Minutes of June 13, 2002
Board Members Present
(including Alternates and Advisors)
-Harry Sondheim
-Ted Mackie -Paul Glasgall -Jack
Allen -Patti Post Barbara Kohn -Barry Kurtz
-Larry Jacobs -Arthur Mortell
-Stuart Miller -George Wolfberg
-Marguerite Perkins Mautner -Mary Cole
-Gilbert Dembo Lorraine Oshins
-Norman Kulla -Jennifer Cron
-Shirley Haggstrom
1.0
Introduction of Board and Audience:
The Chair called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. with the reading of the purpose of the PPCC as stated in its
Bylaws. Members of the Board and
audience introduced themselves.
2.0
Adoption of Minutes:
The Minutes of the prior meeting were
amended to add Barbara Kohn as in attendance and then adopted as so amended.
3.0
Announcements and Concerns:
3.1
Treasurer’s Report
There is $7,253.86 in the PPCC
checking account and $4,765.15 in the savings account.
Larry J. Morales, Senior Street Use
Inspector II, presented a
summary of Los Angeles City's general rules and regulations for street
banners. Mr. Morales noted that
nonprofit organization banners are allowed per ordinance enacted in November
1999. Commercial sponsors may be
identified on banners. The
rules provide for approximately 25% of event banners to be displayed within
the venue area of an event, and the remaining 75% of event banners to be
displayed pro-rata throughout the remaining 15 city districts.
There are no color requirements.
There are size limitations for the two forms of banners: pull-down and
across the street. A banner must
state the full day and year of an event, and its location.
For non-event banners there must be a name and statement. The time limits for display are 30 days for event banners and
90 days for non-event banners. Banners
are allowed in nonresidential areas only.
Marguerite Perkins Mautner
questioned the safety implications of a very small light green banner with
poorly legible white letters that recently advertised a charitable event in
the Palisades. She witnessed a
near-accident and inquired about what regulations address the safety of
banners. Harry Sondheim followed up by asking if there a
specific size for lettering displayed on the roadway, i.e., for banners
intended for viewing by occupants of motor vehicles.
Morales replied the lettering simply must be readable.
Larry Jacobs pointed out that
where the intended target viewer is a driver, not a pedestrian, there is
increased danger. Discussion
ensued with the consensus view being expressed to Mr. Morales that banners
with much writing will distract the attention of drivers and are dangerous.
Christin Montet of
Councilwoman Miscikowski's office noted that there is an active sign review
task force addressing safety issues regarding banners and billboards.
This task force is reviewing the where, who and what of banners,
taking into account safety issues. Hal
Bernson chairs the task force.
Gilbert Dembo stated that
signs deface the neighborhood and inquired whether they can be prohibited in
the Palisades. Jack Allen
pointed out that the community had succeeded in removing advertisements from
benches but now they are on banners. Jack
also noted that the Palisades is within a scenic corridor and there may be
protective rules relating to preserving views that might be applied. Patty Post asked Mr. Morales whether there are any locations
within the city of Los Angeles where banners are not allowed or are regulated
to match the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Morales said there are none.
In response to a question
from George Wolfberg, Mr. Morales said there are no pre-approved poles or
locations for banners.
Stuart Miller asker why there
are banners in residential areas. Mr.
Morales said they are not allowed and invited the community to call him
directly at 213-473-4502 (direct line) or 213-485-3711, and he will cause
banners posted in residential areas to be removed.
Shirley Haggstrom reported
that she had asked Supervisor ZevYaroslavsky why there was no county
ordinance banning banners on scenic PCH.
He agreed to find out and come back to her.
Christin Montet reported that Cindy Miscikowshi was working with the
State on this issue and that there was a motion pending before the City
Council.
Larry Jacobs moved to request
that the City Council limit banners to no more than three words plus
pictures. The motion died for
lack of a second. Gilbert
Dembo moved to request that the City Council remove as a nuisance all
commercially sponsored banners in Pacific Palisades.
Marguerite seconded the motion. The
motion was defeated with five affirmative votes, none against and the balance
abstaining.
3.3
Update from the Communications Committee
Maurizio
Vecchione was absent and the Communications Committee report was passed.
3.4
Temescal/YMCA
Barbara Kohn reported that a
scheduled June hearing would be reset to consider a parceling map for the
property where the YMCA conducts Christmas tree, pumpkin sales and a summer
camp. The mapping company made an error in mailing notice so the hearing must be re-noticed.
The proposal calls for a zoning variance that allows continuation of
current uses and does not allow construction.
At the Chair's request, Christin Montet agreed to give the PPCC notice
of the new hearing date that she anticipates will be held in July 2002.
3.5
Announcement regarding proposed MRCA Benefit Assessment District
The Chair announced that there is a
meeting regarding the proposed MRCA Benefit Assessment District at 3 P.M. on
Monday, June 17, 2002 to be held at Bel Air Presbyterian Church.
3.6
Resolano Drive
The Chair announced that he had
received notice that there will be a meeting regarding the Resolano Drive
project, Case No. 2A 2001-5337 (CDP)-A3, on June 19, to be held at the Henry
Medina W.L.A. Parking Enforcement Facility, 11213 Exposition Boulevard, Los
Angeles, 2d Floor Roll Call Room.
The Chair
announced that he had sent a letter to the West Los Angeles Area Planning
Commission advising that the PPCC supported the appeal of the Miramar
Homeowners Association insofar as that appeal relates to procedure, namely
that the magnitude of the changes mandated by the hearing officer should be
deemed to be a new, rather than revised plan.
As such, the public should be given an opportunity to comment on the
revised plan.
3.7
Santa Ynez Reservoir - DWP & Fire Department meeting
Paul Glasgall announced that he has
received notice from DWP & the LAFD that there will be a meeting at 7:30
P.M. on Monday, June 24, 2002 at the Summit Club in the Palisades Highlands
to discuss covering the Santa Ynez reservoir.
Paul explained that changes in chlorination rules and water
availability for fire fighting are key issues.
Paul also indicated that construction of a cistern between the
Highlands and Marquez would also be discussed.
4.0
Old Business:
4.1
Announcement of Area Representative Incumbents Running for
Reelection
The Chair announced that Barbara
Kohn representing Area 1, Larry Niles for Area 3, and Larry Jacobs for Area
4, Arthur Mortell Area 5 if not elected as Vice Chair (he was so elected, see
below), Stuart Miller for Area 6, and Marguerite Perkins Mautner for Area 8,
were running for reelection.
The Chair announced that a
candidate statement consisting of not more than one hundred words should be
delivered to the Chair at a Board meeting, no latter than the July meeting,
or mailed to the PPCC post office box with a postmark of at least 7 days
before the July meeting.
4.2
Election of 2002-2003 officers
Ballots 2002-2003 officers were
passed out and George Wolfberg was elected Chair, Arthur Mortell was elected
Vice-Chair, Maurizio Vecchione was elected Secretary, and Patti Post was
elected Treasurer.
5.0
New Business
5.1
Consideration of the proposed Palisades Landmark Condominium
Project at 17331-17333 Tramonto
Developer Ken
Kahan presented his proposed Palisades Landmark Condominium Project at
17331-17333 Tramonto to the PPCC and a full audience of interested members of
the community. He reported that
the parcel was currently improved with twenty rental units.
Twelve other units went down in the 1965 Revello Slide.
He said the parcel is accessible from Tramonto, not Los Liones Drive,
and shares a driveway that also services Ocean Woods Condominiums.
He proposes to demolish the existing units, and reconstruct the
landside portion as well as remaining improved portion of the parcel.
He has done geological, topographical and architectural elevations
from above and below the parcel. The
proposed architecture is "European mountainside" terraced up the
hill with condos of 2400 to 3000sq ft per unit.
He applied for a tentative map two years ago. Regarding geological issues, the proposed grading has passed
city review. He remarked
that he is aware that the grading department has failed to satisfy the
Palisades community in the past. He
is using the same geologists, Geotech, who did the geology for the existing
office building at the corner of Sunset and PCH.
He noted the approval of a 21-unit project at 17325 Castellammare,
subject to 42 conditions. He
indicated that demolition and reconstruction of the geology would involve
drilling down to bedrock, recompacting, and installing piling.
Jack Allen noted
that the project was proposed for a geologically unstable area, would
generate additional traffic and cause visual compatibility issues.
A teacher at Paul
Revere, who was a resident of the existing units, noted that all tenants are
over 50 years of age and should be given a right of first refusal to occupy
the new units. She also noted
safety issues if access is from Tramonto (which it is).
The developer
replied that he would comply with the requirements of the Mello Act regarding
replacement off low cost housing. As
discussed, this may not require that low cost housing be part of the project
if funds are contributed to a special fund.
The developer indicated he had not yet decided what alternative he
would elect. Kristen Montet was
to advise the Board as to whether funds are permitted to be contributed in
lieu of low-income housing.
Dr. Frank Knotz,
residing at 17455 Revello, 80 yards from the project, expressed concern about
the safety of his home and family if the project was undertaken. He stated that he believed that the proposed project,
which he understood involved 100,000 cubic yards of excavation, would
jeopardize the stability of his house.
The developer
responded that Dr. Knotx's home was in an active landside and there was
already ongoing settlement and movement.
He stated that Dr. Knotx's neighbors had received millions of dollars
from the City in settlement for loss due to the slide in recent litigation.
Mr. Knox
reaffirmed his concern that the proposed project was dangerous and
jeopardized the stability of an unstable geological area.
An audience member
challenged the developer's description of the suit and settlement. He stated that the claim was that the slide occurred because
of ground and surface water improperly channeled off Revello.
The developer responded that he would grant an easement through the
project property to facilitate the natural water flow.
Alice Begales
stated that the project was in conflict with the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades
Community Plan (BPPCP). The
BPPCP states that residential projects need to minimize grading, limit land
use intensity, and preserve natural topography in hillside areas; need to
protect environmentally sensitive areas, scenic views and scenic corridors;
need to restrict building on geologically sensitive areas; preserve open
space, and limit residential development on hillsides having more than a 15%
slope. Ms. Begales pointed out
that the BPPCP limits development to eight units per acre density and the
proposed project provides for twenty units per acre.
She lives on Revello and lived through the 1965 slide. She wants the developer to limit the project to the specified
zoning density requirements.
Rob Veis stated
that he lives in the complex above the proposed project.
He stated that bonding and insurance would not protect affected
residents from loss to their property from the project.
He asked if the project would obstruct his view, and if so, would he
be compensated for his loss. The
developer said his view would be obstructed partially but not completely.
The projects' roof will be four feet higher than Mr. Veis' patio.
The developer stated he would not compensate for Mr. Veis' lost value
for the obstructed view.
The net traffic
impact would be 62 additional units (82 proposed less existing 20).
Nancy Candle has
lived in the building to be demolished for 30 years.
She says others have resided there for 35 or 34 years.
She expressed concern for residents who want to relocate and remain in
the community. The developer
said he will give at least six months notice to vacate and that the earliest
date for vacating would be eighteen to twenty-four months from now (after all
required proceedings for project approval).
Ms. Candle stated that the developer should provide funds to tenants
for moving.
Robert Italia
lives at Ocean Woods Condominiums with his wife.
He moved his wife to Pacific Palisades to provide clean air to help in
her battle against Lupus. He
stated mold, lead, and other impure air will cause his wife's medical
condition to deteriorate. He
stated he will closely monitor the air during construction and initiate
appropriate action if standards are violated.
Rose Marie Haynes
lives directly below the proposed project.
She expressed concern about the impact upon stability of land.
She asked the developer if he had personal experience building on
hillsides. He replied that
he did not but would use builders who do have such experience.
Jerome Nash
indicated he was a limited partner with a 50% interest in the project. It was indicated that he was near a lawsuit with the
developer. He stated he bought
his interest three or four years ago and understood that the project would
only involve twenty units on vacant land. He stated that the project was
supposed to proceed in one or two phases.
He stated that he also owns an adjacent parcel and expressed concern
for the welfare of existing tenants. He stated that the developer had told
him that the tenants were Nash's problem, not his.
He feels mislead and that he may have provided incorrect information
when he handled sales of property to several neighbors because the
developer's true intent was hidden from him.
The developer
stated that he did not expect the City to participate in the stabilization of
land with respect to his project.
A neighbor raised
the issue of mansionization and stated that she believed the project would
destroy the character of the neighborhood.
Another resident
on Tramonto stated that the roadway had been almost destroyed by trucks and
that the City won't repair it. She
also expressed concern about the safety of trucks going up and down a 45 °
blind curve.
The developer
stated he will comply with the City's subdivision process and that
resurfacing guidelines from the City.
A neighbor
expressed concern for access by emergency vehicles during construction.
A representative
of the Castellammare Homeowners Association noted that there are 214 homes
existing in the track and that the proposed net increase of 60 units would
have a significant impact.
A resident of
Ocean Woods Condominiums reconfirmed that the existing driveway that is the
sole exit for Ocean Woods Condominiums would also be the sole ingress and
egress for the project.
Shirley Haggstrom
presented a 1966 newspaper article reporting the Revello landside. In the article the City representative stated that the City
had done the best it could. The
article reported that the project area is in a slide area of unstable geology
with significant traffic and safety issues.
Ms. Haggstrom stated her opposition to the project.
With regard to
timing, the developer stated the next step in the process was the EIR, which
he estimated would be an eight to ten month period.
The tentative map hearing process and the Coastal Commission would
follow thereafter. He estimated
these three steps would take one and one-half years. Thereafter, he would commence construction planning and
construction, which he estimated would take one and one-half to two years.
In reply to a
question the developer stated he will rely upon the City for guidance for any
issues relating to the adequacy of the roadway for construction equipment.
Barbara Kohn
inquired about parking spaces. The
developer stated there would be 205.
In view of the
grave concerns raised by the community and the PPCC, in response to the
notice and pre-draft request for comments, the Chair requested Mr. Allen to
alter his proposed letter to additionally express concern about affordable
replacement housing and ingress-egress of emergency vehicles in the event of
a disaster. With such changes,
on motion of Arthur Mortell, seconded by Marguerite Perkins Mautner, the
Council voted unanimously to send the proposed letter expressing PPCC's
concerns regarding the Palisades Landmark Condominium Project to Maya
Zaitzevsky of City Planning.
The developer
stated that he had come to the PPCC to listen to the community's concerns and
that his approach to solving problems was to work with the community.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
The next meeting of the PPCC Board will be held at Mort’s Oak Room
on June 27, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.
Minutes
submitted by Norman Kulla
DRAFT 6/19/02
Return to Top
|