PPCC Library Integration Test

1. Introduction of Board and Audience. Chairperson Harry Sondheim called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and read the purpose of the PPCC according to the bylaws. Members of the Board and audience introduced themselves.

2\. Adoption of Minutes. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and adopted with the following changes relating to the proposed lights for the baseball field: The following comments of Stuart Muller which were made at the 2/22/01 meeting were included in the body of the minutes as an additional paragraph on page 3 as follows: "The proposal places an unfair burden of light, noise and air pollution on our already overused neighborhood. The light management plan is insufficient. The impact on wildlife in the adjacent Temescal Canyon Park is unknown. And, the soccer proponents have not attempted to secure the use of the recreation areas in the Highlands that was dedicated for that use as part of their developmental agreement." The comments of Barbara Kohn at the 2/22/01 meeting were revised, second paragraph, page three, second sentence, ..a couple of the balloons appeared to be higher than the steeple on the Presbyterian Church from her vantage point on Temescal Canyon Road. The following comment of Larry Jacobs was added to his existing statement as reflected in the 2/22/01 minutes: "Larry Jacobs concluded by recommending that the Council require (1) that secure devices be installed in both the baseball and football fields systems to ensure that lights cannot be used after 9:30 p.m., (2) that no light within the reflectors of the new baseball field fixtures be visible from any point beyond the school property, and (3) that a contract be established under which the community can have recourse should any of the constraints established by this Council be violated." 3\. _Announcements and Concerns_. 3.1 Treasurer’s Report. There is $6,065.63 in the Council’s checking account and $4,727.52 in the Council’s savings account. 3.2 Update on Plaintiff’s Fees in Getty Litigation and Our Role Therein. Barbara Kohn read the following statement. "A lawsuit filed by Pacific Coast Homeowners (a coalition of community organizations and homeowner association including Pacific Palisades Residents Association, Pacific Palisades Community Council, Castellammare Mesa Property Owners Association, Pacific View Estates Homeowners Association, and Sunset Mesa Property Owners Association) was heard in Department 85, Los Angeles Superior Court, in September, 2000. The Court found in favor of Pacific Coast Homeowners and subsequently awarded attorney fees to the prevailing parties. The awarding of fees order was signed March 2, 2001. The Court’s strong ruling substantiated the judgment that the City’s approval of an outdoor theater and increased parking facilities in a residential neighborhood impacts the public regionally and is of inclusive public interest. The decision and the awarding of attorney fees is a strong statement to neighborhoods that zoning laws and municipal codes must be upheld. The City of Los Angeles and the J. Paul Getty Trust filed their appeal of the Court decision on February 7, 2001. John B. Murdock, attorney for Pacific Coast Homeowners is in the process of preparing a cross-appeal. The plaintiffs are the same groups as above with the exception of the PPCC. The Council’s dismissal with prejudice from the case was filed February 1314, 2001, with the Community Council minutes of October 26, 2000 attached which state in affirmation of its position, "This decision does not in any way affect, reverse, or diminish the council’s previous two unanimous votes opposing the expansion of the Getty Villa." In response to Attorneys for Real Party in Interest (J Paul Getty Trust) filing dated February 9, 2001, which states: "PCH claims that this Court should award attorneys’ fees, in part, because the PPCC is allegedly a public interest group. However, the PPCC is currently seeking to be dismissed from this case with prejudice. This request demonstrates that the PPCC’s claims have no merit." Attorney for Petitioners, John Murdock, filed a responsive declaration under penalty of perjury dated February 14, 2001 which states, "I was asked to file a dismissal of Petitioner Pacific Palisades Community Council. The reason given to me for the decision was that the Council was unwilling to be subject to any potential costs or liabilities of the appeal filed by Real Party in Interest, or continuing further in the litigation. In fact, the Council was so concerned about the expenses of litigation that I was asked to assure the Council I would not seek to collect attorneys fees from the Council if there were a deficit. The Council specifically noted on the record, however, that it reaffirmed its position on the merits. The reason for the dismissal with prejudice was that Real Party’s attorney refused to stipulate that they would not file a cost bill (as the technically prevailing party where a voluntary dismissal is filed by the adverse party) against the Community Council unless the dismissal recited that it was with prejudice." 3.3 Candidates for Elected Office. The Chair announced that he has received requests from candidates running for office in April 2001 to address the Board. After consulting with the Executive Committee, it was decided the Board could not accommodate such requests because of the Board’s lengthy agendas, as well as the number of candidates running for office. 3.4 Gratuity to Mort’s Staff. Mort’s suggested that the Board provide a gratuity to the staff who set up and disassemble the Board’s meeting room. The Executive Committee concluded that the Staff shouldl receive $25.00 per Council meeting for providing this valuable service. 3.5 It’s Our Birthday! Shirley Haggstrom contacted the Chair and reminded him that the Council will be 28 years old on March 11, 2001. We believe we are the longest existing community council in Los Angeles. 3.6 Theater Palisades. Isabel Kayser announced that there will be an opening celebration for the Theater’s latest production, "Requiem for a Heavyweight" on March 30, 2001. The theater is also looking for actors and volunteers and needs a new projector to be able to continue with its Sunday Film Classics program. For tickets and more information contact the theater at 454-1970. 3.7 Ordinance Concerning Above Ground Facilities. Jack Allen reported that he has reviewed this City Ordinance which he believes is generally a good one because it will require that utility and wireless communication facilities be installed underground so they are not visible to the public. The Public Works Board will be meeting tomorrow concerning the Ordinance. The only problem with the Ordinance is that it does not include "scenic highways" as an area protected by the Ordinance. Patti Post made a motion that Jack Allen go to the public works commission and request that scenic highways be included as protected areas under the ordinance. The Motion was seconded and unanimously approved. 3.8 City Report Concerning Wireless Communication Facilities. Jack Allen reported that the City has drafted a report concerning the installation and placement of wireless communications facilities on private property. Jack Allen agreed to review the report and report back to the Board so the Board could take a position on the issues raised in the report. 3.9 Neighborhood Matching Funds. To obtain information concerning the matching funds for community projects, like the Clearwater Mural which Stuart Muller helped to create, contact Chris Bing (310) 575-8461 at the Councilwoman’s office. 3.10 Amalfi Speed Bumps. The Chair reported that the City notified him that there will be speed bumps installed on Amalfi in April 2001 but no information was available on the placement or location of the bumps. This matter will be placed on the March 22 agenda for discussion with any interested persons and the City Department of Transportation. 3.11 Cable Television Franchise Renewal Applications. The City of Los Angeles will hold a public hearing on this issue on March 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at the Westwood United Methodist Church, 10497 Wilshire Boulevard. The Chair distributed flyers concerning this hearing. If anyone would like more information on this hearing, please contact the Chair. 3.12 17633 Castellammare. Jack Allen reported that there was a hearing set regarding this property for March 19, 2001. The owners are interested in obtaining a coastal development permit for a large single family house which would be constructed on top of a landslide area. Fortunately, the hearing was cancelled upon inquiry by Jack. There are several problems with the way that the public is notified concerning their opportunity to object to the issuance of permits of this type. First, the public is provided with less then 10 days notice to oppose the project and they must submit their opposition within 3 working days of the hearing. Also, the hearings are often held in locations far away from the project, for example San Diego. Cindy Miscikowski’s office is looking into the problems concerning the notice issues. Pursuant to the Board’s request, Jack Allen agreed to prepare a letter for submission by the Chair to our representatives in the Senate and Assembly which requests changes in the Coastal Act, including that hearings be held at the location nearest to the property and that notice be provided to the public at the time the actual application for a coastal development permit is filed. 4\. Old Business. 4.1 222 Coperto. The issue presented at the Board meeting was whether the Board should withdraw its opposition to this development. At the last meeting, the Chair distributed a document which had been sent to the Board on behalf of the owner of this property and requested that the Board read the document prior to this meeting. Another document was forwarded to Board members via e-mail prior to this evening’s meeting. This document is a March 6, 2001 decision by Gabel-Luddy, a Deputy of the City’s Advisory Agency, which allows the David Ronen, property owner, to "retain all of the conditions currently in effect without any change." The decision also states that a Coastal Permit is not required. A copy of this document is attached to the minutes. Frank Wilson discussed the fact that the decision only discusses "remedial grading" and that it does not address the "cut and fill" grading that has already be completed at the sight. Jack Allen noted that the EIR imposed certain conditions, one of which is that the natural grading be preserved. The attorney property owner stated that the EIR did not present any legal conditions and that his client had not illegally graded or obtained permits from the City. He also asked that the Board support the project. There was no motion made to withdraw the Board’s prior letter to the City which supported a stop order concerning further grading or construction activities at the site. At this point in the meeting, Laura Tam left the meeting and Scott Wagenseller and Isabel Kayser stepped out of the meeting room. Lisa Maki made a Motion that the March 6, 2001 decision be appealed by the Board and that the Board pay the $71.00 filing fee. The motion was seconded by Patti Post. The Motion passed, with four abstentions and no one in opposition. Frank Wilson, Jack Allen and Harry Sondheim agreed to prepare the written appeal. 4.2 Lights for the Baseball Field. Consideration was given to whether the motion related to lighting for the baseball field should include the items listed as a & b, below. Board members were reminded that discussion was to be limited to those items because of the exhaustive discussion at prior meetings on other issues. a. Should the Board’s approval include a limitation that the lights on the baseball field shall not be on after 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays? As passed by the Board at the last meeting, the lights could be on until after 9:30 on these days. A motion was made to support this item. The motion passed with two abstentions and one opposed. b. Should the Board’s approval include a proviso that the lights on the football field would be subject to the same limitations as on the baseball field, except when an official Palisades High School event is being held on the football field (for example, a football game)? At this point in the meeting, the following motion was made. We approve the use of the lights as previously stated, but with the proviso that their use be limited to the time period of August 15th - December 15th, as per the February letter from Debbie Held, and that Palisades High School may use the lights for 6 evenings a week. The Motion was seconded by Stuart Muller. (Discussion on this motion revolved around the issue of the needs of the High School and the American Legion who have some games at night during this time period.) Marguerite Perkins-Mautner noted that we should leave the issue open because they were spending so much money on the lights, they should be used for the children. Isabel Kayser expressed a similar opinion. The motion was defeated. Then, Larry Jacobs made a motion that, "we require that no light within the reflectors of the light fixtures be visible from any point beyond the limits of the school property." This motion failed for want of a second. Don Saverese, principal of Palisades High School, was present to address the Board and Audience. He apologized for problems with the lights and stated that it was an issue that needed to be dealt with by his administration and the janitorial staff who was responsible for turning on and off the lights. He noted that there have been several complaints concerning the lights being turned on and off, one of which he personally investigated where the staff member went to dinner instead of remaining on property to make sure that the lights were controlled. He agreed to work with his staff to help to resolve this issue. Mr. Saverese also stated that he was not anticipating any evening play on the baseball field and would enforce all restrictions imposed concerning the use of the lights. He also noted that he had a meeting with a representative of Musco lighting, the Helds, Charlotte Atlas and the head of the maintenance staff at the High School to discuss the issue of lighting, why the lights weren’t being turned off and on, and also the possibility of Musco’s proposed computerized system which would allow the lights to be controlled by telephone. It is possible that money may be obtained from the City’s after school youth program to help with the computerization of the lighting system. Nevin Karlovac made a Motion that the football field be subject to the same conditions as the baseball field except for official Pacific Palisades High School use, i.e. that the night lighting on the football field should be permitted to remain on no later than 9:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday there should be no Saturday or Sunday use after 6:00 p.m., both being subject to later times for official Pacific Palisades High School use. The motion was seconded and there was discussion on the motion. Debbie Held stated that AYSO sometimes has "banner night" on the football field but has only done so once in the past 6 years. The issue of runners on the track was also brought up, as was the use of the field by the High School for graduation ceremonies. The Motion passed, with three abstentions and no one opposed. 4.3 Consideration of what issues the Board wishes to focus on in its consideration of whether the PPCC should become a Neighborhood Council pursuant to the City draft plan for neighborhood councils. At the last meeting, the Chair distributed a list of the issues the Chair believed should be the focus of consideration. Those Board members desiring additions to the list of issues were requested to submit the additions to the Chair, in writing, via U.S. Mail or e-mail, prior to this evening’s meeting. Ted Mackie and Larry Jacobs sent the Chair some some suggestions, most of which were incorporated into the revision of the list of issues which was distributed at this evening’s meeting . It is anticipated that on June 14, 2001, a Community Forum will be held in conjunction with a meeting of Board of Neighborhood Commissioners, at which time there will be a discussion of the issues selected by the Board. The issue added to the current list of issues is whether an adjacent neighbor visiting the Palisades, for example, to shop, would be considered a "stakeholder" in the City’s current plan. Kurt Toppel made a motion that the list of issues, as amended was acceptable. The Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. _Adjournment_. [Adjournment time not recorded.] The next meeting is on 3/22/01 at 7:00 p.m. in the Oak Room of Mort’s Deli. Minutes submitted by Lisa Maki, Secretary _________________________ [Return to top of page](https://pacpalicc.org/index.php/minutes-from-2001/)
---

##### MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22nd 2001

Board Members Present: Ted Mackie, Lisa Maki, Harry Sondheim, Jack Allen, Barbara Kohn, Daniel P. Rooke, Larry Jacobs, Barry Kurtz, Ernie Meadows, Stuart Muller, Kurt Toppel, Larry Niles, Chris Martin, Patty Detroit, Sharon Hays, Ron Dean, Lynette Guy, Marguerite Perkins Mautner, Isabel Kayser, Frank Wilson