for support to start selling beer and wine. That took ‘two meetings as they debated the hours, whether is should even be allowed, what other Starbucks are similar, etc. etc. ‘Same topic, two entirely different concems. As far as | can tell, the same is true of the Caruso project~ tunless you can explain it to me differently. Thanks. Sue Pascoe From: david grahameaso (david, grahamcaso@Jacity.org] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:32 PM To: Sue Pascoo Subject: Planning Letter ‘nips goagle-comnaiurhi= 28ik=2057024038vew=tksearch=nboxdmeg= 1594 edS5KR2288simi=1534 ed35E2R229eee Laty C6 Las Angeles Ade ~ Pend, Planeing Letier E Se G LM Mescs Tricia Keane Fwd: Planning Letter david grahamcaso Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM ‘To: Mike Bonin , Tricia Keane Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Sue Pascoe Date: March 4, 2016 at 1:53:43 PM PST To: "lakisha.hull@lacity.org” , *michelle.levy@lacity.org* Co: “david arahamcaso@laciy oro" , Barbara Kohn Bill Bruns ‘Subject: FW: Planning Letter Lakisha and Michelle, David has referred me to you regarding four members of the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board being recused from the Caruso project. ''m unclear why they were recused. He sent me the following information “no design review board member shall discuss with anyone the merits of any matter either pending or likely to be pending before the board ‘other than during a duly called meeting of the board." | attended the PPCC meeting. Donna was not on the dais. It was common knowledge before the mesting ‘that there would be no vote on the motions made by the Pacific Palisades Community Council. During the ‘meeting, the other three listened but did not comment or participate in the discussion-other than one. asking @ comment to be repeated because she had not heard it, and Muller's joke about age. President Chris Spitz invited the board to make comments about the proposed motions, which most did, BUT Kohn, Mulier or Comras, did not. It would seem in the sentence cited by David that listening or attending a meeting does not qualify as patticipating in a discussion, Particularly, this PPCC discussion centered around traffic concems (of which there were many), street vacation and a zoning change change-none of these topies are addressed by the DRB. I've have sat through many Pacific Palisades DRB meetings and that group discusses signs, awnings, window boxes, Colors, architectural design and how it relates to the specific plan—not traffic. In this case, at the February 28 PPC meeting, there were no comments or discussion between Comras, Muller or Kohn-or with anyone else in the audience, Vaccarino, who was nt on the dais, made no ‘comments during the meeting. Thanks for clarification about why these volunteer DRB members, who were appointed by Council District 11, would be recused. ‘Sue From: david grahamcaso [david.grahamcaso@lacity.org] ‘Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 12:20 PM To: Sue Pascoe 'ntpst goose commas. 28i= a2OG7O3AEGR view plsearcheinaaxdmeg= 1554SeAedTEX7196RsimI= 1S3A3aMedTENT 196 2aaa ity Gn anges Mast we senreng Lefer Subject: Re: Planning Letter Hi Sue, Your questions would be best answered by the City Attomey and Planning Department. ~David On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Sue Pascoe wrote: David, Even more confusing. DRB deals with awnings, signs, landscaping and lighting. They | don't address traffic, street vacations or zoning changes--which is what the PPCC. dealt with on Feb. 28, As a side note: none of the DRB members commented on any of the many negative public comments on traffic, vacation etc. | asked Sharon Shapiro if she could maybe get someone from City Planning to come address traffic. It was a primary concern. ‘There was no vote taken. The historical rep asked for the three motions to be delayed until March 10-which would have been after the DRB. | Ifyou've ever sat through a Pacific Palisades Design Review Board (and you can | see the minutes on the Website), you'll realize many hours are spent on colors of awnings and the width of flower boxes. For those of us who cant tell the difference | between yellow, light yellow, lemon yeliow, washed-out yellow and pale yellow, the | DRB is an education. ‘There is absolutely and should not be any overlap between the Community Council and the DRB. Starbucks was a case in point. In October the Starbucks guy came to | the DRB, he wanted approval for a railing and some plants, because they wanted to | Start selling beer and wine. The DRB went strictly for how the railing would work, | would it look nice, what color would it be painted, would there be no outdoor | furniture, eto. | The Starbucks guy came to PPCC in January asking for support to start selling beer and wine. That took. two meetings as they debated the hours, whether is should even be allowed, what other Starbucks are similar, etc. etc. _ Same topic, two entirely different concems. As far as I can tell, the same is true of | the Caruso project-unless you can explain it to me differently. ‘Thanks. ' Sue Pascoe From: david grahameaso [david.grahamoaso@laclty.org} Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:32 PM : Sue Pascoe Subject: Planning Letter !iipe:simsi gogle.comimailyO"Ai=2Ek=a20U7OG4b3E viow=pUtscer chr inboxBmoge 15943aMed7Od1968sim |= 1SHASeMedOI7IS6ee tHy of Los Angeres Mail ~ Pad, Planrwng Letler David Graham-Caso ‘Communications Director & Environmental Policy Advisor Councilmember Mike Bonin City of Los Angeles 213.473-7011 73-7011 | Sien Up for Mike's Email Updates Download the City of Los Angeles MyLA3t1 app for smartphones! ‘MyLASI1 links Angelenos withthe services and information they need to enjoy thelr ety, beauty their community ‘and stay connected with thei local government. Wh MyLA311, Cty of Los Angelas information and services are usta few taps away. itp simal google comimei vty 28ik= 207034638 views pedsoarctinboxdmog 1SHASaMod7O47 Asim I= 53Sated7OAT 198‘eens ti at ios cageies Man! - Pwo. Peate Paisades Design Review Board ana more e a st g ot eccs Tricia Keane Fwd: Pacific Palisades Design Review Board and more ‘Sharon Shapiro Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:30 PM To: Tricia Keane ‘Sent from my iPhone Bogin forwarded message: From: Rosalie Huntington . Date: March 4, 2016 at 4:03:43 PM PST To: sharon.shapiro@lacity.org, mike@1thdistrict.com, ‘Subject: Pacific Palisades Design Review Board and more Mike and Sharon, Hi This email covers two things: meeting location and Caruso project architectural style. Because the Design Review Board is now out of the mix when it comes to Rick Caruso's Palisades project, anyone who wanted to see his newly-zevised architectural plans and comment in a public meeting are no longer able to do so here in the Palisades. I'm not talking about trafic or land use, such as is discussed in the Pacific Palisades Community Council. I'm talking about style and architecture which had been the purview of the Design Review Board. ‘The next meeting, if have this right, is at City Hall in downtown on Thursday, March 24 at 9 a.m. there any way we can have that meeting moved to the Palisades or at the very least, held closer to the Palisades? (Or can an advance public meeting for comment be scheduled here in the Palisades? Please see what you can do about this. | really want to see the style changes Rick Caruso has made based on the Design Review Board's last ‘meeting. He had said he was going to show them at the DRB's March 2 meeting. | am hopeful the architectural changes will honor the mid-century modem (MCM) heritage of Pacific Palisades — a style that today is widely-respected and sought-after and has some of its big roots right here in the Palisades! (Many of the Case Study houses which triggered the style were built or designed to be built right here in the Palisades.) The buildings along Swarthmore that are being demolished by Caruso and will be replaced by Caruso are/were original MCM. Instead, as you have seen, Canuso’s project has been faux East Coast, a Hamptons, Cape Cod style. Yes, many homes in the Palisades, especially in the Huntington area, are being remodeled in that faux East Coast style. But that style is not organic to the Palisades. It was not created here like MCM was. That East Coast style is not part of the heritage of Pacific Palisades. That is important to remember, And it is Important to remember Caruso is demolishing original MCM buildings. Because of a Wednesday night conflict, Ive been unable to attend any Design Review Board meetings. But | got the OK to attend the March 2 meeting since it would be the final one. | was so disappointed when | arrived at Pall High this past Wednesday night and saw signs taped to the doors of Gilbert Hall saying the ‘meeting was postponed to March 9. Now that meeting has been canceled. Now that the DRB meetings are canceled, | am not looking forward to the moming rush hour drive to ‘downtown Los Angeles and the search for expensive parking neer City Hall on Thursday, March 24. ‘Again, please see what you can do to schedule the March 24 meeting or a meeting before that one, here in Pacific Palisades or close to us. Thank you, Rosalie Huntington rtpeuimai gogle.comsmall shim 28k 22087094036 views pltscerchinboxdamsg 153442eSaB6aIs77BsimI= 1534200860077 "Samale ily Ot 08 Rogers tai - Pw: Palisades Village Project @ LMces Tricia Keane Fwd: Palisades Village Project ‘Sharon Shapiro ‘Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:25 PM To: Tricia Keane Cc: Mike Bonin ‘Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Patty Detroit’ Date: March 3, 2016 at 6:37:08 PM PST To: “Lakisha Hul!™ ,, , , ‘Subject: RE: Palisades Village Project 'd like to know exactly what happened to disqualify the 4 members when in fact their participation on both boards was sanctioned by Harden Carter who sought a legal opinion on their dual role. It smacks of sabotage and bull..... Our DRB was appointed by the current and past City Councll members. They have a collective extraordinary expertise but they didn’t like the Caruso project. Our City Attorney who rendered this opinion has a reputation of being pro-developer — this is more of the same. You are walking the new head of Planning into a bad situation. You shouldn’t do this to our community. No one is trying to block the project but we do have major concerns that Caruso and our Community Council, and apparently you and the planning commission are all ignoring. How can DOT approve a traffic report that was done during a Thanksgiving vacation when the project is surrounded by a dozen schools? The Community Councit’s traffic expert, Patti Post did a traffic study that consisted of speaking to two people ‘at two Caruso projects who said there was nothing to worry about - really, that’s what they presented tus with ~in writing. Caruso wants to change the entire traffic pattern of the neighborhood, because it would be prettier for him, how exactly does that benefit the community, pushing traffic through streets that are so narrow they are dangerous. We look forward to discussing this with Bonin’s office, with Mr. Caruso and with the Planning Dept. There is a lot to consider before green-lighting the project as Presented, Patty Detroit From: Lakisha Hull [mal ha. hull@lacity.org] ‘Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 5:34 PM ‘To: undisclosed-recipients: ‘Subject: Palisades Village Project Itpumal google.com mallu i= 28k 200700488 view=ptBsearchinbaxSimeg= 1539067 Z7eboBStsiml= 1S3eSLTZTObEES 19—s AT Ohm males ial + FW. reISeDES wNNEgE PTO! Dear Interested Parties: ‘The Department of City Planning has received several emails and phone calls regarding yesterday's ‘cancelled Special Meeting of the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board, The purpose of this email is to ‘explain the reason for the cancellation in greater detail. ‘The email you received yesterday stated that the meeting was cancelled due to the “lack of a qualified quorum." The Design Review Board (ORB) is an Advisory Board to the Department of City Planning, To hold an official public meeting, at least four out of the seven appointed DRB members must be attendance. This is what is known as a " In addition, ali City appointed Boards, must act within the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which strictly prohibits a city-appointed body from gathering ‘outside of @ publicly noticed meeting by the City. These provisions are in place to ensure a fair and transparent public process. On March 1, the Department of City Planning was informed that four of the seven DRB members had Participated in a community meeting, where the Palisades Village project was the subject of discussion. ‘The Municipal Code (LAMC Section 16.50 G) states that: “no design review board member shell discuss with anyone the morits of any matter either pending or likely to be pending before the board other than during @ duly celled meeting of tho board.” ‘As a result of the four ORB members’ participation in a separate process on the Palisades Village project, these four DRB members were asked to recuse themselves from the Pacific Palisades DRB meeting on March 2. Therefore, the Board did not have a qualified quorum of members and the meeting could not occur. Effective March 2, 2016, the Palisades Village project is referred back to the Director of Planning who will review the application for conformance with the Palisades Commercial Village Specific Plan pursuant to Project Permit Compliance provisions in LAMC Section 11.5.7, and make a determination. learing input from all stakeholders has been an important part of the public process. With the transfer of jurisdiction effective March 2, 2016, the DRB members may attend meetings, have discussions about the Project, and provide input on the proposed projact as individual members of the public, but not as an official recommending body. The next public hearing on this project will be on Thursday, March 24, 2016. The details are below: Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016 Time: 9 am Location: Los Angeles City Hall - 3rd Floor Public Works Board (Room 350) 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 !nts:mal google. com/mallviYht=24ik= 22007034838 ion =ptBseorcheinboxBmsg-15SHGBbT2TabeBStsim=S3S80727abaSee eHiy Gr Los mngeies Wiel - rw: Felésades Viliegs Project Comments can be submitted to the Department of City Planning regarding design, or any other matter, by ‘contacting michelle.levy@lacity.org or lakisha.hull@lacity.org, ‘Thank you for your continued participation. Michelle Levy and Lakisha Hull !atp:dmal google comfmllAvO2u=28ik=220070S4b38 iow =ptBsearch=nborBmsg 158HaEb72TeboBSSalm|=1S3¥0807ZTabasSwe A A ORAS MAUR = FW: FEO ROTO g Moses Tricia Keane Fwd: Palisades Village Project ‘Sharon Shapiro ‘Thu, Mat 3, 2016 at 7:25 PM To: Tricia Keane ‘Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Date: March 3, 2016 at 5:55:23 PM PST To: "Sharon Shapiro” Subject: FW: Palisades Village Project Does this mean the DRB will be bypassed because a majority of the board are not eligible to vote and the next step is the Area Planning Commission? From: Lakisha Hull (mailto:iakisha.hull@lecity.org] ‘Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 5:34 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: ‘Subject: Palisades Village Project Dear Interested Parties: ‘The Department of City Planning has received several emails and phone calls regarding yesterday's cancelled Special Meeting of the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board. The purpose of this email is to explain the reason for the cancellation in greater detail. ‘The email you received yesterday stated that the meeting was cancelled due to the "lack of a qualified quorum." The Design Review Board (ORB) is an Advisory Board to the Department of City Planning. To hold an official public meeting, at least four out of the seven appointed DRB members must be in attendance, This Is what is known as a “quorum. In addition, all City appointed Boards, must act within the requirements of the Ralph M, Brown Act, which strictly prohibits a city-appointed body from gathering outside of @ publicly noticed meeting by the City. These provisions are in place to ensure a fair and transparent public process, On March 1, the Department of City Planning was informed that four of the seven DRB members had participated in a community meeting, where the Palisades Village project was the subject of discussion. ‘The Municipal Code (LAMC Section 16.50 G) states that: “no design review board member shall discuss with anyone the merits of any matter either pending or likely to be pending before the board other than during @ duly called meeting of the board.” ips vimal google. comimaihstyit=28ik= 2057034638 vion= tdsoarchr inbox &magr 1S¥aRASTEGOMBRsim|= 1536 7ESOSS 1c—eeraw: SY te ate gga cited + PW, Pee HUN GD TEC As a resuit of the four DRB members’ participation in a separate process on the Palisades Village project, these four DRB members were asked to recuse themselves from the Pacific Palisades DRB meeting on March 2. Therefore, the Board did not have a qualified quorum of members and the meeting could not occur, Effective March 2, 2016, the Palisades Village project is referred back to the Director of Planning who will review the application for conformance with the Palisades Commercial Village Specific Plan pursuant to Project Permit Compliance provisions in LAMC Section 11.5.7, and make a determination. Hearing input from all stakeholders has been an important part of the public process. With the transfer of Jurisdiction effective March 2, 2016, the DRE members may attend meetings, have discussions about the project, and provide input on the proposed project as individual members of the public, but not as an official recommending body. ‘The next public hearing on this project will be on Thursday, March 24, 2016. The details are below: Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016 ‘Time: 9 am Location: Los Angeles City Hall - 3rd Floor Public Works Board (Room 350) 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Comments can be submitted to the Department of City Ptanning regarding design, or any other matter, by ‘contacting michelle levy@lacity.org or lakisha.hull@lacity.org, ‘Thank you for your continued participation. Michelle Levy and Lakisha Hull ipsa. google.com maithyOi=28k=a2007034838viewsptsearch=inbaxdimsg= 15838 7ESOOSsim=163eBASTESLSETricia Keane Fwd: Palisades Village Project Sharon Shapiro Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:58 PM To: Don Scott Ce: Tricia Keane Don- Quite honestly, | am not sure. | have referred your question to our director of planning as she has been in ‘communication with Planning and the City Attomey's office about the next step in the process is. | will lt you know ‘once | have any additional information. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5: wrote: | Does this mean the DRB will be bypassed because a majority of the board are not eli is the Area Planning Commission? le to vote and the next step From: Lakisha Hull [maitto:laki sha.hull@lacity.org] ‘Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 5:34 PM | To: undisclosed-recipients: | Subject: Palisades Village Project Dear Interested Parties: The Department of City Planning has received several emails and phone calls regarding yesterday's cancelled | Special Meeting of the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board. The purpose of this email is to explain the reason for the cancellation in greater detail. | The email you received yesterday stated that the meeting was cancelled due to the “lack of a qualified quorum." The Design Review Board (ORB) is an Advisory Board to the Department of City Planning. To hold an official public meeting, at least four out of the seven appointed DRB members must be in attendance. This is what is known as & “quorum”. In addition, all City appointed Boards, must act within the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which, | strictly prohibits @ city-appointed body from gathering outside of a publicly noticed meeting by the City. These provisions are in place to ensure a fair and transparent public process. On March 1, the Department of City Planning was informed that four of the seven DRB membars had participated in a Community meeting, where the Pelisades Village project was the subject of discussion. The Municipal Cade (LAMC ‘Section 16.50 G) states that: “no design review board member shail discuss with anyone the merits of any matter either pending or likely {0 be pending before the board other than during a duly called meeting of the board.” AAs a result of the four DRB members’ participation in a separate process on the Palisades Village project, these four ORB members were asked to recuse themselves from the Pacific Palisades DRB meeting on March 2. Therefore, the ipl goote.cam ali i=28ik=a20070S4b38ow=pltscarchinboxBmog= 153440346 7S7ORsimI=1SHSoM06C7379 1%ee Hy Le GO BS - WO Memes ViNege FrQect Board did not have a qualified quorum of members and the meeting could not occur. Effective March 2, 2016, the Palisades Village project is referred back to the Director of Planning who will review the application for conformance with the Palisades Commercial Village Specific Plan pursuant to Project Permit ‘Compliance provisions in LAMC Section 11.5.7, and make a determination. Hearing input from all stakeholders has been an important part of the public process. With the transfer of jurisdiction effective March 2, 2016, the DRB members may attend meetings, have discussions about the project, and provide input on the proposed project as individual members of the public, but not as an official recommending body. ‘The next public hearing on this project willbe on Thursday, March 24, 2016. The details are below: Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016 | Time: 9 am Location: Los Angeles City Hail - 3rd Fioor Public Works Board (Room 350) | 200 North Spring Street | Los Angeles, CA 90012 | Comments can be submitted to the Department of City Planning regarding design, or any other matter, by contacting * michelle.tevy@lacity.org or lakisha.hull@lacity.org. ‘Thank you for your continued participation. Michelle Levy and Lakisha Hull Sharon Shapiro ‘Senior Field Deputy Counciimember Mike Bonin City of Los Angeles 310.575.8461 | wun Ll thdistrictcom pe ee Email Updates wow, tithdistrict.com GG tgs. googe-commmatuA4=28ike= Z0U7OSAbRview= ison chinbaxSimsg= 154SaKCdc7STORsII=1534%—40356C7379edi Case wnigales iia ~ Kit Mehsedes Village Project Hipsifmall google.com imaliy0?u=28k= 2057024638 viow=ptBeearc=inbaxtimeg=1524Se40040:75788sim= 1SH4SoA06C737Sg Lees Tricia Keane o Fwd: Palisades Village Project ‘Tricta Keane tricia. keane@iacity.org> Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:02 PM ‘To: Sharon Shapiro Ce: Don Scott Hi Don, ‘According to the Zoning Code, if a DRB isn't able to act on a project, then the matter is referred to the Director of Planning to make @ determination regarding design matters and compliance with the design elements of the Specific Plan. So design will absolutely be considered, and the public can weigh in on any issues they have that they would like to hhave the Director consider when making the determination, Kind regards, Tricia ‘Tricia Keane Director of Land Use & Planning Councilmember Mike Bonin City of Los Angeles 213-873-7011 [worm thdistrit.com ‘Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates Dew yee gts LA op eon Sao MyLAS11 Inks Angelenos wit the services and information they need o enjoy the cly, beauty ther communty and stay connected wih tei local goverment. With MyLAS11, Cty of Los Angeles information and services are just a few taps away. {ntp:iall. google comm allt i~ 2k 20070048 views pier ch inben&msg= 158434730 7ocbS6Salm= 1534367301 7ockE6 "eee Uy of Los Angeles ideal - Fwet Palisades Village Project E g eees Tricia Keane Fwd: Palisades Village Project Don Scott Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:37 PM ‘To: Tricia Keane Ce: Sharon Shapiro ‘That sounds reasonable. Thanks for the reply. Sent from my iPhone ipssimel google comimalityAi=2tik= 200705438 view=ptBssarch inbox Bmeg= 1534435271 IDSOASSimi= 1SSAA3E27 160A "Qt Tricia Keane Fwd: Palisades Village ‘message Mike Bonin ‘Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:26 PM To: Tricia Keane ‘Sent from my iPhone (Please forgive any typos, odd phrases, or complete nonsense, I am using Siri, and she tries to make me look stupid.) Begin forwarded message: Date: March 6, 2016 at 12:13:04 PM PST To: mike.bonin@lacity.org Ce: chad.motinar@lacity.org ‘Subject: Palisades Village Dear Council member Bonin: First f want to thank you for your service to our community in your role representing the 11th District. I'm a fairly recent transplant from NYC and the Hudson Valley/Berkshires border, so I'm arguably still learning the ropes of civic engagement West Coast Style. ‘There is sure a lot of talk in our Pacific Palisades village about how the Design Review Board here are now disqualified from engaging in their role as experts on our behalf because they attended a PPCC meeting, Important to note that in the first {and now only) meeting DRB concluded by asking CA to come back with new designs which we, as citizens, will now likely not see in advance of the 3/24/16 meeting which may be the last chance for us to comment. Having actively Participated in all but one public meeting on this project, i's maddening to give ‘something this much of my time and still not fee! heard, write to you today to say that a growing number of regular Palisades people who TOTALLY support the development continue to ATTEMPT to productively voice ‘concern to CA and city authorities ( ike yourself) over a persistent and troubling lack of transparency (no demonstration of— or weak experience of true give and take) around things like questionable traffic studies, ( At first conducted over a holiday when school was out— then redone on an early dismissal day and excluding 3 intersections) subsequent questions about street safety for our kids (on foot and on wheels) and parking, Traffic studies deserve rigor. | am a supporter 100% | just want us to have accurate insight in advance so we don't have unforeseen traffic misery when foreseeable {nts:mait google.com 28ik=a20B7OSAGBvew= pcr palsades X2Ovillage%42Odnlyfqs=trveSsear che queryBir= 1S34cobe 2BafSsimi= 16944... 412solutions could be devised in advance. Not getting a lot of hope from the process so fer. That said, my pet issue has been making sure we don't end up with a "Faux" villag ‘mall that doesn't look like the Palisades | fell in love with in the first place...see the attached video. | have spoken three times in our public forums on this topic and not ‘ones has any feedback or response been forthcoming— perhaps it's coming soon? 1 don’t know because | don't have that access, The video below speaks to design concems shared among a growing number of citizens. We are only asking ( and have asked at every meeting with Caruso Associates), for them to embrace to some degree, the historical design significance of the Palisades when they make their design plans. We aren't the Hamptons, Mr Caruso promised we wouldn't be a mini Grove and we certainly don't want to end up with the artificiality of the Calabasas Commons, Recent events. which thwart public input are unfortunate, but we will participate in the process Thursday, March 24, 2016 hoping it will make some kind of difference. ''d value your perspective. Respectfully Lee Ann Daly http://www protectourvillage.org/archite...Std ee rp tans TL VE DPSCINE Hee LANE @ Weses Tricia Keano Fwd: Village Specific Plan DRB Mike Bonin Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:32 AM To: JACK Ce: Palisades Post + , Sue Pascoe Tricia Keane , David Graham-Caso Jack ‘Thanks for the email and the the thoughts. ‘Let me corect an apparently widespread misunderstanding: | did not make or prompt the determination regarding the recusals of the DRB members, and I did not direct or cause the cancellation of the DRB meeting. On the contrary, the Office of the Gity Attomey advised on the need for recusals, and advised the Department of City Planning of the need to ‘cancel the DRB meeting. Thanks Mike Regards, ‘On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM, JACK ‘wrote: | Jack Allen writes: i | Dear Councilman Bonin, | Having read your statement regarding the cancellation of the DRB meeting that was | to consider the Caruso Project, let me address your concerns about public input and transparency, neither of which were compromised by the participation of the four | members of the DRB at the Community Council meeting. In fact just the opposite occurred. The provision of the Municipal Code that the four members allegedly violated (Section 16.50.G) was not intended to cover public meetings. The provision that prohibited DRB members from discussing with anyone the merits of an application before them was designed to prevent members from discussing such matters in private or in secret without public knowledge of what was said. ‘That is not the case in this situation. The four DRB members are also members of the Community Council Board of Governors. The discussions about what action the Community Council should take were at a well attended public meeting with representatives of the applicant present. The actions being proposed by the Community Council were not in the purview of the DRB. The actions of the members could not have been more public and transparent. Moreover, the four members did not participate in the discussion and in fact, notified 'nipsuimall googe-commaitiyie28k=22007034638vew= pls carch=inbaxBimagr 153S25e HebcaBSesimI=153625e HebcaBa ”- My ae AngaeS Ml Pwa: viege SpacikG Plan ORB the President that they were recusing themselves from participation on the matter. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 15.60.G prohibiting the members from discussing the matter with anyone else. Nor was the attendance of the majority of the DRB a violation of the Brown Act which makes an exception for a majority of the Board to attend an open and publicized meeting organized to address a topic of local community concern by a person or organization. {tis known that he has issues with the DRB and could benefit if the four members are \ disqualified. However, Caruso has the option as the applicant to waive the alleged violation and consent to those four members. hearing his application. | urge you to use your office to persuade him to do so. : Respectfully yours, JACK ALLEN ,cc: Palisades Post Palisades News nis:mai google. commit i=28ike_2007034636 viewsptRsearchinbaxBimsq~153525e MebcaBSaBsim=153525a debendaoe CY A ARGO BABI = FW AAS rooting: LA ccs Tricia Keane Fwd: PPCC meeting david grahamcaso ‘Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:14 AM To: Mike Bonin , Chad Molnar , Tricka Keane Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Sue Pascoe Date: March 6, 2016 at 11:12:50 AM PST To: "sharon shapiro@lacity.org" Ger “david. grahamcaso@lacity.org" ‘Subject: PPCC meeting Sharon, Wanted to let you know about a nasty rumor going around town. Supposedly you went up to Jennifer Malaret and Richard Cohen before the February 18 PPCC meeting and said "Why are those people here?” Meening Barbara Cohen, Kelly Comtas and Stuart Muller. (Donna Vaccarino was not at the table and | Never saw her, supposedly she was in the back.) | said that did not sound like something that you would do, thet more likely if you didn’t think they were ‘Supposed to be at the meeting, you would have gone up to them individually and asked them about it~ ‘otherwise it would look like Councilman Bonin was indeed trying to dismantle the DRB. |, for once, was in a seat before the meeting started and | don't remember seeing you there until when you ‘were called on to speak. | also know that after the meeting you walked out with Maryam Zar and that | ‘spoke to the two of you in the parking lot. ‘Sue ‘nossa. google. comma u=28ik= 22067034608 view=psearcheirtxdmsge 15S4dSBaaleZeS6asimI= 15 d6Delt2c56 "Gites ‘Tricia Keane Fwd: PPCC meeting Sharon Shapiro Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:52 AM To: Tricia Keane —— Forwarded message From: Sue Pascoe Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:12 AM Subject: PPCC meeting ‘To: “sharon, shapiro@lacity.org" Ce: “david. grahamcaso@lactty.org" ‘Sharon, ‘Wanted to let you know about a nasty rumor going around town. Supposedly you went up to Jennifer Malaret and Richard Cohen before the February 18 PPCC meeting and said "Why are those people here?" Meaning Barbara Cohen, Kelly Comras and Stuart Muller, (Donna Vaccarino was not at the table and I never saw her, supposedly she was in the back.) | said that did not sound like something that you would do, that more likely if you didn't think they were supposed to be at the meeting, you would have gone up to them individually and asked them about it-otherwise it would look like Councilman Bonin was indeed trying to dismantle the DRB. |, for once, was in a seat before the meeting started and | don't remember seeing you there until when you were called ‘on to speak. | also know that after the meeting you walked out with Maryam Zar and that | spoke to the two of you in the parking lot. Sue Sharon Shapiro Senlor Field Deputy Councilmember Mike Bonin City of Los Angeles, 310-575-8461 i ‘Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates penal google. com/meisXyAi~26ik= 208 70SAbSBuiew= soar ch irboxmege 159S2EcceBUSSIBDBsim|= 1SE626cceOTI0D “Arce Tricia Keane Fwd: Message from Mike david grahameaso ‘Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:25 PM ‘To: Mike Bonin , Tricia Keane , Chad Molnar , Debbie Dynertanis , Sheron Shapiro ‘This is the only post on the Palisacian Post's site: hitps://wwv.palipost. comv/breaking-palisades-design-teview-board- _members-violate-city-rules-will-have-no-say-on-caruso-project —— Forwarded message —— From: Sue Pascoe Date: Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:15 PM ‘Subject: RE: Message from Mike ‘To: david grahameaso David, {t's a small town and I'm glad that Mike cleared up the rumors~so | can say definitively, no ane in his office ‘members of the DRB bsing recused. (Another resident pointed out a Facebook posting on the Palisadian-Post Website, you might want to peruse—if it's stil up.) ''m sure you have received former Beverly Hills City attomey Jack Allen's letter about DRB members being incorrectly recused. . 2. a majority of members cannot discuss among themselves items of city business, except as part of the program. With the legislative body exception, members of any legislative body can attend meetings of other legislative bodies of the city (Section 54952.2(c)4), but of course once again can't discuss it. On a Brown Act primer it states "I's okay to attend a conference together provided you do not discuss (DRB) business. {tis permissible to talk about that business if itis part of the conference program and that conference is open to the public.” So, who in the City Attomey’s office could speak to me about winy these four people would be recused for violating the Brown Act? ‘Sue From: david grahamcaso [david grahamcaso@lacity.org) Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 10:23 AM Tot Sue Pascoe Ce: Bill Bruns ‘Subject: Message from Mike Hi Sue, Councilmember Bonin asked that I pass along the following message. Please let me know if you have any questions. -David hipssimeil google commaihsty2t=28ik= 2087034638 view=ptsearch=inbaxBmeg=1535201721c2s7e8simI=1S9521724c2b7CA 7Dear Sue, My staff has forwarded to me the number of emails you have sent over the past few days regarding the issue with the Design Review Board and the Palisades Village project. ‘There is a fundamentally incorrect assumption undertying both the questions you are asking and the rumors you are hhave been passing on. Both rely on the premise that | made or prompted the determination that members of the Design Review Board needed to recuse themselves, oon the assumption that | directed or caused the cancellation of the DRB. ‘meeting. On the contrary, the Office of the City Attomey advised on the need for recusals, and advised the Department of City Planning of the need to cancel the DRB meeting. Having been informed of these developments, when constituents asked why the DRE meeting had been cancelled, | shared the reasons why. The assumption thal my sharing information indicates that | generated the information is Incorrect, If you have questions that are not premised on this false assumption, | am more than happy to answer them, Regards, MIKE David Graham-Caso Communications Director & Environmental Policy Advisor ‘Councilmember Mike Bonin Sie sae" ‘Muu thdistrict.com Up for Mike's Email Updates * Download the City of Los Angeles MyLA311 app for smartphones! i MYLAS11 Inks Angelenos withthe services and information they need to enjoy ther cy, beautty their communty ‘and stay connectad with ther local government. Weh MyLAS11, Cy of Los Angeles information and services are just afew taps away. David Graham-Caso Communications Director & Environmental Policy Advisor Councilmember Mike Bonin City of Los eles, 243-473-7011 | sow Ithdistrict.com aG ‘Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates Downlosd the City of Los Angeles MyLA311 app for smartphones! MyLAS1t Inks Angelenos withthe services and information they need to enjoy ther cy, beautfy ther communty and stay connected with ther local government. With MyLA311, Cy of Los Angeles information and services are ist afew taps away. bit simal google com/maitsty?i=28ik= 22087034b38viow=ptBsoarcheinbaxBmeg 15952c‘721c2s7e18siml= 83526172 TeAMase Tricia Keane SE. Fwd; Palisades DRB Issue david grahamcaso Tue, Mat 8, 2016 at 8:46 AM To: Mike Bonin , Tricla Keane , Chad Molnar . Debbie DynerHlanis , Sharon Shapiro —— Forwarded message —— From: Rab Wilcox Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:44 AM Subject: Palisades DRB Issue To: david grehamcaso Hi David: Per our phone conversation, here is out statement on the Palisades Design Review Board issue: LAMC section 16.50 G contains a conflict of interest provision specifically applicable to design review board members. ‘Section 16.50 G provides: "No design review board member shall discuss with anyone the merits of any matter either pending or likely to be pending before the board other than during a duly called meeting of the board or subcommittee of the board.” ‘The prohibition against ex-perte contacts and receiving information about @ project by attending a meeting other than a duly noticed public Design Review Board meeting ensures that the decisions are fair and appear to be fal, ‘and avoids potential challenges regarding the decision. Participation by a design review board member at a meeting where the matter is discussed falls within the prohibition set forth in section 16.50 G. Further, the prohibition in section 16,50 G applies to any discussion with anyone regarding the merits of any matter that is before them, or wil be before them at a later date. A member who violates section 16.60 G is disqualified from taking an action and, therefore, cannot be counted toward a quorum of the board, 2s defined in section 16.5008. la simple majority of the membership of the board is disqualified from participating in an action, then no qualified quorum exists. In that instance, pursuant to section 16.50 D 8, "jf a design review board cannot obtain a quorum for action within the stated time limits, the application shall be transferred forthwith to the Director for action with no recommendation from the design review board." Rob Wilcox. Director, Community Engagement and Outreach Office of Los Angeles City Attomey Mike Feuer James K. Hahn City Hall East 200 North Main Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 978-8377 (0) (213) 215-2707 (cell) +«-Confidentialty Notice ******™ This electronic message transmission contains information {rom the Office of the Los Angeles City Attomey, vihich may be confidential or protected by the attomey-client privilege ‘and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content ofthis information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachments without reading or saving in any manner. David Graham-Caso Communications Director & Environmental Policy Advisor ips:nei google.com imallAvO?i=28ik= 2205703438 views pt.ser ch inbaxBmeg= 15357 tec 89947besim I: 15357 dc 89047be 2Gguneilmenber Mike Bonin tLoe angeles Str Fott Fa hist com Sign Up for Mike's Emall Updates Download the Cty of Los Angeles MyLAS1 app for smartphones! 'MyLAS11 Inks Angelenos withthe services and information they need to enjoy ther city, beaully their commun and stay connected wit thei local government. Wih MyLA311, City f Los Angeles information and serviees are just afew taps away. itpimai google.cmmall i= 28ik= 208708438 viowtksearch=irbaxdinsg= 15957 ie89847boBsim|=153571Sc83947b0HY Oe ARGON IRI 7 OE EATIRTG, BNO CRY LiF to Heres Stade! (02 W)1EEKCZI0B).POF @ Moses Tricia Keane Fwd: Emailing: 2016-03-09 Ltr to Renee Stadel (00210185xC20DB).PDF Sharon Shapiro Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:41 PM To: Tricia Keane ‘Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Councilmember Bonin Date: March 9, 2016 at 3:59:26 PM PST ‘To: Sharon Shapiro ‘Subject: Fwd: Emailing: 2016-03-09 Ltr to Renee Stade! (00210185xC20DB).PDF FYI —— Forwarded message —— From: Jaclyn Marolda Date: Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:52 AM ‘Subject: Emailing: 2016-03-09 Ltr to Renee Stadel (00210185xC20DB),PDF To: “renes.stadel@lacity.org" Ce: *councilmember.bonin@lacity.org* . “vince. bertoni@lacity.org" “mike.n fever@tacity.org" ‘, Timothy Reuben » Stephen Raucher Ms. Stadel, Please find attached correspondence of today@fs date from Mr. Timothy Reuben. 4 attachments R R B Imagedot.png Rewoen Rauchen & Buu noname,htm! ax ‘Bj 2016-03-09 Ltr to Renee Stacel (00210185xC20DB). PDF 84K & neneme.htat hips:imal gogle.com/maivu?ui=28ikea20670¢Ababiow=ptBsearcheinboxBmeg= 158542177 doceS218sim|= 163662177 ecc0621 "RRB REUBEN RAUCHER & BLUM* ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 18th Floor Los Angeles, California 90024 Phone: (310) 777-1990 Fax: (310) 777-1989 www.rtbattomeys.com March 9, 2016 Refer To Fle Number x40 VIA EMAIL Renee Stadel Deputy City Attomey Ethics, Elections and Governance City Attomey’s Office 200 N. Main Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Pacific Palisades Design Review Board Dear Ms. Stadel: This office represents Barbara Kohn, Kelly Comras and Donna Vaccarino. As you know, by email dated February 29, 2016, you rendered an opinion that “DRB members who as PPCC [Pacific Palisades Community Council] members participated in the PPCC discussion of the Project or otherwise had ex parte communications related to the Project should recuse themselves from the DRB discussion on the project.” The first aspect of your opinion affected Ms. Kohn and Ms. Comras, who were in attendance at a February 25, 2016 meeting of the Pacific Palisades Community Council, along with a third DRB board member, ‘Stuart Muller. The second aspect of your opinion affected Ms. Vaccarino, who had a discussion with Councilman Mike Bonin at a Farmers Market on January 10,2016. Your opinion resulted in the cancellation of the DRB meeting that had been scheduled for March 2, 2016 to discuss the Caruso project, and the divestiture of the DRB’s jurisdiction to consider the matter. However, you rendered your opinion without speaking to Ms. Kohn, Ms. Comras ot Ms. Vaccarino. ‘The purpose of this letter is to provide you with additional information which we believe should result in a revision of your opinion and reinstatement of the DRB’s jurisdiction soREUBEN RAUCHER & BLUM March 9, 2016 Page 2 that the DRB will have an opportunity to provide its expertise and advice with respect to this most important project. ‘The apparent basis for the opinion disqualifying my clients from taking up the Caruso project is Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 16.50.G, which provides as follows: G. Conflict of Interest. No design review board member shall discuss with anyone the merits of any matter either pending or likely to be pending before the board other than during a duly called meeting of the board or subcommittee of the board. (Emphasis added), However, as discussed below, none of our clients had any discussions regarding “the merits” of the Caruso matter outside a DRB meeting. With respect to the PPCC meeting of February 25, 2016, while it is true that Ms. Kohn and Ms. Comaras are both members of the PPCC board and were in attendance at that meeting, you do not appear to have considered the fact that both Ms. Kohn and Ms. Comras (as well as Mr. Muller) informed the President of the Council prior to the meeting that they were recusing themselves and would _not_be discussing or voting on the Caruso-related motions. Notably, in prior correspondence, you specifically advised our clients that they could attend PPCC meetings so long. as they recused themselves with respect to the Caruso project, which they did. ‘The Caruso-related motions were not the only business before the Council on February 25, 2016, and so Ms. Kohn and Ms. Comras sat at the table with the other council board members, although they were offto the side, When the Caruso-related motions were taken up, it was simply not feasible for them to relocate into the audience, as the meeting was in a small library room and was standing-room only. Thus, Ms. Kohn and Ms. Comras remained seated at the table. However, they did not participate in the discussion. Indeed, during the discussion of the Caruso-telated motions, Ms. Kohn was knitting! Ms. Comras made only one utterance during the portion of the meeting relating to the Caruso project, and that was simply to ask Mr. Caruso himself to repeat a statement he had made regarding the Los Angeles Department of Transportation process because she could not hear it. By no stretch of the imagination could this comment be construed as a discussion of the merits of the Caruso project. Since it is obvious given these facts that Ms. Comras acted appropriately and inno manner contrary to Section 16.50.G, we frankly wonder what factual basis you had for your opinion Whatever it was, you must have been misinformed, and we must therefore ask you to provide the source and content of your information. As for Ms. Kohn, when the issue of a possible citizen committee was raised, she merely stated that based on her own prior personal experience, a citizen committee can be valuable ifREUBEN RAUCHER & BLUM March 9, 2016 Page 3 written into a Conditional Use Permit, and that such committees typically meet monthly or less frequently. This comment was not specific to the Caruso project, nor did it relate to the merits of that project. Again, we wonder what incorrect information you were relying on. Accordingly, nothing said or done at the PPCC meeting should have resulted in the forced recusal of either Ms. Comras or Ms. Kohn, and we are troubled that you jumped to such a conclusion. Similarly, although he is not our client, Stuart Muller had also recused himself and did not participate in any discussion of the merits ‘With respect to Ms. Vaccatino, the recent assertion is that she had “ex parte” communications with Councilman Bonin on January 10,2016 when she spoke with him during his public “Talk with Mike” appearance at the Pacific Palisades Farmers Market. However, Ms. Vaccarino said nothing regarding the merits of the Caruso project. Indeed, if she had, presumably Councilman Bonin, who knows the rules and appointed Ms. Vaccarino, would have terminated the conversation. Rather, Ms. Vaccarino simply raised general issues regarding the DRB process, soliciting the Councilman’s explanation of what criteria the DRB should use to evaluate projects generally. Accordingly, this discussion also did not relate to the “merits” of the Caruso project. ‘We are particularly troubled by the fact that, although the conversation with Councilman Bonin took place on January 10, 2016, the first time Ms. Vaccarino or anyone else on the DRB board heard of any concems with respect to that conversation was from the Councilman’s office on February 26, 2016, the day after the PPCC meeting. The timing thus suggests that the alleged “concern” with respect to Ms. Vaccarino was only manufactured after it was learned that Ms. Kohn, Ms, Comras and Mr. Muller had attended the PPCC meeting. Suddenly, Ms. Vaccarino’s general conversation with the Councilman presented an opportunity to divest the DRB of Jurisdiction by depriving it of a quorum. The failure to get our clients’ side of the story prior to ‘the rendering of your opinion also suggests a rush to judgment, potentially based on political pressures. In any event, in light of this additional information, we demand that you reconsider, revise and revoke your opinion. Moreover, if your opinion changes with respect to even one of the four DRB board members (and it obviously should), the DRB’s jurisdiction would be restored and the Department of City Planning must notice a meeting of the Design Review Board forthwith, Please be advised that should you fail to revoke your inaccurate opinion and should the Department of City Planning fail to cancel the hearing scheduled for March 24, 2016 and not reinstate the jurisdiction of the DRB, our clients will need to consider all appropriate actions, which may include the filing of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and other appropriate remedies, including a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the review of the Caruso project from moving‘REUBEN RAUCHER & BLUM March 9, 2016 Page 4 forward until the question of the DRB’s jurisdiction has been resolved. We are hopeful that it does not come to that and that you will allow the DRB to do its job. Tlook forward to your immediate response. Very truly yours, Ta Timothy D. Reuben SLR:mof cc: Hon. Mike Bonin Vincent Bertoni, AICP, Director of Department of City Planning Barbara Kohn Kelly Comras Donna Vaccarino Michael Feuer, Los Angeles City Attomey@ Beacs Tricia Keane Fwd: Emailing: 2016-03-09 Ltr to Renee Stadel (00210185xC20DB).PDF Tricia Keane Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:23 PM ‘To: mike bonin , Chad Molnar . david grahameaso ‘This message is being sent from a mobile device. Plaese excuse any tupos. ‘BB 2016-03-09 Ltr to Renee Stace! (00210185xC200B).PDF 94K !iips:imail google.com malliyOrAi=28ik=22087034698viewssearch=irbaxSsmg= 1SSS0COBDISECERsim|=1635A0 06868 "mee Sat Ee wn hail = doris Neg Mata Gites Tricia Keane DRB legal letter Frances Sharpe ‘Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:30 AM To: Sharon Shapiro , tricla keane @iactty.org Co: david grahamcaso Hi Sharon & Tricia, Here is a legal letter that an attomey representing Barbara Kohn, Kelly Comras and Donna Vaccarino sent to the Office of the City Attomey. ‘Thought you should be aware of it. Frances Frances Sharpe Editor-in-Chief Palisadian-Post 881 Alma Real, #213 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 “This is community newspapering at its best,” -Councilmember Mike Bonin ‘www. facebook. com/palisadian.post twitter.com/PalisadianPost Sign up for the Post's free Breaking News Email Alerts at www.palipost.com Interested in advertising? Send inquiries to ‘To subscribe to the Post, visit www palipost.com ‘B3 2018-09-00 Ltr to Ronoo Stade! (00210185xC2008} pat |nipsimail gogle.commeiltutui=28ik= 22057034028 view =pttssarch=inbaxmeg= 1536202 cOfld 47Bsiml= 1536202112 "Set ee lm Ian AA SSAA YIU ARS aS 1 Cec Tricia Keane Palisades Village Project MND Comments (ENV-2015-271 5) Annette Duffy Odell ‘Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:12 PM To: Griselda. Gonzalez @lacity.org, mike.bonin@lacity.org, lakisha.hull@Jacity.org, mayor.garcetti@lacity. ‘sharon shapiro@lacity.org, darlene navarrete@lacity.org, tricia keane@lacity.org, vince.bertoni@lacity.org, michelle.levy @lecity.org, eddie.querrero@Jacity.org, debbie.dynerhanis@lacity.org MARCH 9, 2016 ‘TO: Hearing Officers Griselda Gonzalez and Michelle Levy, and to Darlene Navarrete, Mike Bonin,Councilman District 11,Trida Keane, Planning Director, Vince Bertoni, Director of Planning, Lakisha Hull, Assigned Staff Planner, Eric Garcetti, Mayor, Edward Guerrero, Transportation Engineer, Special Projects, Sharon Shapiro, Pacific Palisades/Brentwood Field Deputy, and Debbie Dyner Harris, West Los Angeles Field Office District Director, Dear Madams and Sirs, I write as a 29-year resident of Pacific Palisades. 1am delighted that a serious development of the neglected commercial district of the area is under way. | am unhappy, though, with the slapdash approach that is allowing the presently developed plans to solidify without adequate study and community input. Mr. Caruso has been careful to hold community meetings and to solicit community input, which is a to the good. But in the end he appears to be pushing through an overdevelopment of the commercial district without allowing serious study. am particularly surprised and unhappy about Mr. Caruso's traffic study, which was conducted on the lightest. traffic weekend of the year: Thanksgiving. | expect more shrewdness from city officials than is shown by falling for this trick. !am also concerned about noise pollution, which does not appear to have been taken seriously enough. | read that piped in music, the bane of our era, a practice that has destroyed the peace in public spaces all around the United States, is to be allowed. And there are other noise issues related to business hours of operation. Finally, it seems perfectly clear that the underground parking planned for the site needs to be enlarged by at least ‘one more level, | write to ask that the study period be extended. The 472 page MND (with nearly 6,000 pages of attachments) has been publicly available for only weeks, Our Design Review Board, which is made up of Palisades residents who really know the community, should be allowed to review the plans. Best Regards, Annette Duffy Odell !iipe:imai google comimeiv i= 28k 2208705438 vew=plBsearc=inboxBmsg= 1585 746ZcSo6BRsimI=1535Ce AS23568 "fe @ ob eees Tricia Keane Fwd: Palisades DRB Councilmember Bonin ‘Thu, Mar10, 2016 at 1:29 PM ‘To: Sharon Shapiro , Tricia Keane —— Forwarded message From: Harden Carter Date: Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:46 AM Subject: Re: Palisades DRB ‘To: Sandra Eddy Harden Certer ‘Good moming Mrs. Eddy, ! will forward your letter to the Planning Staff managing the Village Palisades Project, and your City Counail office. ‘Thank you for your concems, Harden A. Carter Planning implementation ‘On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Sandra Eddy ‘wrote: | It was a pleasure meeting you last night, Harden. As | expressed last night, leaving the final review of the Caruso Project in the hands of city staff, although I'm ‘sure they are competent, is unfair to our community when we have local | professionals who can truly understand and emphesize with the community concems. Any guidance where best to direct this letter would be most appreciated, Thanks again! Best, Sancy Eddy itpe:msi. google comm allutY2u=28ik 2057024638 vion= ptSsaarchnbxmeg= 1596280629607 smI= 15962608Z360577 "‘e g Moses Tricia Keane Fwd: Pacific Palisades Village Project - Caruso Affiliated Mike Bonin ‘Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:28 PM ‘To: Tricia Keane , Chad Molnar , Sharon Shapira , David Graham-Caso ‘Sent from my iPhone (Please forgive any typos, odd phrases, or complete nonsense. | am using Siri, and she tries to make me look stupid.) Begin forwarded message: To: “mike.bonin@lacity.org” , Lakisha Hull , “michelle levy @lacity.org" Subject: Pacific Palisades Village Project - Caruso Affiliated March 10, 2016 To Whom it May Concem: It is unfortunate that the Palisades community was not given the opportunity to participate in a Final Review of the Caruso Project by the Design Review Board. The Caruso project is very complicated and hhas evolved many times over the past six months. That, coupled with the fact that we only recently received access to the 472 page MND with 6,000 pages of appendix material made the meeting cancellation much more frustrating to the community. We have many unanswered questions and expected this forum to help us get an understanding of some of the issues. In addition, the members of the DRB live in this community, understand this community, and are personally affected by this project. Their expertise would have been invaluable and is irreplaceable in making sure that this project is the best that it can be, ‘This project will impact OUR community for decades to come and we are entitled to every possible opportunity to participate in the process. If understand the facts, it's unfortunate that CD 11 Field Deputy Sharon Shapiro didnt take the ‘opportunity to inform the three DRB board members, who are also PPCC board members who were sitting ‘at the PPCC board table, at the Feb 25th meeting of the problem that by sitting at the board table they ‘were in violation of the Brown Act. To say they were in violation only after the fact, when any such violation could have been easily avoided, is inexcusable, Further, if CD 14 Councilmember Mike Bonin was involved in an ex parte conversation with a DRB member, he too should have taken the opportunity to disengage, indicating that any such conversation was in violation of clty rules or the Brown act . ‘At the PPCC meeting the DRB members did not participate in any discussion of the merits or in any way act inappropriately. It is my understanding that ‘DISCUSSING’ of the merits is what is prohibited . Per the city rules “no design review board member shall discuss with anyone the merits of any matter either pending or kely to be pending before the board other than during a duly called mesting of the board”. Inconsequential comments that had nothing to do with the merits, a request to clarify a statement, are ‘considered violations? What about sitting and listening? Are they too considered violations? | was not privy to the Bonin/DRB member exchange. bitpssimeil-google.com/naihyOr7ui=28ke=a2087USAb38viow=plkscarcr=inbaxBmage 15362He540e Tall = 1SIEKSACSC Tad w|m my opinion, this should never have reached the city attomey's office. Nor should the community suffer ‘because of these DRE members wenting to hear not from some interested individuals in a back room, but from the whole community in a public town hall forum. Our community is now left to its own devices to get ‘answers to our unanswered questions and local expert input on the provisions of this complicated plan. To deny the community this opportunity to participate in the process is unconscionable. If a Final Review DRB meeting can be re-scheduled prior to the public hearing on March 24th, our community would be very ‘appreciative, It would be the right thing to do. Everyone wants to see a reasonable project done without unnecessary delay. To put the project on hold while the propriety of the ouster of the DRB is litigated is wholly unnecessary. All that said, we do live In ‘America, And it seems to me that our first amendment right should not be dismissed so casually, Please allow our community the opportunity to exercise that right. Respectfully, Robin Weitz bipsimai googl.com/mailuO/i= 282007094638 view=ptBseer ch inbaxBimsg- 15352d5485c7dddBsiml= 1S¥S2AcS4CC TESSE ERS NEE mL SR Oh ME AT ATR NY GEL Ceggee f g Meecs Tricia Keane Fwd: These Caruso machinations don't smell right Mike Bonin Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:29 PM To: Chad Molnar , Tricia Keane , David Graham-Caso , Sharon Shapiro ‘Sent from my iPhone (Please forgive any types, odd phrases, or complete nonsense. | am using Siri, and she ties to make me look stupid.) Begin forwarded message: From: Davon Abner Date: March 10, 2016 at 1:59:51 PM PST To: mike.bonin@lacity.org ‘Subject: These Caruso machinations don't smell right Hi Mike, {It seems some residents are really upset with these seemingly underhanded dismissals or lack of eamings ‘before the meeting that caused half the members to be booted. | hope you will heed at least some of the worries of the community. I'm pro-development but this stuff doesnt sit right. Please be fair and do it right. Dont sell out! Or appear to, Thanks, Devon Abner Palisades resident since ‘93, tps imal google commailsXi=28ik= 52087034638 view pldsarcheinboxdmsg 1596240166831 sim|= 1SS62KN01EC1 1"Citas Tricia Keane Fwd: PACIFIC PALISADES CARUSO PROJECT Mike Bonin ‘Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:53 PM To: Chad Molnar , David Graham-Caso , Tricia Keane ~, Sharon Shapiro ‘Sent from my iPhone (Please forgive any typos, odd phrases, or complete nonsense. | am using Siri, and she tries to make me look stupid.) Begin forwarded message: jarch 10, 2016 at 3: To: mike.bonin@Jacity.org ‘Subject: PACIFIC PALISADES CARUSO PROJECT Dear Mike, It's unfortunate that the Palisades community was not given the opportunity to participate in a Final Review of the Caruso Project by the Design Review Board. The Caruso project is very complicated and has evolved many times over the past six months. That, coupled with the fact that we only recently ‘ecelved access to the 472 page MND with 6,000 pages of appendix material made the meeting cancellation much more frustrating to the community. We have many unanswered questions and expected this forum to help us get an understanding of some of the issues. in addition, the members of the DRB {ive in this community, understand this community, and are personally affected by this project. Their ‘expertise would have been invaluable and is irreplaceable in making sure that this project is the best that it can be. This project will impact OUR community for decades to come and we are entitled to every possible opportunity to participate in the process. | understand the facts, It's unfortunate that CD 11 Field Deputy Sharon Shapiro didn't take the ‘opportunity to inform the three DRB board members, who are also PPCC board members who were sitting at the PPC board table, at the Feb 25th meeting of the problem that by sitting at the board table they ‘were in violation of the Brown Act. To say they were in violation only after the fact, when any such violation could have been easily avoided, is inexcusable. Further, if CD 11 Councilmember Mike Bonin \were involved in an ex-parte conversation with a DRB member, he too should have taken the opportunity ‘to disengage, indicating that any such conversation was in violation of city rules or the Brown act . ‘At the PPCC meeting the DRB members did not participate in any discussion of the merits or in anyway ‘act inappropriately. It is my understanding that ‘DISCUSSING’ of the merits is what is prohibited . Per the city rules “no design review board member shall discuss with anyone the merits of any matter ether ‘ponding or likely to be pending before the board other than during a duly called meeting of the board.”. inconsequential comments that had nothing to do with the merits, a request to clarify a statement, are Considered violations? What about sitting and listening? Are they too considered violations? | was not privy to the Bonin/DRB member exchange. In my opinion, this should never have reached the city attomey's office. Nor should the community suffer because of these DRB members wanting to hear not from some interested individuals in a back room, but from the whole community in @ public town hall forum. Our community is now left to its own devices to ‘get answers to our unanswered questions and local expert input on the provisions of this complicated plan. To deny the community this opportunity to participate in the process is unconscionable. If a Final Review DRB meeting can be re-scheduled prior to the public hearing on the 24th, the community would be very appreciative. It would be the right thing to do, Everyone wants to see @ reasonable project done without unnecessary delay. To put the project on hold psa google.com mail 28ik=a2007034098vew=Bsearcheinbax msg 152268350 dsim|= 1590265950010 12while the propriety of the ouster of the DRB is litigated is wholly unnecessary. Al that said, we do live in America. And it seems to me that our first amendment right should not be dismissed so casually, Please allow our community the opportunity to exercise that right. Best Regards, Bart Bartholomew ite smal google. comimait/ui=28ik=a2OG7CSAbaBview= pidsearcheinbaxmsg= 1596226530 1asim|= 1SI62DASTISRGTE mee manne 4 RES AOE NE SA AOR = Lo BR IOC Gites Tricia Keane Palisades Design Review Board Meeting - Caruso Project ‘Sandra Eddy ‘Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 9:58 AM To: vince bertoni@lacity.org, renee.stadel@lacity.org, Lakisha Hull , Micholle Levy , Mike Bonin Ce: Tricia Keane To all concemed: | sent this letter in last week, noting my discontent that the meeting wes cancelled and requesting that the DRB meeting ‘of March 2 be rescheduled. The cancellation ofthis meeting took away a very Important opportunity for our community, to receive valuable Information from our DRB and to provide additional input on the project. This Project will impact our neighborhood forthe rest of our lives. We do not take thi lightly. Please let me know if this meeting will be rescheduled and when. ‘Thank you for your consideration. Sandy Eddy DRBRevised.pdf Be ttps:nal google com/m iV i= 28ik=a2007034b8 ow lasoarcheinboxBmsge 1538583477. HODdeSsiml= 1SSBSSMTTI408Ke "March 7, 2016 ‘To Whom It May Concem: It's unfortunate that the Palisades community was not given the opportunity to participate ina Final Review of the Caruso Project by the Design Review Board. The Caruso project is very complicated and has evolved many times over the past six months, That, coupled with the fact that we only recently received access to the 472 page MND with 6,000 pages of appendix material made the meeting cancellation much more frustrating to the community. We have many unanswered questions and expected this forum to help us get an understanding of some of the issues. In addition, the members of the DRB live in this community, understand this community, and are personally affected by this project. Their expertise would have been invaluable and is irreplaceable in making sure that this project is the best that it can be. This project will impact ‘OUR community for decades to come and we are entitled to every possible opportunity to participate in the process, If lunderstand the facts, its unfortunate that CD 11 Field Deputy Sharon Shapiro didn't take the ‘opportunity to inform the three DRB board members, who are also PPCC. board members who were sitting at the PPCC board table, at the Feb 25th meeting of the problem that by sitting at the board table they were in violation of the Brown Act. To say they were in violation only after the fact, when any such violation could have been easily avoided, is inexcusable. Further, if CD 14 Councilmember Mike Bonin was involved in an ex-parte conversation with a DRE member, he too should have taken the opportunity to disengage, indicating that any such conversation’ was in violation of city nules or the Brown act . At the PPCC meeting the DRB members did not participate in any discussion of the merits or in anyway act inappropriately. It is my understanding that ‘DISCUSSING of the merits is what is prohibited . Per the city rules "no design review board member shall discuss with anyone the merits of any matter either pending or likely to be pending before the board other than during a duly called meeting of the board.". inconsequential comments that had nothing to do with the merits, a request to clarify a statement, are considered violations? What about siting and listening? Are they too considered violations? | was not privy to the Bonir/DRB member exchange. In my opinion, this should never have reached the city attomey's office. Nor should the ‘community suffer because of these DRB members wanting to hear not from some interested individuals in a back room, but from the whole community in a public town hall forum. Our ‘community is now left to its own devices to get answers to our unanswered questions and local expert input on the provisions of this complicated plan. To deny the community this opportunity to participate in the process is unconscionable. if a Final Review DRB meeting can be re- scheduled prior to the public hearing on the 24th, and community would be very appreciative, It ‘would be the right thing to do. Everyone wants to see a reasonable project done without unnecessary delay. To put the project ‘on hold while the propriety of the ouster of the DRB is litigated is wholly unnecessary. All that said, we do live in America. And it seems to me that our first amendment right should not be dismissed so casually. Please allow our community the opportunity to exercise that right. Respectuly, Sandy EadyTrem mame RNS Vee | NNORED LIRA! IVETE Kine Ls RIRRALRY = LA OL Gttecs Tricia Keane Palisades Design Review Board Meeting - Caruso Project Michelle Levy ‘Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:31 AM To: Sandra Eddy Go: Vince Bertoni , Renoe Stadel , Lakisha Hull <, Mike Bonin , Tricla Keane tricia, keane@lacity.org> Hello Sandy, ‘Thank you for your letter and for shering your concems. The DRB meeting will not be rescheduled as the Board has lost their jurisdiction over this matter. All members of the community (including the ORB members acting as individual citizens and not speaking on behalf of the DRB) are invited to provide input on the project at the public hearing next ‘Thursday. Best Regards, Michelle Michelle Levy, City Planner Phan implomentston Dvn, Neighbomood Projects Wet Unt Supervisor Cy Planning Department | Gy of Los Angeles michelle Jevy @lacity.org | 213.978.1203" 1 (apt ‘On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Sandra Eddy > wrote: ‘To all concemed: | sent this letter in last week, noting my discontent that the meeting was cancelled and requesting that the DRB | meeting of March 2 be rescheduled, The cancellation of this meeting took away a very important opportunity for our ‘community to receive valuable information from our DRB and to provide additional input on the project. This ‘project will Impact cur neighborhood for the rest of our lives. We do not take this lightly. Please let me know if this meeting will be rescheduled and when. ‘Thank you for your consideration. ‘Sandy Eddy nipssImai googie comm ituAi= 28 a2007034s38viow= plea ch InboxBimss 1598540675954 7Bskm|= 1536509675 195477 n@ Aeees Tricia Keane Fwd: Palisades News Sharon Shapiro Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:47 PM To: Tricia Keane —— Forwarded message From: david grahameaso Date: Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:46 PM ‘Subject: Palisades News ‘To: Sharon Shapiro htp:!/palisadesnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Palisades-News-March-16-2016-1, pdf David Graham-Caso Communications Director & Environmental Policy Advisor ‘Councilmember Mike Bonin City of os Angeles 213-473-7011 [ www |) chdistrictcom G Sign Up for Mike's Emai) Updates Download the City of Los Angeles MyLA311 epp for smartphones! ‘MyLASt1 links Angelenos withthe services and information they need to enjoy their cy, beaully the commurily and stay connected wit thet 4ocal government. With MyLA341, Cty of Los Angeles information end services are juste few taps sway. Sharon Shapiro Senior Field Deputy Councilmember Mike Bonin City of Los Angeles 310-575-8465 | ‘Hipesimsil google.com mai urAi=28ik= 22087034 view=pttscarch-inboxSmsg= 153867285 6805e8sim |= 153807283 1685s "AND SEN vee 11d Tiel Com i Ne Fare an Cmca Gras SS SCHOOLS SSRNOW Week Sand Tents Comair Ne, are and Commny ii 0 FU Time for Baseball! [By SUE PASCOE ‘Bator ational Hockey League Hall of Famer Lac Robitaille iron ost ‘he is pth or Pace Pndes ‘Baseball Asocaton opening day onSet- ‘day atthe il of Dreams ‘The LA. Kings President of Bsiese Operations was introduced by PBA Cone misionerBob Benton. Roba layed 19 ‘seront in the NHL indding 1h the ‘Kings He isthe highest scoring le wing in [NHL history and 12h veel NHL goal oring with 668 gral, “Iwata pitcher and asborsiop but we ida thavesuch ool uniforms Robtalle told players. “Baeble great peo (Continued on Poe 3) u -Stravaganza Peet ae gree rer “et. gee raraganza °, . . Pegganua ig ep Sg City’s DRB Action Comes Under Fire sss "SES Sapper et hd atgt ge Se Ee Inhislte Resben sertedhisclients "Koln, Comrasand Miler at members "Teee willbe amoon bouncy ars and A Depa iy Attorney Renee war incmecty nd unis ofthe Pc PateadesCmmnity Coun cals puing arbors pet Stal came under fcel week for Stadel had rendered ber opinion without clk atended« mecing on Fehroaty25.t_ chow a pttagune sod othe cau, fourmenbersothePackic speaingtothe dee mere, ndtat the which he apna ncindadsconion sd Loot a pecan aprons Oe Palaces Design Review oud fem fr- information nhs leter "boul seat in dnteaded vote on thee motions reprding, Eanes Bune Tasent slope ead ‘her discussion of Caro AstesPal- a revision of your opinion and eariate- the Caruso project: zaning tet wcaton, Food trate und ake oben nate sides Vilage Projet. ‘ment of te DRB' jurisdiction she the and tai. sable daring the event. Cal 310) 454. ‘Sade ction on Febrary 29 left the DRB willbave a opportunity to provide According to stomey Reuben eter, [412 er ema asad o@lactyone seven-member RB witout aguorumand fits expertise and ace with respect io“. Bot Me, Kahn tod Ma Conca (ob forced cancltion of ts Maré? meting, this mos. mportant project” vwllas Mr. Mille infoaned he President ‘when twas scheduled to ender is final Afr Stade action, the News asked the ofthe Council porto the mecing tat ‘ecammendaons tothe City Phasing De- LA. City Atorey’s Ofc for snexplaa- hey were reusing themes and would arimentinreprdto the Cas projet. tion. Rob Wie dieir of community notbe dicuingorvteg on he Casio OnBarch Satorey Tatty Reuben, engagement, cited LAMC ection 1630.6 related motions" of Reuben Raucber& Blum emailed a “Nodeignrviewbow ember shallds- Reuben also reminded Stadel,"Notably, Jets Stadel and other City officals on cuss with anyone the mers ofary mater in par corespondenc, you mpeciialy Pear DEE. th rotor ok cngb edocs iy ca eed smerber: BabaraKoin Xely_ fore the board other than during +d meetings so log a they ren aspen Rely mage ing ng hey ec ech trey ike mao ‘Arthebepinsng ofthe mecting ass lowed in FPCC byavs Hiri Solty | ‘member Dick Wulliger ached for » post- ESSN PPonementofsvotean themotions, (i =" ‘PROC President Ci Spit arnosncod that theCounl wold til er foe board Ea ‘member andthe pull, which had packed wan the Palisades Library community room, d ‘Allnough the four DRBPPOC meee lento paver ido acu or express opinions atthe Las yar pars found gobs of eg. (Continued on Page 10) The ye‘The Palisades News ‘March 16,2016 ‘Aforum for open discussion of common EDITORIAL High School Days Revisited in Caruso Debate high sho, fyou don’ agre wth the popu ‘owe you ca be shunned Then sometines it ge wor Oa i ignaled cut nd ved. And ae, ot ‘nt eter this person eaves high chool doe he or she ean creer of elFsepect Ye weal gree we daa {etl and we wos hard with ou isto ake Se thatbehuvior snot tlerte. Unfortunately that kind of bev ie miedo ‘he ten yea The News as watched in diay a Pace Palsaes residents all against ane anther inte plc Achat sbou varios aspect of te Care ‘opening on Swarthmore and Senet nate 2017. ‘This cape tru othe popula online foram, NextDoor Palisades. For months neighbors who want ‘the Caras plans oa rough te pbc heaing rocs (7 wish we could start digging tomorrow sid sppreciate what Crus’ development wil ern to ‘ur business distri, but who know that we sould ‘ever givea developer cate blanche. In enenc thee Caruso Can Do No Wrong defenders src ating ables 9 people who have tudled hi plans, tended mectingy met in person with Cartao and all Ibe leptivate concerns Taking right buck to high ehool let examine the Vilge Project at geometry proof. Isa given that Cero brought thd and wants to develop it Peo ‘le in town are in agreement ht eoircthing bed tobe ‘dane and Caruso isthe bet person forthe roe A other given i that Carus isa developer an be expects ‘to make money rom thi venture ening ding eign i ‘gostons. or came ome peopl wil be ue wih Apsbet tet neighbors when hey ack Cars about the ‘ansricton haul rote how mod ext wl be repowed wae he pecking lois excavated bow any trucks will ‘be ed and what impect il his eve oa the Vilage? ‘These ae lca questions and seed res in people ten the neighbors to "atop worryig—the end ret trl be rete, t woo be ae for people to sy, “Than fr sking—eod what the anes bythe way (swat about the pape who aang why te ly ‘sabout tallow Carusoto take over aeabl sc of publ nd between the Mobi atin and teeny tk Dulin special, he publ pak betwen Suna tad {he ale? Should the town be competed in ome ‘wy? Sarl, hou Caran be alowed to incorporate ‘pare of Sunset that carey sevesara wide igh-tra lane onto Swartnore Is there compenttion? Raising sues he this doc aeat people we agaest Carus dereopment, or wast to delay hice, ‘They spy want to sce the iy Planing Deparment negotiate abet dea. ther residents continue to have legate fe about tei few athe Alphabet sre, nt only whe about new stores and restaurants ope, bot Caro shines Sartor ini caer i ot shout employes pein for fe on neighbors cy, ‘instead of paying x monthly fein the new parking ott ‘The Paluades Design Board took the righ approach, -efeding the towns Specie Pen and sling Cros architect come up moe disioce bailing designs. ‘Notaurprisiog, board members ook aloof hat om, the bullies and on Febraary 29 four member were propel ecased by the Gy Atom Offce, We Deliv the DRS members shoud hve tele eel ‘overturned so that final DRB meting can be bl here before the Caras hearings move downtown. Our conduson is, we ean fin his geometry proof because there are too mat knowns, WED ‘bck to our given: hat we suport the Caruso prfect and we want to see construction get underway tis ‘summer, but fin, everyone should spor thee who ‘ee tryingto get questions answered end who ere weo= ‘lating abeter outcome forthe Paiedes LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (flowing ne ees were eto Concinen ‘Mik Bon nl ped eNews) Misinterpretation of the Law Having ad your sateen oping te cnet of che DEB wcting tht ao ani te arse Projet ete sede your cancers hoa opt and tnspnecy, car of which wee sompromted iy he prc the four eben ef he ORS atthe Gacumunity Counc meting tot the epost oe, The proviin ofthe Manpl Cade tht thefour iment aegedy Wed (Seton 16506) wa ok Intended to ner pbl ects The provison ht ‘prohibited DXB members fom dcesng wil eayane {eset of eneppeatos be them wes ep oo roert member fom dscaning ch ates, insert without pbc knowledge of wit ‘Tat isnot the ce inhi aan The four DED ‘member ae a memo th Cun Cour City Attorney/DRB david grahamcaso Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:09 PM ‘To: Tricia Keane Ce: Sharon Shapiro Yes. They sent the statement below directly to Sue. LAMC section 16.50 G contains a conflict of interest provision specifically applicable to design review board members. ‘Section 16.50 G provides: "No design review board member shall discuss with anyone the merits of any mattor either pending or likely to be pending before the board other than during a duly called meeting of the board or subcommittee of the board.” The prohibition against ex-parte contacts and receiving information about a project by attending a meeting other than a duly noticed public Design Review Board meeting ensures that the decisions are fair and appear to be fair, ‘and avoids potential challenges regarding the decision. Participation by a design review board member at a meeting where the matter is discussed falls within the prohibition set forth in section 16.50 G. Further, the prohibition in section 18,50 G applies to any discussion with anyone regarding the merits of any matter that is before them, or wil be before them at a later date. A member who violates section 16.50 G is disqualified from taking an action and, therefore, cannot be counted toward a quorum of the board, as defined in section 16.50 D8, Ia simple majority of the membership of the boerd is disqualified from participating in an action, then no qualified quorum ‘ex’sts. In that instance, pursuant to section 16.50 D 8, “jf a design review board cannot obtain a quorum for action within the stated time limits, the application shall be transfered forthwith to the Director for action with no recommendation from the design review board." David Graham-Caso Communications Director & Environmental Policy Advisor Councilmember Mike Bonin Ci ofks Angeles 213.473-7011 | wun Iehdistrict.com ™ OG Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates Download the City of Los Angeles MyLAI11 app for smartphones! -MyLASt1 Inks Angelenos with the services end information they need fo enjoy thelr cy, beauty their communty and stay connected wih tel tncal government. With MyLA341, Cty of Los Angeles information and services are usta few taps away. ipevinai google com/mal i= 28k 42087034638 views pteear ch inbox sg 153G2056A220048sim = 1539A05ER2290403 "fe g 5 eses Tricia Keane Fwd: DRB Mike Bonin Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:43 AM ‘To: David Greham-Caso , Tricia Keane ‘Sent from my (Phone (Please forgive any typos, odd phrases, or complete nonsense. | am using Siri, and she tries to make me look stupid.) Begin forwarded message: ‘To: “mike.bonin@lacity.org" , “sharon.shapiro@lacity. org” "renee. stadel@lacity.or9" , "lakisha.hull@lacity.org™ , "michelle.levy@lacity.org" ‘Subject: DRB ‘Counciman, | know you have experience with journalism and the constitution, so it should come as no surprise that | ‘continue to pursue what happened to four DRB Board members and their rights. | now have come into contact with two people who will testify that Barbara Kohn and Kelly Comras spoke to Chris Spitz (PPCC President) before the PPCC meeting (on February 25) and told her they would not Participate in the Caruso discussion and were recusing themselves. | also attended that February 25 meeting and it was announced at the beginning that there would be no vote on the Caruso motions. | know there is an incredible push to get the Caruso project through, but it seems that members of the DRB Board have rights, too. ''m wondering about the current legal situation. | know that three of the DRB members have retained a lawyer. Sue ipsa google.com malluty2t=28ik 2007034638 view pdzon ch InboxBmog=1580ec850862Ec 208i 15390c8000628-20 1"‘Tricia Keane Re: February 22 meeting Chris Spitz Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:19 PM : Sue Pascoe Ce: Bill Bruns , Mike Bonin , Tricia Keane , ‘Sharon Shapiro , Debbie DynerHarris , “renee. stadel@lacity.org" , Maryam Zar “Richard G. Cohen" Jennifer Malaret Sue, No, | was not misquoted by the Post. You should understand the context of my staternent, which was in response to the Post's inquiry as to the accuracy of the assertion by an attorney (for certain of the now disqualified DRB members) that they had supposedly stated to me me before the February 25 meeting that they would be "recusing" themselves. This assertion is inaccurate, as | would have told you had you bothered to ask me about it (but did not) before printing this assertion in your last article. You also seem to be confused about the issues. The tenor of your e-mail is that there is some inconsistency between my quoted statement and the alleged “witness” statements to which you refer. But there is no inconsistency. As you know, because you were at the February 25 meeting, the persons in question placed their name cards facing out, sat at the table as primary voting members and were counted as such towards the quorum; would not allow alternates who were present (in the case of two of these persons) to sit as the primary voting members; remained at the board table as the primary voting members for the duration of the meeting; and even spoke during the discussion, as reflected in the meeting minutes which are posted on our website. Had they recused themselves, they would not have remained at the meeting or at the very least would have left the board table. Or, when the meeting began, they would have stated that they were recusing themselves and then left the meeting, as one of these persons, the chair emeritus, did at our next meeting. Indeed, logically, they would not have come to the meeting at all. But they did. So even had they told me before the meeting began that they would be recusing themselves, which, again, did not happen, they did not recuse themselves because they stayed and participated in the meeting. | trust this clears up any confusion and that you will not have the need to communicate with me again on this subject. ‘Should you choose to publish any portion of this communication, | request that you publish it in its entirety so that there will be no question about what was communicated. ce: Bill Bruns; Hon. Councilmember Mike Bonin and staff; Deputy City Attorney Renee Stadel; PPCC officers Maryam Zar, Richard Cohen and Jennifer Malaret Regards, Chris Spitz President, Pacific Palisades Community Council wwrw.pacpalicc.org penal goga.comnalls? de 2k a20070b8 vw eearernbodreg 1S Aen 1SbDebe 044 ‘2www facebook.com/pacpalice From: Sue Pascoe Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 2:18 PM To: Ce: Bill Bruns Subject: February 22 meeting Chris, | read with interest whet the Palisadian-Post quoted you as saying in their March 17 story (Council Passes Two Motions in Support of Caruso Project) "Spitz refuted the claim, saying, ‘Neither Ms. Kohn, Ms. Comras nor Mr. Muller at any time before or during the Feb. 25 meeting stated that they would recuse themselves from the meeting. | now have two witness statements. One person said that before the meeting you went up to Kelly and asked her what ‘she was doing there-she said she would not be voting on the Caruso motions, nor participating in the discussion, ‘A second witness has also come forth claiming thet you approached Barbara before the meeting and she responded similarly. Additionally, it was stated thet several board members were seen observing the conversation between you end Kelly and you and Barbara. | was also told that you approached Stuart in a similar manner. ‘After receiving the statements, | have now spoken with Barbara and Kelly who verify they had the conversation with you ‘and that the witness’ statements sent to me were accurate, Is it possible that you were misquoted earlier? Thanks. Sue ips: google. com/maiVityAi=26ik= a2007034bSviow=pt&soarchInboxmsg=153bO4aaba237941sim= 12b0Asaba2S7O4Tricia Keane «tricia. keane@lacity.org> g Re: February 22 meeting david kaplan To: Chis Spitz Ce: Tricia Keane , Bill Bruns . Sue Pascoe » Debbie DynerHans , “renee.stadel@lacity.org” <, Maryam Zar Jennifer Malaret "Richard G. Cohen" ‘Sharon Shapiro , Mike Bonin Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:57 PM ‘Why are you not saying what they did say which is that they were going to abstain which is not only different from recusing but is an active involvement in the process? tpe:tmal google comlmelIvO i= 2k 2007O3HS8 views plswoarchrInboxkmgr 158bO6FOa2oce58siml= 15202005Aeces Tricia Keane tricia keane@lacity.org> € City Attorney/DRB ‘Tricia Keane Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:17 PM To: David Peterson Co: Sharon Shapiro Hi Dave, ‘Thanks for asking about this. The City Attorney did send the following statement to Sue Pascoe and others regarding the. ‘matter, but hasn't put out anything further: “LAMC section 16.50 G contains a conflict of interest provision specifically applicable to design review board members, ‘Section 16.50 G provides: "No design review board member shail discuss with anyone the merits of any matter either pending oF likely to be pending before the board other than during a duly called meeting of the board or subcommittee of the board.” The prohibition against ex-perte contacts and receiving information about a project by attending a meeting cher than a duly noticed public Design Review Board meeting ensures that the decisions are fair and appear to be fait, ‘and avoids potential challenges regarding the decision. Participation by a design review board member at a meeting where the matter is discussed falls within the prohibition set {orth in section 16.50 G. Further, the prohibition in section 16.60 G applies to any discussion with anyone regarding the ‘merits of any matter that is before them, or will be before them at a later date. A member who violates section 16.50 G is disqualified from taking an action and, therefore, cannot be counted toward a quorum of the board, as defined in section 16.60 D8, Ia simple majority of the membership of the board is disqualified from participating in an action, then no qualified quorum exists. In that instance, pursuant to section 16.50 D 8, "if a design review board cannot obtain @ quorum for action within the stated time limits, the application shall be transferred forthwith to the Director for action with no recommendation from the design review board." ‘Tricia Keane Director of Land Use é Planning Councilmember Mike Bonin Gity of Los Angeles 243-473-7011 | www 1thdistrict com ) OG seo Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates Download the City of Los Angeles MyLA311 app for smartphones! MyLA31t Inks Angelenos with he services and information they need to enjoy their iy, beauty ther community and stay connected with their locel goverment. With MyLAS'1, Cy of Los Angeles information and services are [ust afew taps swey. nipeuimal. google com/mallsAY ue k= _200 7054838 viow=Bseercheinboxdimeg= 1630adbeMGeISGEBaimI=1530u0boAGEO "Gitte Tricia Keane Re: February 22 meeting Chris Spitz Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:13 PM To: Sue Pascoe . Co: Bill Bruns Mike Bonin , Tila Keane tila Keane @actyonp, ‘Sharon Shapiro , Debble Dynertiarrs , “renee.stadel@lacity.org” , Maryam Zar "Richard G. Cohen" Jennifer Malaret Sue, I've already stated that these persons did not state to me that they would be recusing themselves, yet you continue to make this false assertion and base your claims on this false premise. You are ‘clearly allowing your personal bias to color your "journalistic inquiry. In order to avoid further confusion on your part, | suggest that you research the difference between abstention and recusal. They are not the same thing. Under these circumstances there is no point in our continuing to communicate on this topic and | willnot respond to further inquiries from you on this subject. Regards, Chris Spitz President, Pacific Palisades Community Council wwwpacpalice.org www facebook.com/pacpalice From: Sue Pascoe Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 6:57 PM. ‘To: Chris Spitz Ce: Bill Bruns; Mike Bonin; Tricia Keane; Sharon Shapiro; Debbie DynerHarris; renee.stadel@lacity.org; Maryam Zar; Richard G. Cohen; Jennifer Maleret Subject: RE: February 22 meeting nipesimsil gogle.cmmeivui=28si a209703488viow= pltcaarch=inboxBmeg=1535120d tocods6Ossimi=153bt2NA codes 2tip:mai goog. com/meilwO/Aie28ik= a2057OSAbGEview=ptBsear chrinbaxBimeg=163b120dTccedaSD8simi=1SUbtZnatocedeDBMeces Tricia Keane Sem. Re: February 22 meeting Maryam Zar Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 10:21 PM Reply-To: Maryam Zar ‘To: Sue Pascoe » Chris Spitz ill Bruns , Mike Bonin , Tricia Keane , ‘Sharon Shapiro , Debbie Dynertiems , “renee stadel@lacity.org" , "Richard G. Cohen" Jennifer Mataret Hi Sue, Given the great respect that have for journalism, | want to chime in at this point in the conversation to point out a key fact and that is that ultimately no member of the DRB who is also a Board member at PPC, recused themselves. By ‘the time the Feb 25 meeting came to a close, the dual members had sat at the table without allowing their altemates to ‘take their place, and participated in conversation as the discussion on motions unfolded. The request to postpone the vote came after the first motion was proposed, and again each time a new motion was proposed. But discussion for the Purpose of a future vote was still conducted on each motion. As such, whether or not there was ultimately vote that ay was not elemental in the wrongfulness of their conduct vis a vis thelr dual role. Whether or not they uttered the word “recuse” is also not greatly at issue. In fact, they did not recuse themselves, as they sat present at the table and took part in conversation. That is not, in any context, the meaning or conduct of recusal, ‘As related to the cards and the process of the PPCC, its our common practice, and has been for years, that voting members st atthe table with their PPCC logo facing the Board. We all accept that as standard conduct and everyone, ‘even newer members of the Board, are unequivocally aware ofthe significance, Its also important to note that the PPCC was never given any authority to advise or direct the conduct of the DRB ‘members as related to their dual role on the PPCC. Their direction came from the City Attorney and was conveyed to ‘them, as I understand, through the office of our Councilman. As such, no one at the PPCC was ever in a position to tell the ‘dual members whether they could or could not be at our meetings. 1 hope this is helpful. ‘All my best, Maryam, From: Sue Pascoo To: Chris Spitz Ce: Bill Bruns Mike Bonin ; Tricia Keane ; Sharon Shapiro ; Debbie DynerHaris ; “renee.stadel@lacity.org" ; Maryam Zar Richard G. Cohen Jennifer Malaret ‘Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 7:47 AM ‘npsimai google. comma i= 2822057034038 vew= plsenrchinocxBmag= 15R84CSBa8StoBsmI=1SSREBAASESAES tC "@ Meacs Tricia Keane Up date Donna Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:50 PM To: tricia keane@lacity.org Hi Tricia — Greetings from the Pacific North West ! ‘Congratulations - everything went very smoothly for the Village Project last Thursday. | wanted to know if you have had a chance to review our situation. ‘And, | wanted to confirm what you said to me last Thursday as we walked to the planning hearing in Van Nuys - that there is actually no report and/or complaint that had been filed against me for an ex parte conversation? Did | understand that correctly? | will be home Friday, so available next week. Best Donna IMG_0128.UP6 138K ‘ntpsail google-cominal/AOrAi=28ik=a2087034b38viewptEscerchrinbaxnsg=1547edbban7<28SIEsim!=15A7ebbec7e28T 1"Gs ees Tricia Keane Complaint Report DONNA VACCARINO Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:53 PM To: Tricia Keane Co: DONNA VACCARINO Monday, May 10, 2016 Tricia Keane Dear Tricia - |[have not heard back from you regarding the alleged ex parte conversation of which I have been accused. Please forward the complaint report immediately or clarify what you meant on Thursday, April 28th when you stated that there was not really a complaint. If there is no complaint then the DRB should be fully reinstated. ‘Truly, this situation needs to be cleared. If not, you give me no recourse other than to seek legal action. | will nt have my personal and professional reputation damaged by this totally unacceptable and fallacious situation, Please respond by Wednesday, May 11th. Sincerely, Donna Donna Vaccarino, AIA \VACCARINO Associates 1660 19th Street Santa Monica CA 90404 itpuimail.googe com hms 28ik=a2087034638view=plsearch=inboxdmeg= 15405eece47ScE Bsim|=1540BocteA7Ec61 "¢ aces Tricia Keane Complaint Report Tricia Keane ‘Tus, May 10, 2016 at 8:19 PM To: Donna Vacearino HiDonna, I wanted to let you know | got this message and will get you an answer tomorrow. This message is being sent from a mobile device. Plaese excuse any tupos. hips mal google com/m allt Ai=2Bik= 2087034638 viow= plBsoarch-inboxmsgr 15464H09A7S5S8cSsim = 1540SHA0S47ISR8C "LA, oy GEES Complaint Report Tricia Keane ‘To: DONNA VACCARINO Dear Donna, Tricia Keane Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:33 AM ‘You asked for a copy of the "complaint report” that was filed against you for “the alleged ex parte conversation with Mike Bonin.” My apologies for the delay, but the dificuty in responding has been that there is not any "complaint report that was fled about that ex parte conversation. There wasnt a formal complaint report and there hasn't been any kind of ‘extra-judicial process about the conversation. Rather, the conversation was brought to my attention in an email. The ‘majority of the email did not mention you; there was one paragraph regarting the conversation, which | am including for you below: (On January 10, at the Palisades Farmers Market and in my presence, Donna Vaccarino openly discussed the Village Project with the Councilmember, telling Mike that he should not support the project and giving him her reasons why it should not be supported. In addition, I have reason to believe Ms. Vaccatino has opined about the project in other discussions with community members (outside of RB meetings). ‘As 1 explained in our meeting the other day, I discussed that conversation with Mike and with the City Attorney, whichis. how the City Attomey was made aware of the conversation, Kind regards, Tricia ‘Tricia Keane Director of Land Use & Planning Councilmember Mike Bonin Eityottos angecn FARarS Tot Pet List com tam oS Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates Download the City of Los Angeles MyLA311 app for smartphones! MyLAS11 Inks Angelenos wit the services and information they noed to enjoy thelr ly, beauty ther community and stay connected with their tocal government. With MyLA311, Cy of Los Angeles Information and services are Justa fow tape sway. itpesmail google comimallvai=24ik= 205703448 ven pldsearchInboxBmsge 1541662902 NésimI=1S4at1EE209e213 ¢ LAeees Tricia Keane Complaint Report DONNA VACCARINO Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:12 PM To: Tricia Keane ‘Co: DONNA VACCARINO- Tricla — First of all, this is bluntly untrue, | would never say something like, That was not the reason, the nature or caliber of conversation | had with Mike Bonin on the 10th of January, I demand to know who stated this and when it was sent, How could you accept such a derisory email statement and not bring this to my attention or to Barbara Kohnis for a ‘confirmation? ‘Why would this have been accepted as fact? tls my understanding that the email sent to you would be a public document as it was sent to the City and by law { can request the full emall with the date and name of the sender. Please forward the email immediately or | will request It via the Freedom of Information Act. ‘Thank you: Donna (On May 11, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Tricia Keane wrote: > Dear Donna, > You asked for a copy of the “complaint report” that was fled against you for “the alleged ex parte conversation with Mike Bonin.” My apologies for the delay, but the difficulty in responding hes been that there is not any “complaint report” that wes filed about that ex parte conversation. There wasnt a formal complaint report and there hasnit been any kind of extrajudicial process about the conversation. Rather, the conversation was brought to my attention in an email. ‘The majority of the email did not mention you; there was one paragraph regarding the conversation, which | am including for you below. > On January 10, at the Palisades Farmers Market and in my presence, Donna Vaccarino openly discussed the Village Project with the Councilmember, telling Mike that he should not support the project and giving him her reasons why it ‘should not be supported. In addition, | have reason to believe Ms. Vaccarino has opined about the project in other discussions with community members (outside of DRB meetings). > > As | explained in our meeting the other day, | discussed that conversation with Mike and with the City Attomey, which Is how the City Attomey wes made aware of the conversation, > Kind regards, > Tricia > Tricia Keane > Director of Land Use & Planning > Councilmember Mike Bonin > City of Los Angeles > 213-473-7011 | ww. Mtthdistrict.com > Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates ipsa google commit a2067024638 view=ptscarch=inboc&meg= 15ta3beSa7BTORsimi=1SAatSbe6A7B7019 12> Download the City of Los Angeles MyLA311 app for smartphones! penal google com/mailuVA=28ik 2007034638 viow= ptr chr inbox®imeg=15Aat SucGa7BTOBEsimi= 1548 oc CTS7OBQistas Tricia Keane Complaint Report DONNA VACCARINO Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:41 PM To: Tricia Keane ‘Cc: DONNA VACCARINO- Doar Tricia - | am still waiting for you to send me the complete email in which the statement appeared about my conversation with Mike Bonin on January 10th, | demand to know when the email was sent, by whom end in what context. ‘Considering that on April 26, 2016, the Archer School won a court order requiring the release of emails written by or to Clty officials, including Mike Bonin, it seems it would make sense to be forthcoming about the emails that are dealing ‘with accusations that have crippled the public review process. The release of the above email should also be accompanied by the release of any correspondence relating to the DRB ‘and members that attended the February 25, 2016 Pacific Palisades Community Council meeting. ‘One way or another, these emails need to be made public. Sincerely, Donna’ Donna Vaccarino, AIA \VACCARINO Associates. 1660 19th Street ‘Santa Monica CA 90404 ipstnai google. com/malli P= 28k a2007034b38 views pt&soarchrinboxBmeg= 1StosAbcadisdeitsimi=1Seetboettotee "Ti Beees Tricia Keane Complaint Report ‘Tricia Keane Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM ‘To: DONNA VACCARINO. Dear Donna, ‘You requested a copy of the entire emaif that included the paragraph I provided to you. As I indicated in my previous email, we have provided you with the potion of the email that relates to the subject of your inquiry. ‘The rest of the email is about other matters unrelated to you personally. As such, the remainder of the email is exempt from release under Government Code sections 6254(c) and 6255, which protects the Counciimember's deliberative process. As to these records, the Government Code permits nondisclosure because the public interest served by protecting the Counciimember's deliberative process clearly outweighs the public interest served by records disclosure. Similarly, the public interest in withholding the record is clearly served because release of such communications would have a chilling effect on residents’ willingness to bring issues of concern to the attention of their government representatives as well as, residents’ desire to complain or seek redress from their government. ‘Additionally, the advice that the City Attorney staff gave regarding the issue did not solely rely upon the email, but, Instead, as Renee indicated to you, she also spoke with others involved, including the Councimember. Further, as Mike indicated to you in person when we last met, he concurred with the characterization of the conversation that he had with you. Kind regards, Tricia Tricia Keane Director of Land Use & Planning Councilmember Mike Bonin Gly ofLes Angles 213-473-7011 | www. thdistrict.com oG Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates Downtoad the City of Los Angeles MyLA311 app for smortphones! [MyLASI1 Inks Angelenos with the services and information they need fo eny ther cy, beautfy ther commurily and stay connected with tho local government Wih MyLA311, Cy of Los Angeles information and services are just afew taps away. tniptimal google.com neil” 28ik=22007034 view=ptRserchinbaxBimeg= 15517 AESERBaMeDEsimI= 15517 AIIEOMK ng MBeses Tricia Keane Complaint Report DONNA VACCARINO- Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:46 AM To: Tricia Keane Cec: DONNA VACCARINO Dear Tricia In response to your Email of June 3rd: | believe that any email in which | am a subject that affects me personally and professionally in a negative way, and that was emoneously used to disqualify the DRB — | have a right to see in its entirety. ‘That the Councilmember's deliberative process is protected and that somehow this serves the public interest is highly Questionable. That the release of such communications would have chilling effect on residents willing to discuss issues ‘of concem with the Councilman is dubious, My discussion with Mike Bonin, at a public event, on January 10th was about the pubic process and how that process ‘should be open and transparent and what that means to a community with a major pending development. The "Merits" of the project, what-ever they may be, were never discussed. Please forward the email in its entirety, the date it was sent and by whom. Sincerely, Donna Vaccarino, AIA > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Tricia Keane > Date: June 3, 2016 at 10:28:49 AM PDT : DONNA VACCARINO- > Subject: Re: Complaint Report > Dear Donna, > You requested a copy of the entire email that included the paragraph | provided to you. As | indicated in my previous ‘emall, we have provided you with the potion of the email that relates to the subject of your inquiry. The rest of the email is about other matters unrelated to you personally. As such, the remainder of the email is exempt from release under ‘Govemment Code sections 6264(c) end 6256, which protects the Councilmember's deliberative process. As to these records, the Government Code permits nondisclosure because the public interest served by protecting the Councilmember's deliberative process clearly outweighs the public interest served by records disclosure. Similarly, the public interest in withholding the record is clearly served because release of such communications would have a chilling effect on residents’ wilingness to bring issues of concem to the attention of their govemment representatives as well as residents’ desire to complain or seek redress from their goverment. > Aditionally, the advice that the City Attomey staff gave regarding the issue did not solely rely upon the email, but, instead, as Renee indicated to you, she also spoke with others involved, including the Councilmember. Further, as Mike indicated to you in person when we last met, he concurred with the characterization of the conversation that he had with you. > > Kind regards, > Tricia > > tpi google cornell 28ik= 2087004588 view=pt&soarcheInboxBmege SSEZ286EceGblaksiml=155622868ee3Na atips simat goagie.com/maiv0"2u=28ik= 208TOBHESE iw ptBsearchn inbox mage 1S5522858cezb sim=1856022858c0301—‘Ee g Bees Tricia Keane Complaint Report Tricia Keane Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:34 PM To: Donna Vaccarino Donna, “The office stands by the prior response. The Councilmember reiterated again that the merits of the project were discussed in his conversation with you, and he again confirmed that the characterization of that conversation was accurate. Kind regards, Tricia ‘Tricia Keane Director of Land Use & Planning ‘Councilmember Mike Bonin City of Los Angeles SAS A7S-7OHT fered dist com M ‘Sign Up for Mike's Email Updates Downtoad the City of Los Angeles MyLA311 app for smartphones! IMyLASI1 Inks Angelonos win the services and formation they nood to enjoy their cy, Beauty ther community and stay connected with thelr local government. With MyLAS11, City of Los Angels information and services ere just» fow tape ewe. nips:simal google.com/malvhé= 28k 22007OS4BE viow=ptRecarchinbox meg 1SSESSAC2EBITESimI= 1SSBOE24SECET "paths to LAX since at least October 2015; WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for flight approaches and departures relating to LAX; WHEREAS, the FAA is in the process of implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), with the goal of transforming the country’s air traffic control system from a ground-based system to a satellite-based system in order to increase efficiency, safety, and predictability to flights throughout the United States; WHEREAS, on October 8, 2015, the FAA concluded a public comment period relating to its implementation of NextGen technology for LAX and other Southern California airports; WHEREAS, representatives of the FAA have not explained the reason for the observed changes to flight approaches into LAX over Mar Vista but have denied that they are associated with NextGen implementation; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the MVCC requests and supports efforts by the Los Angeles City Council to request information from the FAA regarding the reason for the observed changes to flight approaches into LAX over Mar Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the MVCC supports flight approaches into LAX over the neighborhoods noted above that would offer a reduction of noise impacts. MINUTES FOR JANUARY 28th, 2016 Voting Members in Attendance: Chris Spitz, Maryam Zar, Jennifer Malaret, Richard Cohen, Barbara Kohn, Sarah Conner, Kelly Comras, Greg Sinaiko, Rick Mills, Sue Kohl, Stuart Muller, Cathy Russell, Reza Akef, Bruce Schwartz, Barbara Marinacei, Gilbert hitpupecplice.ogndex ppl ee-represetalives/previeus-meeting mints!Dembo, Richard Wulliger, Janet Anderson, Todd Wadler, Rick Lemmo, Nancy Niles and Cathy Russell. Voting Alternates: Diane Bleak and Quentin Fleming. Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: Alan Goldsmith, Michael Soneff, Donna Vacearino, David Kaplan, Carol Bruch, Laura Mack, Ted Mackie and Kevin Niles. Start of Business Meeting 1 Reading of Community Council’s Mission: Maryam Zar read the Mission Statement. 2. Call to Order and Introduction of the Board and Audience. Chris Spitz called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Introduction of the Board and audience. 3. Certification of Quorum. Chris certified that a quorum was present at 7:04 pm. 4. Adoption of Minutes/Upcoming Meetings. Chris deemed the January 14, 2016 minutes approved as corrected. Upcoming meetings: 2/11/16. Further presentation / discussion re Village Starbucks Proposed CUB (onsite beer and wine sales). 2/25/16. (Tentative) VPLUC update / report supplement / Board discussion re Village Project land use application (see VPLUC Preliminary Report, http://www.pp90272.0rg/VPLUC.pdf, and PPCC minutes of 1/14/16; expected public release of MND / traffic study: mid-February). ** Topics noticed in advance may change. 5. Consideration of Agenda. The President considered the agenda. iptpacpatceergindex pholares-represeniatve/previus-meetng-minutes! 285enaauepie (hkl 6 Tier ERS ~ ems rem 6, Treasurer's Report. Richard Cohen reported the financial status as of January 28, 2016. The total account balances equal $39,067. Richard stated that the only significant transaction was the payment of D&O general liability insurance. 7. Reports, Announcements and Concerns 7.1. Announcements from the President, Chris Spitz 7.1.1 Meeting Ground Rules. 1) Due to library rules, the meeting must end promptly at 9 pm; as needed, the President will stay after the meeting to answer questions. 2) The President conducts meeting order and may rearrange order of discussion at her discretion. 3) Board members and audience shall only speak when called upon by the President; there shall be no interruptions except to make a point of order. 4) The President's role in maintaining meeting order shall be honored. 5) All discussion shall be civil, respectful and courteous. (PPCC Bylaws hittp://www.pp90272.0rg/BylawsJanuary2016.pdf). 7.1.2 PPCC Communications Committee. Chris announced the committee is made up of: Maryam Zar (Chair), Michael Soneff, George Wolfberg, Brian Deming, Janet Anderson and Chris Spitz (ex officio), members. The committee’s focus is the launch and maintenance of new PPCC website (in progress); potential e- newsletter; and ongoing messaging/outreach. 7.1.3 Short Term Rentals (STRs) Update. Chris stated that PPCC was waiting for distribution and transmittal by the City Planning Dept. of draft ordinance to legalize STRs which are currently illegal in residential zones (draft expected by mid-February). PPCC position: opposed to permitting STRs in residential zones (see PPCC minutes of 9/24/15, 10/8/15, 10/22/15, 11/12/15 and ippecplic pind hplrea-represenaives/previous-meoving minites!attached letters). 7.1.4 BMO/BHO Amendment Update. See letter attached to PPCC minutes of 1/14/16. 7.1.5 Sunset Blvd. Traffic Solutions Community Charrette / Workshop, sponsored by Councilmember Mike Bonin. February 6, 2016, 8:30am — 1:30pm. This will be an interactive discussion with experts on ideas to address Sunset traffic problems. To RSVP go to: http://www.11thdistrict.com/sunset_traffic_community_worksho p. 7.1.6 Update on aircraft noise / support for MVCC motion. See attached letter below and PPCC minutes of 1/14/16. 7.7 Update on Proposed Village Starbucks CUB. Hearing date 1/26/16. Chris reported that as expected (as of agenda distribution) per requests of the applicant and PPCC the file will be kept open for comment by PPCC after further presentation to the board on 2/11/16. Chris reported that she had conducted a survey of three area stores which have the Evenings Program and would be submitting a report to the board. 7.2. Announcements from Governmental Representatives Representatives (Note: Contact information at: hittp://www.pp90272.org/Governmental%2oReps.pdf) 7.2.1 Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) — SLO Officer Moore. Not in attendance. 7.2.2 Los Angeles City Council, District 11; Councilmember Mike Bonin’s Office. Sharon Shapiro, Field Deputy. Sharon reported itpupacpetcergindex phnleree-represertalves/previous-meesng-mirses/setiiis HONE MARE ~F ENO relaaiis CARRY teas that: (1) CD-11 was appreciative of PPCC’s input on the FAA noise issue. Councilmember Bonin is pursuing additional information. (2) The Active 11 event was successful and Councilmember Bonin thanked residents for turning out. (3) Sunset Traffic — event will be on February 6, 2016 from 9 am to noon and it will focus on traffic from Kenter to the 405, see also 7.1.6 on this agenda. (4) CD11 Newsletter — will be released tomorrow and Councilmember Bonin hopes people will seek out messages on important topics such as a recent motion for a report from LAPD to report back on deployment measures. (5) Homeless Task Force Count — CD11 thanked Maryam Zar, OPCC and all other people involved in the ‘homeless count and other affiliated efforts. Questions: (1) at the C- PAB meeting it was stated that a pull of resources to Metro was not affecting the Palisades. Sharon stated that the Councilmembers are asking the same questions for this specific division and citywide; there is conversation about specialized units (ala probation compliance) and she suggested that we monitor reaction to the Councilmember’s motion. Maryam Zar referenced additional resources for the homeless count. 7.2.3 Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Daniel Tamm, Westside Area Representative, Mayor's Interfaith Liaison. Not in attendance. 7.2.4 California State Assembly, Office of Assemblymember Richard Bloom. Stephanie Cohen, Field Representative. Not in attendance. 7.2.5 California State Senate, Office of State Senator Ben Allen. Lila Kalaf, District Representative. Not in attendance. 7.2.6 United States Congress, Office of Congressman Ted Lieu. Janet Turner, District Representative. Not in attendance. hipupacptie.orgindex phplares-represertaves/previcus-meetng-minutes!ee ARRAESGS Perms eengengn = rtnine riasames Lieneeny Laue 7.3. Announcements from Board Members and Advisors 7.3.1 Officers/Area Representatives. 1) Maryam Zar, Vice- President. PPTFH update (1/28/16 Homeless Count and recent OPCC outreach). Maryam stated that there was a count this morning and while the numbers are not finalized it does not appear that there has been a notable increase. The LA Times was in attendance and reporting. (2) Richard Cohen — reported that at the recent CPAB meeting the City Attorney said that LAMC 63.44 has been changed (the law that makes it a violation to camp or loiter in a park or beach subject to that code, i.e, Will Rogers State Beach). The LA City Council changed that law to make the first infraction a ticket violation and not a misdemeanor. This complicates enforcement; the discussion that ensued was to hold the City Council responsible for complicating enforcement. It is unclear when this law was changed by the Council and what is the effective date of the new terms. (3) Richard Cohen reported that the Pacific Palisades Charter Library will be waiving over-due fees through February 13, 2016. (4) Sue Kohl (Area 5) — reported that LAPD had done foot patrol in the Alphabet Streets and the effort was received very positively by residents. (5) Reza Akef (Area 8) — tomorrow there is a meeting regarding the Northern Trust Open (traffic control, reduction of neighborhood impacts, ete.) at CD-11 with Area 7 and Area 8 representatives. 7.3.2 Organizational Representatives — (1) Rick Lemmo (Chamber of Commerce) — the newest Honorary Mayor is Kevin Nealon (former SNL cast member). (2) Gi] Dembo (TCA) — reported that two more lots will be auctioned off to facilitate the completion by the City of Potrero Canyon Park. 8. Reports from Committees titppacpatic.orindex phplrea-represeraivesiprevious-meeling minutes!8.1 Bylaws Committee (Richard Cohen and Jennifer Malaret, Co- Chairs). Richard Cohen reported on joint meeting of the Bylaws and Executive Committees, January 22, 2016. Topic: drafting of proposed bylaws amendments relative to elected Area and At-large representatives, election procedures and a minor adjustment to Area 3 and Area 4 boundaries (Bylaws Art. VIIL1.B and D; Appendix B and Attachment A). In consideration of the upcoming (July-September 2016) election process for Area and At-large representatives, and in consideration of the advice of both the Bylaws and Executive Committees, the Chair directed the Bylaws Committee to discuss and draft amendment language to: 1 Voting: With the goal of getting as many total votes as possible, the bylaws should enable the PPCC to conduct voting by any one or more of the following methods: U.S. mail, in-person at the Farmer’s Market (or other comparable public venue), and on- line (if available). 2. Area Representative Candidate Application: Any person desiring to be a candidate for election or re-election shall sign a Candidate Qualification Form that will, at minimum, include: (A) certification of address of that person’s “principal” residence as defined by the Los Angeles County Assessor, i.e., “(1) where you are registered to vote; (2) the home address on your automobile registration, and (3) where you normally return after work. If after considering these criteria you are still uncertain, choose the place at which you have spent the major portion of your time this year.”; (B) certification of the date on which the dwelling began to be occupied as the candidate’s principal residence; and (C) notice to the candidate of the obligation, if elected, to immediately inform PPCC of a change in principal residence. itppacpalce.orgindx phparee-epresentatives/previcus-meaing-minies!wreeenie AMAL SE CROCE MIOCAGS — FONG Feuaee WENUINially Winsnle 3 At-large Candidate Application: A Candidate Qualification Form similar to that detailed in #2 above shall be required and include a comparable certifications relative to principal residence, ownership of real property or operation of a business in Pacific Palisades. 4. Area Representative Boundaries: to clarify descriptions and with the agreement of the current Area 3 and Area 4 representatives, the Area Representative Boundaries shall be modified such that both sides of Las Casas are included in Area 3 and any property with a Grenola street address shall be included in Area 4, 5. Area and At-large Representatives: should an Area Representative no longer maintain his or her principal residence within Area Representative Boundary for which he or she is serving then the seat shall be deemed vacant. Comparable language to be drafted relative to an At-large Representative, 6. General Amendments: Newsletter and posting requirements shall be updated and modernized to reflect current practices, along with other amendments to Bylaws Art. VIIL1.B and D; Appendix B and Attachment A that the Bylaws Committee may recommend. Discussion: (1) the Grenola residents see the entire loop as a unit and perhaps all the streets should stay together. Richard explained that Baylor really goes with Area 3 because it is impacted by Marquez but the end streets share things in common more with Las Pulgas Canyon. 9. Old Business. Iniplpacpalcseryndex phparen-rpr osetatvesiprevious-mecing minutes! 2sg.1 Above Ground Facilities (AGF) Ordinance. Chris Spitz reported the following: 1) Background: A revised draft ordinance regulating cell towers and other structures in the public right of way (PROW) ‘was transmitted by the City Attorney on 12/8/15 to City Council committees (hearing TBD). https: //cityclerk lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm? fa=cefi.viewrecord&cfnumber=09-2645. Revisions include: removal of the existing exemption for utility-pole mounted antennas (in certain circumstances); expansion of notice for cell towers in the PROW; and (limited) enhancement of aesthetic criteria. Chris stated that interested persons should contact President Chris Spitz for a more detailed summary (info@pacpalicc.org). Chris showed several visuals of types of poles — and explained the information contained in the attachments below. See attachments below. 2) MOTION by the Executive Committee: That PPCC support the AGF Ordinance revised as of December 8, 2015, but with a request that “Community Councils” be included among the organizations entitled to receive notice under LAMC Sections 62.08.VII.D.1(e) and 2(e). Discussion: None. Action: The Motion passed unanimously. ‘New Business. 10.1 LADWP presentation re proposed temporary (pole-mounted) facilities to increase power capacity due to overloaded circuits in the Palisades; at a minimum, it is expected that the installations may affect and/or be located in PPCC Areas 3 (Marquez) and 5 (Village/Alphabet Streets) potentially near existing LADWP properties, although also possible in other locations (note: the proposed DS-104/substation location will NOT be a topic of discussion). Presentation: Jack Waizenegger, Assistant Director, ‘ntpsipacpalice oefindex pplarca-opreseniaves/previous-mestrg-minutes!Power Systems Engineering Division, LADWP. Jack_waizenegger@ladwp.com. Bill Herriott, Manager of Distribution and Maintenance for Water & Power. “Three Troubled DWP Circuits in Pacific Palisades.” We all want safe, sustainable, affordable, quality and reliable power. In the Palisades the load has been growing for many years (new homes, businesses, home expansion, additional electronics). Delayed construction of a new distributing station. LADWP feels a new station is really needed to improve power quality and reliability. ‘The Palisades is operating on 9 or 10 circuits from 3 “feeders”. Three existing troubled circuits/” feeders” are: (a) outage prone and (b) overloaded. A map of two circuits was shown of neighborhoods west of Temescal Canyon Road (DS-29) and Area 1. The third severely overloaded circuit is just adjacent and covers additional areas south of Temescal Canyon Road but also includes the Via Bluffs. Duration of outages ran far beyond the rest of the City of LA with outages beyond 13 hours. In the City of LA, a total outage is expected once every 14-15 months. The Palisades has had 3 within 12 months by comparison. Our outages are on average 3 to 4 times greater then other areas of the City. Jack reviewed the Overload Statistics from 2009-2015, which ranged from 85% to 138% usage. Temporary measures before the summer of 2016 are needed in order to avoid disconnecting service (reference homeowner letter previously sent by LADWP). Solutions: (1) continue various miscellaneous repairs and replacements per 10/21/2015 letter sent to residents, (2) short term solution is to split the three circuits with two pole top distribution stations to form five circuits and (3) long term solution is to build a new distributing station. To create three circuits there need to be new locations for pole top sites: (1) Marquez Site, new DS-198, in the public right of way near the existing vault underneath Marquez Ave. and within the existing pole line. (2) New PTDS 195 south ntppacpalceo index pplarca-eprecertavesprevis-meding-inites/erase Mimdes of Previous Mecings — Paci Maksades Community Gounod from the corner of El Medio and Sunset Blvd. Benefits: relieve the overloaded circuits, improve power quality and reliability, and limitations compared to a new distribution station. Cons: The pole tops are fused, no backup supply, no backup transformer, no regulation, OH exposure, and minimal remote monitoring and control. A distributing station would not have the limitations listed previously. So having a distributing station is safer, there is no ‘overhead exposure or exposure to cars and pole tops have minimal monitoring and control which require remote response. Visual: a sample DS-194 on Foothill Blvd. between Jeff Avenue and Brainerd Avenue is what the Palisades installations will look like. Design and Construction: LADWP standards are C633-16 last designed in 2012. The design complies with ADA, GO-95, Cal- OSHA, Title 8 and LADWP rules regarding service and safety. LADWP has the right to install these per CA Streets and Highway Code Sections 5100-5105. The installations comply with Power Distribution Division Construction Standards, Transformer Pad Location Requirements for Ambient Sounds Levels in Residential Zones, C721-018; and City of LA Noise Ordinances. The installations comply with EMF, the Prudent Avoidance Policy (ow or no cost avoiding/placing). Currently there are 34 existing citywide PTDSs. Schedule: construction will begin in March with 4 weeks needed per each PTDS. In-service before summer. The installations will stay in service until a new permanent DS is built. There is a CEPA NOP (Notice of Prep) to come sometime this year for a permanent DS. More PTDSs will be needed; perhaps within a year. It is likely a third pole top will be built somewhere in the community by winter 2016 but that site has not been determined. Discussion: Chris stated that before discussion she would like to highlight the notice contained in the meeting agenda for this topic: the proposed DS-104/substation location will NOT be a topic of discussion. Arguments about any particular permanent substation bitppacpalicecrgndex phparea-rpresertatvesiprevius-mecing- minutos!WEN ‘ddenaies 8 ronan lemme = vesne remennes Lecnrramiy Uae location are not appropriate tonight and should be reserved for another time and place. Any speaker who comments on a specific location for the DS 104 substation will be out of order. However, just to be clear, general questions about DWP’s process as it relates to the substation and these pole-mounted facilities would be fair and consistent with the agenda. Board Discussion: (1) can the installations be put underground? No. Undergrounding would cost too much, take longer to build and would be more disruptive because of the need to construct large vaults into and under the streets. (2) how can we get the community to support LADWP providing power to the entire Pacific Palisades? The CEQA process will be starting and it is helpful for PPCC and residents to be an active part of that process. Alternative technologies (solar, energy efficiencies, batteries, more efficient appliances, don’t waste energy, etc.) that consumers can utilize help but are not a substitute for these pole tops or a new substation. (3) can we miniaturize these stations like other devices that have gotten. smaller? Main conductors and transformers do not change, i.e. a certain size copper or aluminum can only carry so much based on their natural properties. If you need to haul a big wagon you need a big truck. (4) if the pole top installations are not built what would the consequences be? The number of outages will increase and they will take longer to restore. (5) once the permanent station is built will these be removed? Yes. (6) what is the longest running pole top facility? They can last a few decades. (7) to avoid disrupting traffic where Fl Medio hits Sunset by the high school, can construction work be scheduled to avoid heavy traffic times before and after school, or is there another location for this tower? The PTDS needs to be located at this intersection. The alternate locations are across Sunset in front of either the Lutheran or Presbyterian church where the unit would be much more visible and along a Scenic Highway. The construction equipment is very pstpacplic agin. hplareaepreseritves/pevious-meoingmirsos! iesWEEN noisy so it is not used in the evening in residential areas. Crews have a nine hour shift and usually work 8:30 am to 2:30 pm. The work will be completed by WLA distribution crews and won't be contracted out. LADWP works with school and the rapid transit department when work goes on in front of bus stops. Chris Spitz asked that PPCC get notice and enjoy a cooperative working relationship as does the Brentwood Community Council. (8) have there been issues with the 34 installations, like blowing up or being any more dangerous than a regular pole? Any installation is vulnerable to the public. There is no data for failure of pole top installations that Bill is aware of. (9) why can’t the pole go on the rear of the land that the LADWP owns so it is out of sight and out of mind? If it is on private property a CUP would be needed and the process would take too long and that site is too contentious to do anything other than a by right installation. (10) noting reliability, redundancy and fuse blowing comments will residents closer to the new pole tops getting better power? There are many factors involved and it is possible there will be regulating problems so it is not really an answerable question. The location of the pole tops really cannot be changed. (11) would the Sunset and El Medio pole top transformer benefit the High School in any way and can it be coordinated with school hours and vacation schedules? The pole tops are not to supply power for the schools because the schools have their own transformers on site and the pole tops do not increase capacity. (12) DS29 (existing) is a supply station, there is no pole top installation going there. (13) could the two pole tops be built simultaneously? No, one will be finished and then the second built to avoid circuit interruption. (14) do these changes take into account Caruso’s Village Project? No this project deals with the existing overload that has been in place for years. Bill says likely the Village Project will be fed off of a different system and the pole top DS network should not be affected. Audience Discussion: Wtpdipcpabc.cfincex prpleree-represertaves/previcus-meaing minutes!(a) there is a cost on the community in terms of aesthetics. The vast majority of outages were not caused by overuse. The idea is to reduce the amount of areas affected by the outages. No, the actual system equipment is overloaded in addition to losses being caused by palm fronds and drivers who hit poles. Heat is the biggest cause of trouble, Every time a transformer is refused because it is too hot that takes life out of transformers and the same is true for underground cables. Repairs can only be made so many times before replacements have to be made. (2) neighborhoods have been plunged into the dark. There are new condominium units that are being built. Residents support a permanent distribution station being built. (3) a resident living across from the Marquez pole top DS site expressed concern about aesthetics and height of the pole top installation. Bill thought the tallest pole would be 55 or 60 feet and the racks sit 25-0 feet off the ground. (4) will it be a stand alone pole top or will there be attached power lines? How far will the power lines reach? Does dragging additional power lines to existing poles create a hazard? If something happens at either pole top installation how long would it take for the issue to be addressed? Additional lines have no affect on reliability other then to improve it. The pole top installations will tap into existing poles and underground vaults. They must be Jocated close to other already established supply lines. (5) what is the estimated cost for the pole top projects? Each installation is roughly $200,000. (6) have you considered the aesthetics of these pole top installations and are these the best looking they can be? LADWP does consider aesthetics and tries to minimize their footprint size-wise and surrounding visual environment. The poles are subject to wind loading calculations and LADWP’s poles have to be worked on in conjunction with all other Joint Pole Authority participants (cell companies, etc.). ntpuipacpatice orgie phpleree-represertaivesprevious-mesing minutes!eae Minntes of Mrevous Mesbngs = Paci raussaoe Oiniiiiiauly wastes: 11. General Public Comment. None. 12, Adjournment. Chris Spitz adjourned the meeting at 9:01PM. ITEM 7.1.7 — PPCC LETTER RE AIRCRAFT NOISE/SUPPORT FOR MVCC MOTION January 15, 2016 Honorable Mike Bonin, Los Angeles City Councilmember (CD 11) Honorable Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Los Angeles City Council President and Councilmember (CD 10) All other Los Angeles City Councilmembers (Hon. Blumenfield, Buscaino, Cedillo, Englander, Fuentes, Harris-Dawson, Huizar, Koretz, Krekorian, Martinez, Price, O'Farrell and Ryu) Via email to all Councilmembers Hon. Councilmembers Bonin and Wesson and all other members of the Los Angeles City Council: Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) has been the voice of the community for more than forty years. The recent increase in noise from low-flying commercial aircraft has resulted in complaints from residents in Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica Canyon as well as in West Los Angeles, Mar Vista, Santa Monica and adjacent areas. Last night our board was briefed by the FAA on the proposed Metroplex program with additional attention nip pacpalce.argindex phplrea-representstives/provious-meding- mines!given to the current complaints. The PPCC board takes notice of our residents’ concerns regarding the increased noise from commercial flight operations over our community. We have reviewed the attached motion unanimously passed by the Mar Vista Community Council on January 12, 2016. We note that the airplanes flying over Mar Vista appear to be the same craft that have flown over our community, The MVCC motion supports {light operations into LAX over neighborhoods, specifically including Pacific Palisades, that offer a reduction of noise impacts. After the FAA briefing, the PPCC board unanimously approved a motion to concur with and support the MVCC motion. In the brief time it has taken to prepare this document around 6:00 AM, four aircraft have flown low over my house. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christina Spitz, President Pacific Palisades Community Council Encl. (MVCC Motion) cc (via email): Honorable Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator for California Honorable Diane Feinstein, U.S. Senator for California Honorable Ted Lieu, U.S. Congressman (33rd District California) tetpupacpalcc cryin prpfrea-rapresertatvesprevius-meeting minutos!Tae ‘hhonaties of HV eWOUs MoUarigs — rece Fan seraRs eH AH Honorable Karen Bass, U.S. Congresswoman (37th District California) Honorable Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles Honorable Tony Vazquez, Mayor, City of Santa Monica Kathryn Pantoja, Environmental Affairs Officer (Noise Management), LAWA Omar Pulido, LAX Community Liaison, CD11 MVCC Motion passed unanimously — January 12. 2016 WHEREAS, the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) is an official neighborhood organization of the City of Los Angeles; WHEREAS, beginning no later than October 2015, residents of Mar Vista have observed and experienced significant overhead. changes to arrival patterns of commercial passenger airplanes into Los Angeles International Airport (LAX); WHEREAS these airplanes fly over Mar Vista every 1-2 minutes, beginning before dawn and continuing through the day into the evening, at altitudes lower than they did prior to October 2015, emitting noise at higher levels than they did prior to October 2015; WHEREAS, residents of the Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Culver City, and other parts of the City of Los Angeles have reported similar observations regarding changes to approach paths to LAX since at least October 2015; WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is itp pacpatcc orgindex phpfres-representaivesprevious-mooting-minites!responsible for flight approaches and departures relating to LAX; WHEREAS, the FAA is in the process of implementing the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), with the goal of transforming the country’s air traffic control system from a ground-based system to a satellite-based system in order to increase efficiency, safety, and predictability to flights throughout the United States; WHEREAS, on October 8, 2015, the FAA concluded a public comment period relating to its implementation of NextGen technology for LAX and other Southern California airports; WHEREAS, representatives of the FAA have not explained the reason for the observed changes to flight approaches into LAX over Mar Vista but have denied that they are associated with NextGen implementation; BEIT RESOLVED THAT the MVCC requests and supports efforts by the Los Angeles City Council to request information from the FAA regarding the reason for the observed changes to flight approaches into LAX over Mar Vista. BEIT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the MVC supports flight approaches into LAX over the neighborhoods noted above that would offer a reduction of noise impacts. ITEM 9.1 ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES (AGF) ORDINANCE Talking Points re Revised AGF Ordinance (CF 09-2645; City Attorney Draft Dated December 8, 2015) iipupecpalce orgie. ptplaren reprecentative/ovious-mectng-minues! 7185A. Background 1. In September 2012, acting on a 2009 motion by former Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, the City Council directed the City Attorney to revise the current Above Ground Facilities (AGF) Ordinance (LAMC §62.00, et seq. — regulating cell towers and other structures, known as “AGFs,” located in the public right-of- way). Specifically, the Council called for elimination of the existing exemption for utility pole-mounted cell towers, expansion of notification requirements, enhancement of aesthetic criteria and proof of gap-in-coverage (Council File 09-2645). PPCC and many other community organizations (including all members of WRAC) strongly supported these directed revisions. 2. Following the Council’s directive and later directives from the Public Works and Gang Reduction (PWGR) and PLUM Committees (to eliminate the proof of gap-in-coverage requirement and to retain an exemption for utility pole-mounted “Small Cell” installations; see Secs. B.1 and C.1, below), the City Attorney submitted multiple drafts of a revised AGF Ordinance (in 2013, 2014 and most recently on December 8, 2015). 3. The December 8, 2015 draft (“2015 Draft”; http://clkrep lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-2645_misc_12-08- 2015.pdf) reflects input from City agencies such as LADWP, Planning, Cultural Affairs and the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) and includes further revisions by the City Attorney in light of recent changes in federal and state law. The PWGR and PLUM Committees are expected to consider the 2015 Draft in a possible joint session in early 2016. B. Key Provisions of the 2015 Draft hitpdpacpalie.cr gine phplree-represertaves/previous-mesting minis!TENG ‘Mirutes of Previous Mesungs — Pactic Paisaces Community Counct! 1. The exemption for utility pole-mounted antennas is eliminated in certain circumstances: Antennas larger than “Small Cell” (see below) are not exempt (i.e., the exemption is eliminated) in all areas other than commercial (C) and manufacturing (M) zones, and in C and M zones in two circumstances: (1) if the pole is located in a defined “below grade” area (e.g., Specific Plan, Historic Preservation, Scenic Highway) or (2) if the adjoining lot “has residential use.” The utility poles themselves (apart from antennas) and all Small Cell antennas are also exempt, wherever located. (See Small Cell definition discussed in Sec. C.1, below; other exemptions are listed in Sec. C.5, below.) 2. Notice is expanded for cell towers in the public right-of-way (including freestanding “monopole” cell towers and non-exempt utility pole-mounted large antennas, i.e., those where the exemption is eliminated, as noted above): The AGF applicant must mail notice of the application to any owners and residents of lots. within a 250 ft. radius from the proposed AGF location; and to Neighborhood Councils (but not Community Councils), the City Council office and homeowners’ and/or residents’ associations within the boundaries of the proposed AGF location. Note: the AGF applicant must provide proof of mailing (via postal service receipts, mailing service certification or “certification from the Applicant”); the existing registered mail requirement is eliminated (also eliminated in prior draft iterations); and more limited (existing) notice requirements remain for smaller, non-cell tower AGF (e.g., cabinets). 3. Aesthetic criteria are enhanced, to a degree: Specifically, most AGFs (including freestanding “monopole” cell towers) located in residential and below grade areas are subject to a new “Least Intrusive Means Test” (“the least amount of physical or aesthetic plpacptic or gndex phperes-representaves/previaus-mectng- minutes!T2eO18 (Minutes of Previcuss Meatings ~ Pacific Palisades Commurty Gouncs intrusion into the Public Right-of-Way, taking into account the physical characteristics of the AGF, including but not limited to, size, shape, height, volume, color, noise, camouflaging and screening”) — except that non-exempt utility pole-mounted large antennas are subject to a different (new) discretionary requirement: the AGF applicant may be required to paint the antennas to match the pole in order to “conceal or minimize visual impact.” Note: utility-pole mounted antennas are also subject to state law, e.g., Public Utilities Code requirements regarding pole attachments. C. Other Provisions of Note 1. A“Small Cell” (exempt under the 2015 Draft and per the PWGR and PLUM Committees’ directive) is defined as an antenna or “group of antennas” mounted on a utility pole with a “total cumulative volume” of not more than 3.0 cubic feet, excluding cable and conduit. Additionally, a Small Cell must extend no more than 6 inches from the pole unless additional “stand-off” is required to comply with applicable health or safety regulations; and may not be installed more than 6 feet above the highest transmission lines on a utility pole. Note: a prior 2014 draft specified a total volume of “less than 2.0 cubic feet” for a single antenna, i.e., not “cumulative” volume for a “group of antennas.” 2, Non-exempt utility pole-mounted large antennas are not subject to prior Cultural Affairs Commission design approval (required for all other AGFs), nor to height limits (since the poles themselves are exempt) — but are subject to other applicable provisions. 3. _ Pre-determination field investigations of AGF locations will now be at the discretion of BOE. Note: Existing provisions (also in ppacpaliccorgindoxprplares representstvesiprevious-mesing-minues!prior draft iterations) for some mandatory field investigations (in certain specified instances) have been eliminated. 4. Certification that the facility will comply with applicable FCC requirements (also directed by the City Council in 2012) remains a requirement in the 2015 Draft (as in prior iterations). 5. Persons or organizations that received initial notice of the AGF application (other than Neighborhood Councils and the Council. office) may appeal the BOE’s determination. Any appeal must be “received by” BOE within 14 calendar days from the date of notification of the determination (notification to be given by the AGF applicant within 3 calendar days to all those who received initial notice of the application). Note: the existing language (also in prior draft iterations; now eliminated) is for appeals to be “submitted to” as opposed to “received by” BOE within 14 calendar days. 6. Inaddition to Small Cells, exempt facilities include (among other specified structures): street light poles, fire hydrants, traffic and pedestrian control fixtures, utility poles (other than non- exempt antennas mounted on the poles), utility pole-mounted antennas in C and M zones (except as described in Sec. B.1 above), electrical power meters associated with Small Cell or exempt utility pole-mounted facilities (new), and “vent stacks” related to underground vaults. 7. The 2015 Draft contains numerous revisions with varying degrees of significance. Those interested should review the Council File and the 2015 Draft (link in Sec. A.3, above) and should not rely solely on these Talking Points for information. Christina Spitz, President ppacplice eric pylreo-epresertstvesipevius-mecng mints! 5mmans ‘fuinusies of Previous Meeungs - Panic Pensates Gomrnanly Gouri Pacific Palisades Community Council ppfriends3@hotmail.com January 8, 2016 ‘The Skinny — How Are Cell Towers Treated Under the 2015 Draft AGF Ordinance?[1] Freestanding (“Monopole”) Cell Towers[2] Notice: Applicant must mail notice of the AGF application to: owners and residents of lots within a 250 ft. radius of the tower location, the Neighborhood Council and Council office where the tower is located, and relevant HOAs and/or residents’ associations. Applicable Standards: Subject to height limits and “Least Intrusive Means Test” (if located in a residential or defined “below grade” area, e.g., Specific Plan, Historic Preservation, Scenic Highway); “hardship waiver” required (if located in a below grade area); other aesthetic, public safety and permit processing requirements apply. Appeals: Any person or organization that received initial notice of the application (except for Neighborhood Councils and the Council office) may appeal. Process:[3] Applicant must (within 3 calendar days of BOE’s determination) notify those same persons and organizations of the determination; appeals must be “received by” BOE within 14 calendar days from date of notification, i.e., actual time to initiate an appeal may be shorter than 14 days. Utility Pole-Mounted Cell Towers[4] Exempt Facilities, i.e., those not subject to ordinance requirements: Utility poles themselves (apart from antennas) and other specified structures in all areas; “Small Cell” antennas in all ipstpacpalce ogindex phplaroa-representalives/previous-mesing minus! 4285TONS (Minutes of Previous Meeungs ~ Pacific Pansades Community Council areas;[5] antennas attached to poles in commercial (C) and manufacturing (M) zones, except in two circumstances (see below). Non-Exempt Facilities, ie., those subject to ordinance requirements: Large antennas (not Small Cells) in all areas other than C and M zones, and in C and M zones if: (1) the pole is located ina below grade area, or (2) the adjoining lot “has residential use.” Notice and Appeals: If non-exempt antennas: Same processes apply as set forth above. Applicable Standards: If non-exempt antennas: Not subject to height limits or Least Intrusive Means Test; hardship waiver required (if located in a below grade area); subject to new discretionary aesthetic requirement[6] and other applicable provisions. Christina Spitz, President Pacific Palisades Community Council ppfriends3@hotmail.com January 8, 2016 [1] Don’t forget — the Above Ground Facilities (AGF) Ordinance only deals with cell towers and other structures located in the “public right-of-way’ (sidewalks, parkways, medians, alleys, streets). Cell towers located on private property (buildings, yards, parking lots, etc.) are governed by different Municipal Code regulations; additional permitting requirements also apply to towers located in the Coastal zone (including in the public right-of- way). [2] These types of towers consist of antennas set on poles (usually metal) that are not used to support (i.e., not attached to) any power, cable, telephone or telecommunication lines or wires. tppacpalce orgies phpferes-reprecentaives/provious moving mines!Examples: two on Sunset Blvd. just east of Capri in the Palisades Riviera and several along Palisades Dr. in the Palisades Highlands. [3] AGF applications are initially processed by the Bureau of Engineering (BOE); staff determines administratively whether to approve the application (without a hearing). BOE’s determination becomes final if no timely appeal is made; any appeals are decided by the Board of Public Works (with a hearing), “subject to the City Council’s right of review under Charter Section 245,” [4] In contrast with “monopoles,” these types of towers consist of antennas set on utility poles (usually wood) that are used to support (i.e., are attached to) power, cable, telephone or telecommunication lines or wires. Examples: several along Sunset Blvd. in Brentwood and the Palisades and one at Via de la Paz & DePauw in the Palisades. {5] “Small Cell” basic definition: a utility pole-mounted antenna or group of antennas with a total cumulative volume of not more than 3.0 cubic feet, excluding cable and conduit. [6] Applicant may be required to paint antennas to match the pole in order to “conceal or minimize visual impact;” antennas are also subject to state law, e.g,, Public Utilities Code requirements regarding pole attachments. MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 11th, 2016 Voting Members in Attendance: Chris Spitz, Maryam Zar, Jennifer Malaret, Richard Cohen, Barbara Kohn, Reza Akef, Bruce Schwartz, Rick Mills, Greg Sinaiko, Susan Payne, Peter Culhane, Janet Anderson, Sara Conner, Cathy Russell, Nancy Niles, Richard Wulliger, Stuart Muller, George Wolfberg, Gilbert Dembo and Barbara Marinacci. htpslpacplic or gndex phparea-ropresetaives/previeus-mectng-minstes!wanes ANRAEE S ONEA COREY — Femina PUI wt Voting Alternates: Diane Bleak, Robin Meyers, Doug McCormick, and Todd Wadler. Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: David Kaplan, Diane Blake, Carol Bruch, Linda Lefkowitz and Ted Mackie. Start of Business Meeting 1, Reading of Community Council’s Mission: Richard Cohen read the Mission Statement. 2. Call to Order and Introduction of the Board and Audience. Chris Spitz called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. Introduction of the Board and audience. 3. Certification of Quorum. Chris certified that a quorum was present at 7:06 pm. 4. Adoption of Minutes/Upcoming Meetings. Chris deemed the minutes of January 28, 2016 approved as corrected. Upcoming meetings: 2/25/16. (Tentative) VPLUC update / report supplement / Board discussion re Village Project land use application (see VPLUC Preliminary Report, http://www.pp90272.0rg/VPLUC.pdf, and PPCC minutes of 1/14/16; expected public release of MND / traffic study: mid- February). 3/10/16. (Tentative) WRAC-sponsored motions regarding (1) CUB/alcohol conditions, (2) the VA Master Plan and related Sen. Feinstein Bill, (3) Zoning Code enforcement. ** Topics noticed in advance may change. 5. Consideration of Agenda. The President considered the agenda. 6. Treasurer’s Report. Richard Cohen reported the financial ‘Mtpdpacpateecrgindex profree-reprosetavesprevis-medingminutes!T2aON6 ‘Minunes of Prewcus teeungs —Pecifc Palisades Commurtty Council status as of February 11, 2016. The total account balances equal $38,712.74. Richard stated that this past week PPC filed its federal, state and California Registry or Charitable Trusts annual returns and filings. 7. Reports, Announcements and Concerns 7.1.1 Meeting Ground Rules. 1) Due to library rules, the meeting must end promptly at 9 pm; as needed, the President will stay after the meeting to answer questions. 2) The President conducts meeting order and may rearrange order of discussion at her discretion. 3) Board members and audience shall only speak when called upon by the President; there shall be no interruptions except to make a point of order. 4) The President's role in maintaining meeting order shall be honored. 5) Alll discussion shall be civil, respectful and courteous. (PPCC Bylaws http://www.pp90272.0rg/BylawsJanuary2016.pdf). 7.1.2 Short Term Rentals (STRs) Update. Chris stated that PPCC is awaiting distribution and transmittal by the City Planning Dept. of draft ordinance to legalize STRs currently illegal in residential zones (draft now expected in late February). PPCC position: opposed to permitting STRs in residential zones. See PPCC minutes of 9/24/15, 10/8/15, 10/22/15, 11/12/15 and attached letters. 7.1.3 BMO/BHO Amendment Update. See PPCC minutes of 1/14/16 and attached letter. 7.1.4 Revised Draft AGF Ordinance Update. See attached letter (see also PPCC minutes of 1/28/16 and attached Talking Points ipulpscpaieecrgindox phnlaree-epresertalivas/previus-mecing-minites!and “the Skinny” documents). 7.1.5 LADWP - Pole-Top Distributing Stations Update. See LADWP Power Point posted at: http://www.pp90272.0rg/index.html. Chris announced that the DWP power point is on the council's website. Chris read the PPCC announcement below for the record. See attached below. 7.1.6 Launch of new PPCC website (www.pacpalicc.org). Chris stated that for a preview of the work in progress as of agenda distribution, go to: https://ppccwebsite.wordpress.com. Thanks to Michael Soneff for helping with this effort expected to launch within the next week or two. Special thanks to Ted Mackie, creator of PPCC’s original website and webmaster for over 14 years. 7.1.7 (Tentative) cancellation of March 24 Board meeting due to library staff unavailability. Chris explained that without staff there is a special $240 charge and the Executive Committee is not aware of any special matter that requires a meeting on that date. If any board member or member of the public objects, please let Chris know after the meeting or immediately otherwise. Representatives jote: Contact information at: http://www.pp90272.0rg/Governmental%20Reps.pdf) 7.2.1 Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) — SLO Officer Moore. SLO Moore reported that: (1) Crime is down 52% overall in the Palisades compared to last year at this time. (2) Homelessness and Enforcement. Not all enforcement results in an arrest and removal to jail, in fact 90% of enforcement against a homeless person is a citation that is signed. If they go to court it is taken care of or it turns into a warrant which after time the officers plpacpaics erginoxplres epreoertsivelrovous-mosing mines! 4785TeaO16 ‘Wwurunes oF Previous Mieetngs —Pacitic Palisades Comrnurniy Gouneit can take them to jail for not going to court. Questions: (1) Have neighborhood watch groups had an effect? Absoultely. (2) Car registrations. Criminals will take the registrations and then sell a car that they sold. Owners should make a copy of their registration card, block out the address and then the paper is useless to would be thieves. (3) RV Parking on Sunset and Palisades Drive, is that legal? Yes, it is being allowed unless there are posting against vehicle length and hours. Signs are needed for enforcement. 7.2.2 Los Angeles City Council, District 11; Councilmember Mike Bonin’s Office. Sharon Shapiro, Field Deputy. Not in attendance. 7.2.3 Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Daniel Tamm, Westside Area Representative, Mayor's Interfaith Liaison. Not in attendance. 7.2.4 California State Assembly, Office of Assemblymember Richard Bloom. Stephanie Cohen, Field Representative. Not in attendance. 7.2.5 California State Senate, Office of State Senator Ben Allen. Lila Kalaf, District Representative. Lila reported that (1) The legislature in in session in Sacramento and new laws are being introduced every day. The deadline for new legislation is February 19, 2016. Sen. Allen’s three priorities are homelessness (the No Place Like Home Initiative which funds permanent housing in cities using Proposition 63 funds instead of a new source; $200 million for transitional housing until permanent housing can be built), the environment (Porter Ranch; SD888 to deal with the climate change impact of the methane leak) and education (Ta-Da (theater and dance act) to allow for credentials to be offered in theater and tppecpalice or gndex prpfares-oprosetatives/previous-meeting-mines!‘Tear |Mintes or Previous Mesings — Peciic Paitsaoes Community Counc! dance for teachers in this specialty; measures to address teacher shortages; packages to address recruitment, training, credentials, and loan forgiveness). Also El Nino brochures are available along with cards to encourage outreach to Senator Allen’s office. Questions: (1) What is the status of curtailing photo enforcement by the MRCA? Senator Allen has been in Franklin and Temescal Canyon with the MRCA and other Senators. There has been a traffic study to make recommendations as to where the stop signs are located. Could PPCC get a traffic of the traffic study? Yes, MRCA did a traffic study that Senator Allen’s office will provide us with. (2) When funds are passed for homeless what is the intent? ‘That has not been determined yet but details on distribution could be provided. (3) Prop 63 money is only being allocated at $2 million, where is the rest of the money going? What about the City of LA homeless money that is being budgeted? Where is it all going? Prop. 6 is generally for mental health services. Is there a website or somewhere to go to see where Prop. 63 money is going? ‘Yes, Senator Allen’s office will forward that to PPCC. (4) Would the Senator be amenable to taking a look at penalties for hit and run drivers, particularly those who run over bicycle riders? Yes. (5) Please stress that this community is fed up with MRCA with regard to the stop signs. 7.2.6 United States Congress, Office of Congressman Ted Lieu. Janet Turner, District Representative. Janet reported that: (1) ‘Thank you for the effort to turn out for input on the final draft of the VA Masterplan including 1,200 permanent beds (490 to be completed in 30 months and 739 bridge beds), the Purple Line and the VA Secretary promised for a parking structure available for the Purple Line. There is going to be a community veteran engagement board with Ann Brown (the new director of the WLA VA) who would like to present to PPCC as to how this board will work. The ippecplic.ocgndex phparee-represerttives/previous-meetng-misos!TONG (Minunes of Previcus Mectings — Pactic Paiisaces Gommurly Counc VA did a traffic study and then the VA re-worked the Master Plan to address challenges revealed from that. There will be a second traffic study to see if measures are effective. UCLA’s agreement has ‘been completed and is a benefit. Brentwood School and Brentwood. Village (has formed a 5013 to help train veterans). Soccer will continue as long as the land is not needed. The status of the dog park is not known. The legislation is needed to go through to provide permanent housing for veterans. 7.3.1 Officers/Area Representatives. (1) Chris announced that the next PPTFH community meeting will be on 2/18/16, 3-5pm, Palisades library. Topics: Count Recap; LAFD, LAPD updates; keynote by Inner City Law Center Exec. Director Adam Murray (LAT Op Ed: http://www. latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1231- murray- myths-about-la-homelessness-20160101-story.html). (2) Reza Akef (Area 8) reported that the Northern Trust has broken their promises to CD11 and residents regarding mitigation to the community. Deliveries are taking place at 4 am and there are other violations of their Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”). Reza asked CD- 11 to investigate and hold the Riviera County Club accountable to their CUP. Chris stated that PPCC could ask for a letter to advise of the parameters of the CUP and to encourage the Country Club and the sponsors of events to comply. Chris asked Reza to submit a draft letter. 7.3.2 Organizational Representatives — Report on Behalf of Organizations. (1) Bruce Schwartz, PRIDE. Proposed streetscape safety enhancements (not parklet) at intersection of La Cruz and ‘Alma Real. Bruce reported that PRIDE is in the exploratory stages ipfpacplice or grex phparee-representstives/previous-meeing mines!arte (Minutes of Previous Meetings ~ Pacric Parisages Communrty Councit of seeking support for this project and more information will be reported within the next several meetings. 8. Reports from Committees 8.1 Bylaws Committee (Richard Cohen and Jennifer Malaret, Co- Chairs). Update on drafting of proposed bylaws amendments relative to elected Area and At-large representatives, election procedures and a minor adjustment to Area 3 and Area 4 poundaries (Bylaws Art. VIII1.B and D; Appendix B and Attachment A). Richard summarized the report at the last meeting and reported that follow up communications had been made with residents as to adjustments to the Area 3 and Area 4 boundaries. There is affinity to the canyon which is Area 4 so the committee agrees that if that is what the residents want then they should have that. The committee feels that Baylor which extends off of Sunset is more aligned with Area 3 and the compromise has been discussed with all. 8.2 VPLUC (David Kaplan, Chair). Update on status of Village Project land use application/MND/traffic study. David reported that since the last DRB meeting the developer has submitted a revised set of plans. The committee is reviewing those plans and will complete a revised report to include whatever those plans have adjusted though there are not many areas of the prior report that the plans impact. The traffic study is expected on 2/18/2016. Patti Post, PPCC’s traffic expert, will be involved and reviewing that study. The committee hopes to submit a revised report and a possible recommendation to the board at PPCC’s 2/25/2016 meeting. 9. Old Business. itplpacpalce.o-gindox phnlaren-reprosertatves/previous-meeing-mintes! 51859.1 Further presentation / discussion re Village Starbucks Proposed CUB (onsite beer and wine sales). Presenting: Spencer Regnery, Glassman Associates. (City file held open until Feb. 16 for potential input by PPCC.) Chris introduced the topic and summarized the results of her personal survey of Starbuck’s stores with evening programs in Torrance, Calabasas and Beverly Hills. [INSERT]. Presentation: Spencer referred to the correspondence and response from Starbucks in answer to the discussion from the last meeting and follow up correspondence. Photos from displays were exhibited. The atmosphere does not change between stores that offer the Evening Program and those who do not. The stores have large community tables that can be reserved. No draft beer is served and wine bottles are kept behind the counter for refills. Starbucks has table service where alcohol orders are taken at the counter and then brought to the table so people are not wandering around. Beer and wine sales are low at participating Starbucks throughout California and the real effort is to expand the food offerings and to give an option to people not wanting to drink coffee at 6 PM at night. Starbucks want to elevate the experience and encourage people to sit and enjoy the offerings and service rather than focusing on “to go” service and products. Questions: (1) Have the request for hours been adjusted? 12 PM to close have been asked for with the idea of flexibility. Just because those are the requested hours doesn’t mean that this is when Starbucks will be selling. This allows the flexibility for the store manager to make the determination what is best. Sales are 1 percent of sales which on average are 1,200 units so that translates into only 12 alcoholic beverages per day and PPCC’s survey showed less than that (3-4) being sold. It is not just about the alcohol it is about the food. (2) Concerns for the location in the Palisades as contrasted to Beverly Hills is that it has more than one entrance and exit and there is a line of sight from the baristas to the areas serving alcohol. The tnippacpalcergindexphplrea-represertaivesprovious-meeing-mines!T2206 (Minutes of Previous Meetings — Pacific Palisades Community Council Palisades has schools around and homeless persons as well. Hours should be restricted from 4 pm to closing and no alcohol should be served on the patios. Holidays can result in more kids being in the store as do weekends such as after the Farmer's Market. (3) Other stores have a dedicated staff member to monitor alcohol service. (4) at Santa Monica Civic Canyon Association’s meeting there was much opposition to the program. There are so many Starbucks all around the City, why here in Pacific Palisades? Torrance similarly is located by schools and fears were the same yet the program has been a success and the atmosphere has not changed. (5) Kay N Daves serves beer and wine from morning to the evening and there are no problems. Merchants have a responsibility to their Conditional Use Permits and they have an incentive to be responsible. The State has a responsible minor program to go into restaurants to make sure that sales are not being made to underage persons. A valid ID must be slid through the register before an alcohol purchase is made. (6) Gelson’s has promotions and tastings, this is nothing to be concerned with. (7) the Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously to support the Evening Program. Starbucks is a professional and responsible organization and the Chamber feels that this program will be implemented responsibility. (8) Tivoli across the hedge and other restaurants serve wine and beer at noon. The regulation by Starbucks is what is important. (9) Serving alcohol prevents Starbucks from hiring high school students and the jobs for kids are disappearing. (10) The homeless get free coffee at Starbucks. They should not get free wine or beer. (11) It is a philosophical discussion. There used to be one ABC license in town. That is changing and now there are more and the grocery stores and doing tastings. What is the future vision for the Palisades relative to ABC licenses? This council should have a philosophical discussion about that at some time. (12) ABC is an additional enforcement arm not just an allowing or enabling itppacpalce-o gine hy/erearepresentativesprevius-meting minutes!Mune oF PrenuS MeeiTgs — MacinG Hakwades Community Counc entity. Having another regulatory in place is a good thing. Once the CUP process has been approved then the ABC license is applied for. There is no hearing but it is a process. (13) There is concern with having alcohol sales at the existing Shell Station because of kids coming there to buy alcohol. Kids already come to this Starbucks and this community has a funnel of schools and as a result a large priority of unsupervised kids. (14) There was opposition to the program in Calabasas three years ago and now it is fine, the atmosphere is the same and nothing has changed. (15) A mom with young kids is concerned about the availability of alcohol at Starbucks and wondered what is the tipping point? How many places do we need to get beer and wine? (16) How can there be a fantastic food program when there is no kitchen at Starbucks? Wanting a license for 1% in sales does not make sense, Starbucks must want the program for something else. The evening program is being sought to elevate the food program which is projected to boost the sales of the store several hundred thousand dollars per year at each location; this is a business decision where the beer and wine is not the focus of the program (though as a sensitive use the beer and wine is the focus of this discussion). (17) How many applications is too many noting that there is no one thing about this application that stands out as negative? (18) This is not a complete restaurant, it is a hang out for kids sometimes at night and the patios are dark. The baristas do not control the patios. This location is being targeted because it is so successful economically. Action: Reza Akef moved to support the application provided that two modifications are made: (1) alcohol to be served only from the hours of 4 pm to closing, 7 days a week and (2) alcohol can only be served indoors and not on exterior patio locations. The motion was seconded by Rick Mills. Discussion: Gil Dembo opposed the motion limiting service to indoors. Diane Bleak suggested tabling the motion to have more discussion. Motion to table is out of order iiptipacpalccorgindax phleres-epresertatves/previous-meetng mines!‘TeaneON6 [Minusios of Previous Meatings — Pacific Palisades Community Council since this is not an urgent matter. Motion to postpone the matter was made by Diane Bleak. Richard Wulliger seconded the motion to postpone. Richard Cohen objected to the motion to postpone because it removes the voice of the board and Starbucks has been here twice — why wouldn't the board express its opinion vis-a-vis a vote? Vote: the motion to postpone failed with one vote in support. Discussion on Original Motion: Starbucks does not oppose the hours but would oppose limiting service to the indoors only. Friendly amendment offered to amend the motion to call fora 5 PM start time. Vote: Friendly amendment failed with only one vote. Vote on the Main Motion: 10 in favor, 9 votes opposed. The motion fails. Motion: Gil Dembo made a motion to limit the hours to 4 PM. Greg Sinaiko second the motion. Vote: 14 votes in favor. 5 votes opposed. 19 votes total, the motion passed. 10. New Business — None. 11. General Public Comment 11.1 Re: the DWP substation issue a new distribution station should be built. Temporary pole top facilities should not be implemented that affect residents and certain issues deserve further exploration. (1) for safe, sustainable and affordable power the location at El Medio has a history of fire (car brush fire). (2) Palisades Charter High school is a busy parking lot. The 4'® of July fireworks spark land on the sidewalk and this is a severe fire risk. (g) Was the safety of the proposed El Medio location shared with DWP when they presented? (4) How long is temporary? Are we guaranteed when they will be moved or removed when the permanent station is built?? (5) Any permits obtained? How many steps before ground has been broken? Has funding been set aside? Where will the station be built? Temporary often becomes ippacpaliceorgndex phparee-epreseritves/provious-moding mine!eee ‘SARRAN Ue ORE MAES ~ (REE MERE etn Cnt permanent. (6) There are already distribution poles on Sunset so the idea that Sunset being a scenic highway is limiting in some way is not really valid. (7) There is visual blight associated with these pole top transformers. 11.2 Thanks to the PPCC for providing the forum last week and encouraging CD11 to come back to the community. 12. Adjournment. Chris Spitz adjourned the meeting at 9:00 PM. ITEM 7.1.4 — PPCC LETTER RE REVISED DRAFT AGF ORDINANCE February 1, 2016 Hon. Mike Bonin, Councilmember, 11" pistriet Hon. Joe Buscaino, Chair, Public Works & Gang Reduction (PWGR) Committee Hon. Jose Huizar, Chair, Planning & Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee Hon. PWGR and PLUM Committee members: Martinez, Price, O'Farrell, Ryu, Harris-Dawson, Englander, Cedillo, Fuentes 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Via email Re: CF-09-2645 — SUPPORT (with requested addition): Revised Draft Above Ground Facilities (AGF) Ordinance Honorable Councilmembers: Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) has been the voice of |niptipacpatce orgies. prpleree-represenaivesiprevious-meding minutes!TRANG (Minutes of Previous Meetings — Pacite Palisades Communty Counc the community for more than forty years. At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 28, 2016, the PPCC Board unanimously passed the following motion relative to the above- referenced Council File: “That PPCC support the AGF Ordinance revised as of December 8, 2015, but with a request that “Community Councils” be included among the organizations entitled to receive notice under LAMC. Sections 62.08.VII.D.1(e) and 2(e).” Since 2010, PPCC has called for and strongly supports necessary revision of the AGF Ordinance. We urge the Council PWGR and PLUM Committees to take this matter up at the earliest opportunity and to approve the draft AGF Ordinance revised by the City Attorney as of December 8, 2015, with the addition of “Community Councils” among the organizations entitled to receive notice under LAMC Sections 62.08.VII.D.1(e) and 2(e). Thank you. Sincerely, Christina Spitz, President Pacific Palisades Community Council cc (via email): ‘Ted Jordan, Deputy City Attorney John White, Legislative Assistant, PWGR Committee Sharon Dickinson, Legislative Assistant, PLUM Committee w/ request for filing in CF 09-2645 ITEM 7.1.5 = LADWP POLE-TOP DISTRIBUTION STATIONS UPDATE From: iipdpacpalcergindex phplare-reprosertavesprevios-mesting minutes!Tez (Minutes ot Previous Meeungs ~ Pace Pairsades Community Gounct Sent: 2/11/2016 Subject: Proposed Pole Top DS in Pacific Palisades Yesterday, numerous messages were posted on Nextdoor and sent via email, containing inaccurate information about proposed temporary pole-top DS installations (PTDS) and PPCC’s process to date. This will set the record straight. PPCC is an all-volunteer community organization with its principal function to serve as a forum for the discussion of community issues. PPCC is not an arm of the City and does not participate with the City or any of its agencies, including LADWP, in decision- making. PPCC had no involvement whatsoever with the LADWP decision to locate PTDS anywhere in the Palisades. LADWP asked PPCC for time to make a presentation at one of PPCC’s board meetings about the need to install temporary facilities to improve coverage and avoid continued power outages. PPCC provided advance notice to the community of the January 28 LADWP presentation, including in email blasts, in our meeting agendas, on our website, in social media and in newspaper postings. PPCC had no advance knowledge about the scope or design of these installations or where they would be located. PPCC and the community learned for the first time, at the public PPCC board meeting on January 28, exactly what was being proposed and where the PTDS would be located (in the sidewalk area along Marquez Ave. across from the vacant lot and along the east side of El Medio just south of Sunset). This was a surprise to all, including the representatives of the two areas affected. ‘ntppacpalceergindx phoereo-reprecertaiveslroviou- acing: mines!meant (Aicndes of Provies Mestings ~ Fenee Pakeades Communty Gounod LADWP gave a Power Point presentation which can be viewed here: http://www.pp90272.org/DWPpowerpoint.pdf. (LADWP provided the Power Point for public dissemination the day after their presentation; for security reasons the maps showing the actual labyrinthine electrical circuits serving the Palisades were removed.) PPCC board members and residents in attendance on. January 28 grilled LADWP representatives for over an hour about the reasons for the PTDS and why they had to be installed in the locations mentioned. PPCC will post extensive meeting minutes in the next few days on the PPCC website, pacpalicc.org, which will provide more information about the discussion. Those interested should check the website in the coming days in order to view the minutes. Briefly, we were told that the PTDS are required because of the many power outages which are increasing in frequency due to overloading of the existing circuits and “feeders”; that heavy electrical loads are expected this summer; that a solution is needed to provide a more reliable power source before the summer; that the PTDS are temporary and will be removed once construction of a permanent substation is completed (length of time currently unknown); that the installations cannot be undergrounded because this would cost much more, would take much longer to build, and would be more disruptive because of the need to construct large vaults into and under the streets; and that the PTDS locations are critical because they need to be close to other, already established supply lines. As to the Marquez location, we asked whether the facility could be placed further back on property owned by LADWP (more away from the line of sight) and we were told that this would involve a different process under the current Zoning Code and would take tp pacpalic gino shaven opr eceriativelpreveus-meating inate!TENG ‘Minutes of Previous Meetings — Paotic Patsades Community Comat much longer and require additional permits. As to the El Medio location, we were told that the only other alternative would be on Sunset near the El Medio corner, but this was rejected by LADWP. due to the sidewalk width and the fact that the locations would be in front of the two churches on a scenic highway. There is no required public input or discretion as to where LADWP. places utility poles; such poles are exempt from above-ground permitting under the relevant City regulations. LADWP was not required to come to the community to present any information about the PTDS, but did so as a courtesy. LADWP made it clear that by state law, they are required to provide facilities necessary to provide adequate, reliable electrical power. Public rights of way, including streets and sidewalks, are not just for pedestrians and vehicles but also for utility use. LADWP advised that the locations were chosen because they met a number of criteria, including placement within the community's existing electrical system, various safety criteria, and where adequate pedestrian access could occur around the installations. Following the January 28 meeting, consistent with their responsibilities area representatives, including Rick Mills of Area 4 (E] Medio), sent email and Nextdoor postings with information about the LADWP presentation, including a link to the Power Point presentation. PPCC also did so. In addition, PPCC’s president Chris Spitz has requested that LADWP return and hold a community meeting to address concerns specifically from E] Medio and Marquez residents; it is our understanding that Councilmember Mike Bonin has also asked LADWP to hold a community meeting. If that occurs PPCC will provide notice via email, social media, website postings and newspaper announcements. |ntpspacpalcergindex proleree-represertatvesprevious-medting minutes!Tee ‘Minutes of Prewous Meetngs — Parte Palisades Commurnty Gouncit In the meantime, residents should address concerns directly to LADWP, at jack.waizenegger@ladwp.com and/or william herriott@ladwp.com. You may also contact our L.A. City Councilmember Mike Bonin and his District Director, Debbie Dyner Harris, at mike.bonin@lacity.org and debbie.dyner.harris@lacity.org. While no one is happy about these temporary installations, at the same time we all want safe, reliable electrical service in our community. Christina Spitz President, Pacific Palisades Community Council www.pacpalicc.org / www.facebook.com/pacpalice MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25th, 2016 Voting Members in Attendance: Chris Spitz, Maryam Zar, Jennifer Malaret, Richard Cohen, Barbara Kohn, Reza Akef, Peter Culhane, Rick Mills, Sue Kohl, Barbara Marinacci, Kelly Comras, Richard Wulliger, Stuart Muller, Sarah Conner, Janet Anderson, George Wolfberg, Peter Culhane, Gilbert Dembo, Greg Sinaiko, Todd Wadler, Cathy Russell, Bruce Schwartz, and Sue Kohl. “Voting Alternates: Elizabeth Shavelson and Susan Payne. Non-voting Advisors and Alternates: Diane Bleak, Donna Vaccarino, Linda Lefkowitz, Patti Post, David Kaplan, David Peterson, and Schuyler Dietz. epulpscpaiceorpindexptpleree-represenistives/previcus-mecing minutos! etsT2206 (Minutes of Previous meetings — Pacitc Palisades Commurry Counct Start of Business Meeting 1. Reading of Community Council’s Mission: Maryam Zar read the Mission Statement. 2. Call to Order and Introduction of the Board and Audience. Chris Spitz called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Introduction of the Board. Jennifer Malaret read the meeting ground rules (Bylaws, Appendix C, Standing Rule 8). 3. Certification of Quorum. Chris certified that a quorum was present at 7:07 pm. 4. Adoption of Minutes/Upcoming Meetings. Chris deemed the minutes of February 11, 2016 approved as corrected. Upcoming meetings: 3/10/16: (Tentative) WRAC-sponsored motions regarding (1) CUB/aleohol conditions; (2) VA Master Plan and related legislation, S. 2013 (Feinstein), H.R. 3484. (Liew); (3) Zoning Code enforcement. 3/24/16: No meeting. 4/14/16: Topics to be determined. Topies noticed in advance may change. 5. Consideration of Agenda. The President considered the agenda. 6. Treasurer’s Report. Richard Cohen reported the financial status as of February 25, 2016. ‘The account balance is $38,658.74 with no significant transactions since the last report. 7. Reports, Announcements and Concerns cemel i it nppacpalcexgindexphpleres-represeisives/provious-mooing minus!‘Minutes ot Previous Meeings ~Pactic Patisades Communsty Counc + Chris announced that the March 24, 2016 Board meeting has been CANCELLED due to library staff unavailability. Launch of new PPCC website — pacpalicc.org. Chris directed the board and members and the public to the new website. LADWP Pole-Top Distributing Stations (PTDS) Community Meeting. Chris announced that a date for the proposed LADWP. community meeting has not been confirmed; per CD11 the meeting will not take place on 3/1/16; the new date will likely be 3/14/16 at Marquez elementary. Construction of the El Medio and Marquez PTDSs will not begin before the meeting occurs. » Short Term Rentals (STRs) Update. Draft ordinance expected in late February. Village Starbucks CUB Update. See attached letter. Palisades Alliance for Seniors Community Meeting 3/1/16, 4- 5:30pm, Gilbert Hall, Pali High. Topic: Getting Around: ‘Transportation Options for Palisades Seniors. http://www.palisadesalliance.org. Representatives (vo lote: Contact information at: http://www.pp90272.0rg/Governmental%2oReps.pdf) 7.2.1 Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) — SLO Officer Moore. Not in attendance. 7.2.2 Los Angeles City Council, District 11; Councilmember Mike Bonin’s Office. Sharon Shapiro, Field Deputy. Sharon Shapiro in attendance; no report. 7.2.3 Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Daniel Tamm, Htpdipapatc.argfnden pplarce-ropresontaives/provious-moaing minus!T2ONG ‘Minutes of Previous Meetings — Pacific Peisades Community Council Westside Area Representative, Mayor’s Interfaith Liaison. Not in attendance. 7.2.4 California State Assembly, Office of Assemblymember Richard Bloom. Stephanie Cohen, Field Representative. Not in attendance. 7.2.5 California State Senate, Office of State Senator Ben Allen. Lila Kalaf, District Representative. Not in attendance. 7.2.6 United States Congress, Office of Congressman Ted Lieu. Janet Turner, District Representative. Janet Turner in attendance. Janet reported that today the House Veteran’s Committee approved moving forward with the Los Angeles Homeless Veteran’s Leasing Act (needed to enact the draft Master Plan for the Los Angeles VA). The bill received bi-partisan report. The bill still needs to move through Congress and the House. Letters in support are appreciated. Chris stated that this matter may be taken up by PPCC at is March 10, 2016 meeting. 7-3. Announcements from Board Members and Advisors — None/Deferred. 8. Reports From Committees 8.1 Bylaws Committee (Richard Cohen and Jennifer Malaret, Co- Chairs). First distribution of proposed bylaws amendments relative to elected Area and At-large representatives, election procedures and minor adjustment to Area 3 and Area 4 boundaries (Bylaws Art. VIIL1.B and D; Appendix B and Attachment A); see minutes of 1/28/16 and 2/11/16 for summaries. The Committee recommends nippscple.orgndex pteree-representsives/previus-meeting- mines!HeaieNe (Minutes of Previous Mesirgs ~ Pauic Peksades Community Goumod that the Board approve the proposed amendments as distributed. Richard Cohen stated that this first distribution of the proposed bylaws amendments was made and includes those topical amendments previously reported (i.e., Area 3 and 4 adjustments as agreed by the residents and elected representatives, modernization of election provisions and general clean-up). Richard encouraged board members and the public to read the materials distributed and to contact either Co-Chair with comments, questions and input. 8.2 VPLUC (David Kaplan, Chair). VPLUC supplemental report / recommendations re Village Project/Caruso Affiliated land use application and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Attending: representatives of Caruso Affiliated. Introduction: Chris Spitz stated that she would like to say a few words about PPCC’s process regarding this matter to date. PPCC held well-attended public meetings focusing on the land use application for the project in October and November 2015. Anyone who wished to ask a question or make a comment at our past meetings did so, and public comment on the matter was closed at the end of the November meeting. Chris recalled that Rick Caruso attended both meetings, gave information about the project and answered questions. Chris welcomed Mr. Caruso back tonight and also introduced Michael Gazzano and Rick Caruso. Chris stated that PPCC is now returning to the Village Project for the purpose of discussing the VPLUC’s supplemental report and recommendations. Since there are three new motions on the agenda, Chris stated that she would allow additional limited public comment related to the motions as time permits. Chris said that pursuant to the agenda, PPCC will begin with a report by committee chair David Kaplan, then introductions of each motion would be made in order followed by remarks by Mr. Caruso, a representative of Councilmember Bonin’s office, board |nipuipapaice a gindax pplaresroprocertalvee/reviou-mactinginutos!‘irises ot Frevious Weeunga —Pacitc Paisades Community Counc! discussion and public comment. Chris reminded everyone that PPCC must end its meeting by 9 p.m. or shortly thereafter; with three motions to consider and discuss the Chair will have to set strict time limits on all comments. Chris also reported that she had asked all audience members who wished to speak to please fill out a speaker card and pass it up to the Vice President. Cards were available on the counter as well as on the podium. Chris asked that board members and the audience keep in mind that there is an upcoming deadline of March 9, 2016 for comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the first City hearing on the land use entitlements application is March 24, 2016 with the DRB meeting on design aspects on March 2, 2016. Chris also reminded everyone of informational materials available on the counter, which anyone was welcome to take. Chris invited David Kaplan to give the VPLUC’s supplemental report. MOTION #1 David Kaplan read the VPLUC supplemental report. See attached below. David Kaplan then read Motion #1, “Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) recognizes that community opinion is generally supportive of the Palisades Village Project, as reflected by public comments at PPCC and other community meetings and input from constituents received by Council District 11 and PPCC Board members. PPCC therefore recommends that the City Planning Commission approve the following land use entitlements as requested by the applicant: 1, 1) Specific Plan Amendments to the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan, as proposed by the applicant and which establish new North nippacpatce xgindexshplerea-represenaivesprevious-meding mines!TONE (Minutes oF Previous IMeeengs - Peciiic Paisanes Communrty Councat Swarthmore Subarea Regulations. 2. 2) A Vesting Zone Change from C2-1VL and R3P-1VL to C2- 1VL, for the existing surface parking lot areas. Design aspects of the Project are being reviewed by the Pacific Palisades Design Review Board.” Discussion: Chris directed board members and the public to information available on the land use entitlements requested. Chris stated that since the Motion #1 was made by a committee that includes several voting board members, per Roberts Rules it is deemed made and seconded and discussion would begin. Chris first called on Rick Caruso to give brief remarks. Rick Caruso declined to make remarks. Action: Dick Wulliger, Historical Society, invoked Article 10 of the bylaws to postpone any vote on Motion #1 to the next PPCC meeting. Chris reiterated the bylaws requirement. Dick asked for discussion to be allowed to proceed. Chris exercise her right as Chair to make the board an ad hoc committee so discussion could proceed. (1) Sharon Shapiro reported that CD11 and Planning Staff have received overwhelming support for the project. For those residents who are in opposition or have concerns, Sharon said that those are few and their concerns are concentrated (unlike other projects in the city that have varied topics for objection; here in the Palisades the same objections are heard over and over). (2) Gil Dembo expressed support for the project. (3) Sarah Conner stated that PPRA wants to meet and understand how these motions may affect larger areas of the City. Rick Caruso stated that the Village Project land use applications do not affect any other areas of the City as they are project specific. David Kaplan explained that the subarea includes open space and arguably could be precedent for any private developer not including significant (10,000 square feet of) open hipslpacoaice.orgindex phlarea-epreceniatves/previcus-meetrg- minutes! 67sspace. Howard Robinson stated that the VPLUC felt the way the application was filed is beneficial to the community because it reduces precedent setting standards (there are no specific plan deviations but rather an amendment which has been very rare and is only applicable to a specific situation with acreage as this; thus it is difficult to image another developer coming in and doing the same thing in commercial areas of the Palisades, i.e., the amendment to the Specific Plan sets less deviation then the alternative). Sarah Conner asked for the amendments for the Specific Plan to be made public like on the website. Chris Spitz and Rick Caruso told Sarah that those conditions have been on the Caruso website for a long time, available from the City, are on PPCC’s website, in the minutes, distributed this evening, discussed at prior public meetings, etc. (4) Susan Payne stated that the Chamber supports the project as a huge community benefit and substantial boost to the local businesses. (5) Stuart Muller observed that, in addition to the Caruso project, the Ralph’s and Norris Hardware sites are owned by a local family and could be developed. Rick Caruso responded that there is another 30 years on the Ralph’s lease and it is not likely to be developed. (6) Diane Bleak expressed concern about retail conglomerates. Rick Caruso reiterated that the plan is comprised of very small stores and that there will not be chains. Many local tenants are interested in staying. (7) Rick Mills expressed disappointment that the Historical Society invoked Article 10 to stop a vote on Motion #1; as a member of the Historical Society he stated that its members have been well aware of the project for a long time and was skeptical of the delay. Dick Wulliger stated that he needed to report what was said here tonight to his members to help them take a position or not. Public Comment: (1) Marice Michele (Swathmore business owner) supports the project and is in favor of Mr. Caruso. (2) Greg Schem supported the project and expressed that we need tipdpscpaocrgindexprplaraa-reprecentstves/prevous-meeing minutos!TeazO16 ‘minus of Previous Meetngs —Pacitic Patsaces Commurnty Gouncil to help our businesses. Having a local developer is a benefit and we should thank our lucky stars. (3) Rena Repetti expressed support for the project but not a subarea that doesn’t have to follow the Specific Plan rules that the community created. Rena said the developer should follow the Specific Plan. (4) Mark Grinblatt opposes the development because there has not been enough dialogue between the developer and the public. The strip of land ‘between the Mobil Station and US Bank is to be taken and moved so that it makes sense; the idea of it taking private should be discussed more before the council votes. (5) Robin Weitz opposes the project based on the number of alcohol permits being requested by Caruso Affiliatud. Robin read a passage discussing findings for issuing ABC licenses. David Kaplan stated that Motion #1 does not include nor address the alcohol applications. (6) Nicole Howard supports the project and because of the overwhelmingly positive benefit for the community urged the project to move forward. (7) Jeffrey Spitz supports the project, urged it to move forward and challenged the Historical Society’s claim that it had not had an opportunity to consult with its members particularly given modem electronics. (8) Ted Weitz opposed the project and stated that the CUP is part of the subarea plan. Ted has expressed concerns because he lives adjacent and represents neighbors. Sue Kohl said that while Ted’s views may represent some residents but her email list has over 200 people who have supported the project and in her view most of the residents in the Alphabets support the project and the “life” that has been missing in Area 5. Rick Caruso said he has meet with Ted and his wife and will continue to do so and respond to their concerns. Rick Caruso further reported that he has met with the residents of Monument who overwhelmingly support the project and that his company would like to begin development of the stores, parking and open space. Rick also said that there is much to be done with existing businesses in their ip pecpalce xgindexphpteres-represertaves/previous-mecting- minutes!TRAN Minutes of Previous Mectings Pacific Palisades Community Council relocation and efforts to bring them back. (9) Rosalie Huntington asked how shoppers will be drawn to the Palisades if the only thing that is different is the Bay Theater and Trader Joe’s (supports). ‘Will there be different stores on Swarthmore? Rick Caruso stated that there will be a theater and a specialty grocer with every store being unique. Existing tenants have been offered a prior rent to stay in the project. Other retailers and restaurant operators will supplement. Action: Chris stated that this motion would be back on the agenda on March 10, 2016. MOTION #2 David Kaplan read Motion #2. “Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) recognizes that the City has determined, based on substantial traffic and other environmental studies, that the Palisades Village Project (the “Project”) will have no unmitigated significant impacts. PPC also acknowledges community concerns that, as with any project of similar size built within an existing neighborhood village, issues warranting attention may arise on an ongoing basis. PPC therefore supports adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, provided that a new Village Project Committee is established under the auspices of Council District 11, to assess and address issues that may arise during construction and eventual Project operations. Such a committee should consist of one representative each from the applicant, Council District 11, the Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce and PPCC, and an area resident (to be appointed by Council District 11).” Action: Same as above, Dick Wulliger (Historical Society) invoked Article 10. Chris asked Dick to withdraw the motion and abstain so the board vote could be taken; else pursuant to the bylaws the _nippacpelce-r gine phplres-repreentsive/previus-meding mines!ARS TADS CAG FECES FOURS CoA TNENY CEE Executive Committee would be able to act for the board. Dick Wulliger refused stating that he had been instructed by his board to invoke a postponement of the vote. Chris exercised her right as Chair to make the board an ad hoc committee so discussion could proceed. Public Discussion: (1) Rick Caruso asked for a position of this board, by the Executive Committee, prior to the public hearing. (2) Patty Detroit wondered if the traffic study was relevant since it was done during the Thanksgiving holiday. Rick said only one intersection was studied on the day a school was closed; that intersection was restudied and reissued so the current report is completely updated and was not done in any way when school was closed. Patty asked about employee parking. Rick stated that the size of the parking accommodates employees on the property. Patty said a concerned resident should be appointed to any kind of citizen’s committee. (3) Sandy Eddy said that 200 people on the other sides of the Alphabet Streets have concerns. The MND has been available for two weeks and is very large. Bus schedules and bike racks would help mitigate traffic if for employees. There would +e 150 employees coming into the community and Sandy wondered what peak time arrangements would be made. (4) Linda Andrews spoke in favor of the project and asked for more information on the traffic situation (peak volumes, more or another traffic study). (5) Kat Smitt supports the project and is concerned about the traffic with the addition of retailers in the project. (6) Carly Kamerman, Carly K owner, sees traffic all day long and wondered what does everyone want Rick to do? Not have a project? At this point the Village is at a standstill and it is not fair to just do nothing. More parking is not a solution because those costs will get passed on to tenants who need shoppers to support rents that are already so high. (7) Ted Weitz asked Rick Caruso to continue to talk and meet with residents and acknowledged that because of his meetings with Caruso Affiliated many of his itppacpalic ergindex pple: representtvesirevious-meotng-minutes! 7185THO ‘minutes of Previous Meetings ~ Paciic Palisades Community Councit concerns had already been taken care of. Ted said the committee proposed should not include the Chamber and would not really address resident concerns. Ted stated that the MND is a complicated document and there should be more time for the pubic to review it. (8) Mark Ginblatt objects to the project because it won't reduce traffic and claimed that the study was inaccurate because it inappropriately compared existing to proposed traffic. (9) Nicole Howard supported the project, stating that the true traffic problem is not having traffic in the Village to support local businesses. Board Discussion: (1) Richard Cohen asked if trips coming to the project would be between the 2-3 pm peak hours studied. Rick Caruso stated that their peak period is not 2-3 and the Traffic Study which is online has been studied by the City and is in full compliance. (2) Gil Dembo stated that Mike Bonin’s traffic workshop determined that the majority of traffic generated is not from the Palisades and is something that Caruso has little control over. (3) Maryam Zar asked if CD11 considered the idea of a new citizen’s committee to be established. Sharon Shapiro said that she would find out. Maryam asked why Ted stated that such a committee would be ineffective since Caruso’s interaction with residents have been successful in working towards solutions. (4) David Kaplan re-read the portion of the VPLUC report that stated that traffic will be increased but that the standards per intersection can be mitigated or the results are still within acceptable parameters. (5) Barbara Kohn stated that based on her own prior personal experience, a citizen committee can be valuable if written into a CUP and that such committees typically meet monthly or Jess frequently. (6) Richard Cohen supported the committee concept based on past successes such as the Getty Villa and the YMCA Simon Meadow project. (7) Schuyler Dietz spoke in support of the project and does not think traffic will be impacted between 2 and 5 p.m. hip psepalceergindex.shoaren ropresentative/previou-mecing mince!T2016 \Minutss of Previous Meetings —Pacic Palisades Community Council See: (1) www.pacpalice.org, Documents tab/Minutes, and Resources tab/Reports & Summaries (PPCC minutes of 11/18/15, 1/14/16, 2/11/16 and VPLUC Preliminary Report) and (2) http://www. palisadesvillageca.com (FAQs tab/amended application documents, plans and MND). See also information distributed below. Note: MND comment period ends March 9, 2016, per notice published in the LAT on 2/18/16; first City hearing to occur on March 24, 2016. MOTION #s 1, 2 and 3 sponsored by the VPLUC: MOTION #3 David Kaplan read Motion 3. “The applicant has requested that the City approve a request for a parcel map to vacate public land to the applicant consisting of a 20-foot-wide alley extending north From Sunset Boulevard to the existing alley located behind the existing Mobil Station, the 20-foot-wide alley between Swarthmore Avenue and Monument Street and a lane of Sunset ‘Boulevard, where it widens in front of the existing Mobil Station. Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) recommends approval of the parcel map, subject to the following: 1. Since the proposed public land being ceded to the applicant has substantial economic value, PPCC recommends a condition of approval which will require the applicant, in exchange for the economic benefit being provided by the City to the applicant, to establish a fund in an amount to be determined. 2. Said fund shall be specifically targeted to address the Purposes set forth in Section 2 of the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan, which are to assure all new development harmonizes with and enhances the ipulpacpaioeorpindex shpleres-reprecensives/previus-mectng- mines!TRB (Minutes of Previous Meetings — Pacific Palisades Commurnty Councit surrounding neighborhood. To this end, the use of the fund shall include, but not be limited to, installation of compatible off-site streetscape improvements. Possible unifying items could include street furniture, street signs, exterior lighting and lampposts, sidewalk and crosswalk treatments, and plant materials. At a minimum, off- site improvements should extend to both sides of Sunset from La Cruz to Via de la Paz, around the perimeter of the Village Green, and on Swarthmore on the first block south of Sunset.” ‘Action: Same as above; Dick Wulliger (Historical Society) invoked Article 10; Chair allowed discussion to continue by making the board an ad hoc committee. Board Discussion: (1) Richard Cohen asked if the characterization of the “park giveaway” was accurate. Rick Caruso explained that they have been trying to get more parking and responded to community concerns that the alley should be maintained better. By vacating the alley parking can be placed underneath and Caruso Affiliated will have the burden of paying to maintain the area. Rick Caruso is willing to participate in a fund depending on the amount because they are happy to be a good neighbor. Richard asked about undergrounding utilities. Rick said yes the utilities would be undergrounded and existing utilities would be relocated to accommodate parking so that is also a community benefit. There is also to be an easement for public access and it can never be closed off. Caruso has to provide access to neighboring buildings that they don’t own into perpetuity. There is no intent to ever close the alley or make it inaccessible to cars. (2) Howard Robinson said that the committee is in favor of the project and wanted to get something in exchange for the reversion of public land to a private landowner. The idea is for the dollars to be used for things consistent with the Specific Plan and that Plan calls for coordination of improvements in the PROW throughout plpecpalce orgies pleree-represetaivealprevius-mesing minus! Tas