PPCC Library Integration Test

## Extracted Text

P A C I F I C P A L I S A D E S C O M M U N I T Y C O U N C I L
June 10, 2021
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., City Administrative Officer (CAO)
Matt Szabo, CAO appointee (effective 7/4/21) / current Deputy Chief of Staff to Mayor Garcetti
Via email and submission to City Clerk filing portal
Re: Council File 21-0350; CAO Feasibility Study – Use of Will Rogers State Beach Parking Lot for Homeless
Housing / Factors Demonstrating Infeasibility
Dear Mr. Lewellyn and Mr. Szabo:
Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) has been the most broad-based community organization and the voice
of Pacific Palisades since 1973. Pacific Palisades is a coastal and hillside residential community in the wildland-
urban interface with the Santa Monica Mountains, situated entirely within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Will Rogers State Beach (WRSB) is a California State Park located in Pacific Palisades. For more than 75 years, our
community has been privileged to welcome countless visitors from all walks of life throughout Los Angeles and
beyond, who regularly use the WRSB parking lot in order to access the beach and ocean for recreation and
enjoyment. The WRSB lot is also routinely used by City, County and State first responders for critical command,
staging and evacuation during frequent local and regional wildfire emergencies.1
The WRSB lot is one of the sites that the City Council has now directed the CAO to evaluate as a homeless housing
site. For many compelling reasons – including the overriding Coastal Act public access mandate, legal and
jurisdictional obstacles, homeless safety and service issues, and substantial environmental and public safety concerns
such as the potential loss of the lot for fire emergency use – PPCC maintains that the WRSB parking lot is
entirely infeasible and strongly opposes its use for homeless housing of any kind. See Attachment – Factors
Demonstrating Infeasibility (pp. 4-16, following).2
PPCC agrees that homeless housing and services are urgently needed in Los Angeles. However, we disagree that a
sudden, new emergency or extreme crisis exists that would justify use of clearly unsuitable public recreational sites,
such as State Park or State Beach parking lots reserved by law for other purposes, for housing for any length of time.
Simply put: As demonstrated in the Attachment, using the WRSB parking lot and/or obtaining the required multi-
1 Most recently, the WRSB lot was used for this purpose during the massive Palisades Fire by LAFD, LACoFD, CalFire and
LAPD; it was used again on May 24 during a dangerous brush fire event that occurred on bluffs across PCH from WRSB; and
yet again on June 1 by LAPD, LAFD, CHP, the County Sheriff, the MRCA, City & State Park Rangers and PPTFH volunteers
for command purposes during an important multi-jurisdictional task force action to remove illegal encampments and hazardous
materials hidden in the brush in nearby hillside and canyon areas and to offer housing and services to unhoused inhabitants.
2 See also PPCC position statements/letters at: http://pacpalicc.org/index.php/statement-letters-re-cf-21-0350-bonin-motion/.
Post Office Box 1131, Pacific Palisades, California 90272 info@pacpalicc.org pacpalicc.org

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
jurisdictional review for its use as homeless housing cannot be easily or quickly done, nor is it practicable or
feasible, whether based on a claim of urgent need or emergency, or otherwise.
Even more importantly, should homeless housing be placed in the WRSB lot, its effective removal from use by first
responders for vital wildfire fighting and protection efforts would have severe regional/multi-jurisdictional impacts.
Its loss would pose a grave risk of harm to the public, not only in Pacific Palisades, but also in the wider region of
Los Angeles County subject to devastating wildfires, including the communities of Calabasas, Malibu and Topanga
Canyon as well as extensive federal and State parkland in the Santa Monica Mountains. Such action would violate
public safety protections guaranteed to citizens, both housed and unhoused, by the California Constitution (see
Attachment, Sec. V below).
We invite you and CAO staff to meet at WRSB for a site visit with PPCC representatives, Pacific Palisades Task
Force on Homelessness (PPTFH) volunteers and our LAPD beach detail officers. It is imperative that the CAO see
first-hand the conditions at WRSB and the surrounding area – and to obtain input from individuals who interact daily
with the homeless at WRSB and in our nearby bluffs and canyon areas – in order to better understand why the
proposal to use this lot is infeasible and dangerous. Please contact us at info@pacpalicc.org to arrange for a visit.
Thank you for your consideration and anticipated serious attention to this important matter.
Executive Committee, Pacific Palisades Community Council
David Card, Chair Christina Spitz, Secretary
David Kaplan, Vice-Chair John Padden, Organization Representative (P.R.I.D.E.)
Richard G. Cohen, Treasurer Joanna Spak, Elected Representative (Area 1; Castellammare, Paseo Miramar)
cc (via email):
City officials (further described on p. 3, following)
County officials (further described on p. 3, following)
Joint City/County officials (further described on p. 3, following)
State officials (further described on p. 3, following)
Federal officials (further described on p. 3, following)
Other relevant individuals and entities (further described on p. 3, following)
Attachment (Factors Demonstrating Infeasibility) on pp. 4-16, following
2

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
cc (via email):
City: Hon. Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles; Hon. Mike Feuer, City Attorney; Hon. Ron Galperin, City Controller;
Hon. Nury Martinez, President, City Council; Hon. Joe Buscaino, President Pro Tempore, City Council; Hon. Mike Bonin,
Councilmember, CD 11; Ralph M. Terrazas, Chief, and Armando Hogan, Deputy Chief & West Bureau Commander, LAFD;
Michel R. Moore, Chief, and Jonathan Tom, Captain III & West Division Commanding Officer, LAPD; Patricia J. Huber,
Asst. CAO and Executive Officer; Ben Ceja, Asst. CAO; Yolanda Chavez, Asst. CAO; Meg Barclay, CAO’s office/Homeless
Strategy; Paula Gerez, President, Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
County: Hon. Hilda Solis, Chair, County Board of Supervisors; Hon. Sheila Kuehl, County Supervisor, CSD 3; Hon. Janice
Hahn, County Supervisor, CSD 4; Daryl L. Osby, Chief, County Fire Dept.; Gary Jones, Director, and Kerry Silverstrom,
Chief Deputy Director, County Beaches & Harbors Dept.; Cris Liban, Chair, Beach Commission; Clark Stevens, Executive
Officer, and R.C. Brody, President, Board of Directors, Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains
Joint City/County: Heidi Marston, Executive Director, LAHSA; Wendy Greuel, Chair, LAHSA Commission
State: Hon. Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California (via Jason Elliott, Senior Counselor for Housing & Homelessness);
Hon. Ben Allen, State Senator, SD 26; Hon. Henry Stern, State Senator, SD 27; Hon. Richard Bloom, State Assemblyman,
AD 50; Hon. David O. Carter, U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California; Jack Ainsworth, Executive Director,
and Steve Hudson, District Director, California Coastal Commission; Sam Schuchat, Executive Director, and Megan Cooper,
Regional Manager, California State Coastal Conservancy; Guangyu Wang, Chief Administrative Director, Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Commission; Armando Quintero, Director, and Jerry West, Angeles District Superintendent, California State
Parks; Rue Mapp, Chair, State Park and Recreation Commission; Jennifer Lucchesi, Executive Officer, State Lands
Commission; Joseph T. Edmiston, Executive Director, MRCA and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy; Tony Tavares,
Director, Caltrans District 7
Federal: Hon. Diane Feinstein, U.S. Senator (via Peter Muller, Deputy State Director); Hon. Alex Padilla, U.S. Representative
(via Lauren Gallant, Sr. Field Representative); Hon. Ted Lieu, U.S. Representative, 33rd District (via Janet Turner, Field
Supervisor); Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California; Cindy Orlando, (Acting)
Regional Director, Interior Region 8, National Park Service; David Szymanski, Superintendent, SMMNRA; Tom Ford,
Director, Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program
Other: James Bozajian, Mayor, City of Calabasas; Paul Grisanti, Mayor, City of Malibu; Carrie Carrier, President, Topanga
Town Council; Guillermo Rodriguez, State Director, The Trust for Public Land; Morgan Goodwin, Sr. Chapter Director,
Sierra Club/Angeles Chapter; Shelley Luce, President & Chief Executive Officer, Heal the Bay; Tom Ford, Executive Director,
The Bay Foundation; Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, LA Waterkeeper; Graham Hamilton, LA Chapter Coordinator,
Surfrider Foundation; Matt Wersinger, Chair, WRAC; Sharon Browning and Sharon Kilbride, Co-Presidents, PPTFH
Attachment (Factors Demonstrating Infeasibility) on pp. 4-16, following
3

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
Factors Demonstrating Infeasibility – Use of WRSB
Parking Lot for Homeless Housing (CF 21-0350)3
Index
I. History/Governing Documents pages 4-5
II. Governing Law & Process pages 5-8
III. Position of Relevant Officials/Authorities pages 8-9
IV. Impact on the Homeless – Danger/Safety
Risks & Barriers pages 9-11
V. Community & Regional Impacts – Danger/
Public Safety Risk pages 11-13
VI. Other Impacts & Concerns pages 13-14
VII. No Overriding Immediate Emergency pages 14-16
I. History/Governing Documents
The history and governing documents, taken together, make clear that Will Rogers State Beach (WRSB) is to be used
for recreational purposes by the general public as a California State Park – not for housing of any kind. Permitting
homeless housing at the WRSB parking lot would be inconsistent with the spirit, intent and express provisions of the
relevant documents that govern the rights and obligations of the parties.
A. 1942: The land comprising what is now Will Rogers State Beach (WRSB land/formerly owned by Will
Rogers) was conveyed to the State of California upon the death of Will Rogers’ widow Betty. In that connection, the
State and the then-State Parks Commission (SPC) entered into a recorded “Resolution of Acceptance,” in which the
SPC “accepted” the WRSB land “in the name of and for and on behalf of the State of California for state park
purposes,” and resolved that the land was “included in the California State Park System.” [Emphasis added.]
B. 1948: The State and the City of Los Angeles entered into a “Fifty Year Operating Agreement” (FYOA), in
which the City became a lessee of the State and was given control over operations and maintenance at several
beaches, including WRSB. Key FYOA provisions with respect to the use of WRSB:
• the parties declared that it is in “the interests of the public” for the lands to be placed under the City’s
jurisdiction “for park playground and recreational uses;" and
• the parties agreed that the City shall have the right to use and develop the lands "for the use, enjoyment
and protection of the general public, provided however that such use and development of said lands shall
conform to standards prescribed by any and all State laws applicable to State Beach Parks." [Emphasis
added.]
3 PPCC is continuing to obtain and/or analyze relevant documents, facts and law; our review is ongoing. Also note: While we
specifically focus here on the infeasibility of the WRSB parking lot, several of these factors also apply to the Dockweiler State
Beach parking lot, which PPCC also opposes for use for homeless housing, as does the Neighborhood Council of
Westchester/Playa and the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC) – an alliance of all 14 councils on the Westside of
Los Angeles. In regard to beaches, WRAC opposes the use of all beaches and beach parking lots to house the unhoused:
https://westsidecouncils.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WRAC-Letter-CF21-0530-1.pdf.
4

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
The FYOA by its terms expired in early 1999 with respect to WRSB (but see Subsection E below).
C. 1975: The City and County of Los Angeles entered into a “Joint Powers Agreement” (JPA), approved by the
State as to WRSB, in which control over operations and maintenance at several beaches, including WRSB, was
assigned to the County, “subject to all applicable lease terms and conditions” (i.e., the terms and conditions of the
FYOA). The City retained certain limited rights and/or responsibilities, including the responsibility of “fire
suppression, police protection and law enforcement.” The JPA has no expiration date, but is subject to termination
on one year's advance notice. For over 45 years, the County has been operating WRSB for the State under the JPA,
for recreational purposes as a State Park.
D. 1987: The City and County entered into an amendment to the JPA (JPA Amendment); with respect to
WRSB, the JPA Amendment provided that the City would be responsible for “all liability arising from piers, groins,
the bike path located on [WRSB] and natural conditions,” and for “50% of the liability for claims related to
dangerous conditions of public improvements that could not be repaired by the County in one day.” The JPA
Amendment also provided that all other terms of the JPA “shall remain in full force and effect.”
E. 1998: On the eve of expiration of the FYOA, then-Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and then-Cal Parks
Director Patricia J. Megason confirmed in writing that until such time as a new or renewal lease was negotiated, the
City would remain a "holdover" (month-to-month) tenant, with the “existing” FYOA to “continue to define” their
relationship. To PPCC’s knowledge, no renewal lease was ever negotiated and the City’s holdover tenancy with
respect to WRSB, defined by the FYOA, as well as the City’s responsibilities under the JPA, have continued for the
last 21+ years.
F. Status today: WRSB remains a State Park within the California State Park System; the County continues to
operate and maintain WRSB for recreational purposes as a State Park; the City remains a holdover tenant with certain
limited rights and responsibilities; and the terms and conditions of the FYOA and JPA remain in effect and govern
the City’s, County’s and State’s rights and obligations with respect to the use and operation of WRSB.
II. Governing Law & Process
Applicable law and required multi-jurisdictional approval processes make clear that 1) the proposed use would
violate the Coastal Act and required Coastal Commission approval of the proposed use is therefore highly unlikely;
and 2) due to lengthy and complicated CEQA and Coastal approval processes, as well as potential local zoning
requirements, approval in any event could not be obtained easily or quickly.
A. Coastal Act
• WRSB is an important California public resource protected by the Coastal Act (§30000, et seq.). “Protecting
public access to the coast and recreational opportunities for all is a core mandate of the Coastal Act”
(https://www.coastal.ca.gov/enforcement/ -- drop-down “Securing Public Access”; emphasis added). See also:
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-coastal-commission-cracks-beach-access/ (Commission’s goal is
“ensuring California’s coastline is accessible to everyone”).
• The California Constitution also protects the public’s right of access: “access to the navigable waters of this
State shall be always attainable for the people thereof” (see Art. X, §§ 3, 4).
5

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
• The Coastal Act provides for maximum access to the coast (§§30210 and 30211). In this regard, the Coastal
Commission has a record of requiring and protecting parking opportunities to allow beach access and of
taking strong action in cases when public access is prevented.4
• The shoreline area, from the submerged land to the mean high tide line, is deemed to be held in trust for the
public (the “Public Trust Doctrine”);5 the Coastal Act and the California Constitution guarantee that the
public has unrestricted access to public trust land.
Placing homeless housing at the WRSB parking lot would restrict public access to the beach and ocean
•
(including land protected by the Public Trust Doctrine), and would thereby violate the Coastal Act and
California Constitution. It is highly unlikely that the Coastal Commission will approve this use which would
clearly prevent such access.
o Countless people from throughout Los Angeles and beyond, including tourists and other visitors, use
the parking lot to access the beach/public trust land and ocean at WRSB.
o Individuals and families from all neighborhoods, walks of life and income levels come to WRSB to
recreate, escape the heat and enjoy the beautiful surroundings, often when other recreational open-
space or public park opportunities are not available to them.
o There is no parking on PCH in the location of WRSB; the WRSB lot is the most practicable and the
most direct option for beachgoers to access WRSB.
o The WRSB parking lot is full on summer weekends and on hot days and holidays throughout the
year; parking is reasonably priced for families spending a day at the beach: $7 weekdays and $9
weekends (9am-5pm) for non-over-sized vehicles.
o Parking fee revenues are used by the County for maintenance and upkeep of the beach and
appurtenances, as well as lifeguard facilities and salaries. Placing homeless housing on the lot would
result in a substantial reduction in the numbers of visitors, a reduction in revenue, reduced capacity
for maintenance and possible beach closures as a result.
• The Coastal Act also provides that in the event of competing policies, conflicts should be resolved in a
manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources ((§30007.5).
• Other Coastal Act violations arising from this proposed use may include reduction in public recreational
opportunities (§§30001.5; 30210; 30213; 30223); failure to protect public safety, quality of life, the marine
environmental or overall quality of the coastal zone (§§30001(c); 30004(b); 30006.5; 30105.5; 30210;
30230); and inadequate outreach to the community and/or lack of public support (§30006).
• PPCC has been unable to find any evidence of an approved homeless housing facility on any beach or beach
parking lot on the California coast – likely because such use would clearly violate the Coastal Act and/or a
Coastal Development Permit was never requested or issued. If approved by the Coastal Commission, the use
proposed for the WRSB parking lot would be unprecedented in California.
4 See, e.g., the recent case of Lent v. Coastal Commission, et al. (4/5/21; Case No. B292091) (appellate court upheld the Coastal
Commission’s imposition of a $4 million+ fine against a Malibu private property owner for refusing to remove structures that
blocked a public access easement; case now on appeal to the California Supreme Court).
5 State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon) (1981) 29 Cal.3d 210, 214. See also further explanations of the Public Trust
Doctrine at: State Lands Commission / https://www.slc.ca.gov/public-engagement/ and Surfrider Foundation /
https://www.surfrider.org/pages/policy-on-beach-access.
6

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
B. County Code
• County Code provides that the beach and the beach parking lot are one: LACC §17.12.030.
• County Code expressly prohibits dwelling/habitation on the beach and at beach parking lots: LACC
§§17.12.232(H) and 17.12.260.
• If County Supervisors wished to amend the Code in order to allow the proposed use, an analysis under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be necessary.
C. Lengthy/Prolonged Processes
• Multiple approvals from the various jurisdictions involved would be needed and a determination must be
made as to which agency would bring an application with the Coastal Commission – the City, as the
holdover tenant? The County, as the operator? The State, as the property owner? Would City or County
zoning regulations, with attendant required processes, also apply? All of these processes, determinations
and/or approvals would take considerable time to be resolved.
• Environmental review under CEQA would be necessary during the determination and approval process.
An EIR would be required if it is determined that there are one or more significant impacts on the
environment which cannot be mitigated. Impacts that may be analyzed include:
o Beach/sand pollution as well as run-off/ocean water pollution (the Santa Monica Bay) due to
expected increased deposits of needles and other drug paraphernalia, debris, urine and feces from
additional homeless individuals dwelling at the WRSB parking lot (already experienced on WRSB
from current activities of homeless individuals);
o Traffic impacts (see Secs. IV.A and V.D below);
o Fire hazard impacts (see Secs. IV.B and V.B below);
o Other public safety impacts (see Secs. IV-VI below);
Economic & other impacts (loss of parking revenues, impact on maintenance, lifeguard services and
o
the like).
• The required environmental analysis under CEQA may take months or longer to be completed.
• The required Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process6 with the Coastal Commission would also take
months or even a year or more to be completed.
o CM Bonin acknowledged at PPCC’s public board meeting on April 8, 2021 that the “Coastal
approval process can take months.”
o An emergency application for an administrative waiver under Public Resources Code §30611 would
not be available since public officials have known of the claimed “emergency” for at least a year or
longer (see Sec. VII below).7
6 It is clear that a CDP would be required. Coastal Act §30600(a); Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los
Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 738 (Coastal developments subject to the Coastal Act, regardless of whether the project has impact on
density or intensity of land use). Note also that residents of the Palisades Bowl have also weighed in with concerns as to this
particular matter (see Sec. VI below).
7 PRC §30611 provides: “When immediate action by a person or public agency performing a public service is required to
protect life and public property from imminent danger, or to restore, repair, or maintain public works, utilities, or services
7

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
o Given the unprecedented level of opposition to this proposal, in the unlikely event of a decision by
the Coastal Commission adverse to project opponents, appeals/other legal action seem likely.
III. Position of Relevant Officials/Authorities
Public positions expressed by relevant State, County and federal authorities make clear that the proposed use of the
State Beach parking lots for homeless housing would be antithetical to their stated goals and positions with
respect to beach access and use. [Emphasis added in all quoted remarks in Secs. A-G below.]
A. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter: Decried the loss of beaches and other public spaces due to current
appalling conditions for the homeless, stating in his April 20, 2021 preliminary injunction ruling in the case of
Alliance for Human Rights v. City of Los Angeles, et al.:
“The homeless have been left no other place to turn to but our beaches, parks, libraries, and sidewalks,
and it is pivotal that they no longer rely on spaces that enhance quality of life for all citizens.”
“Los Angeles has lost its parks, beaches, schools, sidewalks, and highway systems due to the inaction of
City and County officials who have left our homeless citizens with no other place to turn.”
B. Supervisor Janice Hahn: Stated in a published response to an inquiry from a news reporter in April 2021
that the proposed use of the County-operated beaches for homeless housing “is not an option at this time.”
C. Supervisor Sheila Kuehl: Stated in an e-newsletter to constituents in April 2021 that adding an “access
mat” to beaches for people with disabilities was important because “[o]ne of the major draws for those of us who live
in or visit LA is, of course, to be close to the fabulous Pacific Ocean and our gorgeous, sandy beaches . . . so LA
County is once again acting to make sure our beaches are ever more accessible and inclusive.”
D. County Beaches & Harbors (B&H)/former Deputy Director John Kelly: Stated in a 2017 posting on the
B&H website that the agency’s “duty is to protect public access to the beach, the parking lots, the restrooms, the
concession stands. So that people who can’t afford to live on the beach can still enjoy the beach.”
E. B&H Strategic Plan: The agency currently states on its website that one of the goals and objectives of its
Strategic Plan is to “enhance access to our beaches;” that its Vision is “to preserve and enhance Los Angeles
County’s beaches;” and that its Mission is “providing recreational activities while sustaining Los Angeles County
beaches.”
F. Coastal Commission Executive Director Jack Ainsworth: Stated in a 2017 interview with public television
station KQED that “providing access to the shoreline . . . is one of the primary mandates of the Coastal Act . . .
[O]ne of my highest priorities going forward -- is not only protecting it for the residents of those areas, but for all
destroyed, damaged, or interrupted by natural disaster, serious accident, or in other cases of emergency, the requirements of
obtaining any permit under this division may be waived upon notification of the executive director of the commission of the type
and location of the work within three days of the disaster or discovery of the danger, whichever occurs first.” The conditions
contemplated by this section are clearly not present here, nor has any official brought an application under this section “within
three days of the disaster or discovery of the danger.” [Emphasis added.]
8

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
Californians and those Californians that may not have had access to the coast, particularly those in disadvantaged
communities, and communities of color.”
G. County Supervisors: In a press release on April 30, 2021, regarding a grant program for Measure A
projects (“LA County Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks and Beaches Measure”), each of the five Supervisors issued
statements about the importance of providing public access to recreational open space, stressing that such access is
“essential for an equitable, healthy and vibrant LA County” (Supervisor Holly Mitchell).
IV. Impact on the Homeless – Danger/Safety Risks & Barriers
The California Constitution obligates local governments to protect the safety of all citizens, the unhoused as well as
the housed (see Sec. V below). Actual facts on the ground make clear that siting homeless housing at the WRSB
parking lot would gravely endanger the individuals who are housed there and would also pose unacceptable
barriers in terms of access to transportation and necessary services.
A. Crossing PCH:
• The WRSB parking lot is located immediately adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). For most of its
length in Pacific Palisades, PCH is a six-lane highway, akin to a freeway, with routinely heavy and speeding
vehicular traffic made up of commuters and other motorists.
• Homeless individuals are regularly observed dangerously jaywalking across PCH in order to access the one
grocery store in the area, a Vons market located two miles from the County Lifeguard headquarters in the
Temescal Canyon lot, or the liquor store located to the southeast across from the Santa Monica Canyon lot –
or simply wandering aimlessly and dangerously in the middle of heavy traffic on PCH.
http://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Homeless-Crossing-PCH.pdf.
• Individuals jaywalking across PCH have been regularly killed in the past, including as recently as February
2021. On June 1, 2021, a disturbed homeless person struck a Metro bus on PCH and was taken by
ambulance to the hospital (see also Sec. V.D, below).
• Dr. Jonathan Sherin, Director of the LA County Dept. of Mental Health, advised attendees at a recent public
community meeting sponsored by the Pacific Palisades Task Force on Homelessness (PPTFH)8 that the
number one cause of death for homeless individuals is getting hit by cars.
• The risk of death by jaywalking across PCH is much higher with drug and alcohol addiction and mental
illness – disturbing conditions that PPTFH volunteers and our LAPD beach detail have observed in the
Palisades’ homeless population with increasing frequency in recent months.
8 Homeless individuals have for many years been drawn to WRSB as well as to our nearby bluffs and canyon areas. When
encampments were mushrooming on the beach several years ago, PPCC initiated PPTFH, which soon afterward became a
respected, independent volunteer non-profit organization. Over the years, with generous donations from the Palisades
community, and working daily with our assigned LAPD beach detail and outreach workers from The People Concern, PPTFH
volunteers have had great success in helping the homeless find housing and services, eliminating encampments and reducing
crime, debris and the ever-present fire risk. https://www.pptfh.org/.
9

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
B. Fires:
• The entirety of Pacific Palisades is in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Wild fires are occurring with
ever-increasing frequency in Pacific Palisades. They pose a serious risk not only to the housed community in
the Palisades, but to any unhoused individuals dwelling in or near the WRSB parking lot. As LAFD warns
on its website: “Catastrophic fires are occurring at an increasing rate . . . Hillside communities within Los
Angeles are under continuous threat of a devastating wildfire.”
• PPTFH volunteers and LAPD beach detail officers regularly scout WRSB and surrounding areas, finding
evidence of fires being set in all locations, including on the beach by homeless persons and in nearby bluffs.
http://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Homeless-Spot-Fires.pdf. The massive Palisades Fire in May 2021,
which burned over 1,300 acres in the Santa Monica Mountains in the areas of Pacific Palisades and Topanga
Canyon and resulted in evacuation orders and warnings, was caused by an arsonist who was also homeless.
Another large, dangerous brush fire of unknown origin occurred on the Via de las Olas bluffs immediately
across PCH from the WRSB lot on May 24, 2021. http://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Recent-Wildfires.pdf.
• Due to concerns about already-existing encampments and fire risk, LAPD recently initiated a collaborative,
multi-jurisdictional task force, including personnel and officers from LAPD, LAFD, the California Highway
Patrol, the County Sheriff, the Mountains, Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), City and State
Park Rangers, and PPTFH volunteers, to remove illegal encampments and hazardous materials in our bluffs
and canyon areas and to offer housing and services to homeless individuals.9
• We reasonably expect that if homeless dwelling is sanctioned at the WRSB parking lot, more unhoused
individuals will be attracted to the area, both at the beach and in the surrounding bluffs and canyons,
increasing the overall fire risk both for the housed and the unhoused.
C. Landslide/Tsunami/Earthquake/Flood:
• In 1957, a massive landslide from the Via de las Olas bluff sent acres of earth across PCH, the WRSB
parking lot, the beach and into the ocean. A Caltrans worker cleaning up a prior slide below was buried alive
by the huge slide. The State decided the big slide was too massive to remove. Caltrans created a new PCH
highway around the slide, and also created a new sand beach and parking lot at WRSB that we see today.
More slides could bury homeless campers or dwellers at WRSB.
• A Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) has informed PPCC that in the event of a tsunami or serious
earthquake, homeless individuals dwelling on the WRSB parking lot could be put in serious danger from
either a tidal wave that might sweep all inhabitants out to sea, or from boulders loosened on the slopes of the
bluffs immediately across from the parking lot. These are not far-fetched possibilities: a “Tsunami Zone”
evacuation warning sign is posted on PCH at Chautauqua Blvd.; large boulders are often loosened from
bluffs along PCH and in nearby canyons during heavy rains.10
9 More information about the encampment task force effort:
http://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/PPCC-Commendation-Letter-Cap.-Tom.pdf
10 Regarding tsunami risk, see also information from the California Geological Survey, summarized here:
https://patch.com/california/marinadelrey/marina-del-rey-faces-major-tsunami-risk-so-get-ready.
10

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
• The CCM has also informed us that during stormy periods, especially during periodic El Nino conditions,
there would be a chance of inundation of homeless inhabitants by a combination of surge and astronomical
high tides.11
D. Inadequate Sanitation:
• Sanitation facilities at WRSB are scarce or non-existent. There is no assurance that basic cleanliness/hygiene
needs of the homeless will be met with proper facilities that will actually be maintained on a regular basis.
E. Inadequate Access to Transportation and Services:
• WRSB is an isolated location relative to services; it is not within easy walking distance of grocery stores or
other amenities. At a public meeting of the Brentwood Homeowners Association in March 2021, CM Bonin
acknowledged that homeless housing should be sited in locations accessible to transit and services, especially
for those with disabilities or other conditions that make long walks to access transit difficult or impossible.
• If the homeless housing is situated at the County Lifeguard headquarters, as CM Bonin has suggested, there
are no nearby, reasonable transit options. Buses are not easily accessed from the Lifeguard headquarters
location. The closest bus stop is more than six-tenths of a mile away at the Temescal Canyon entrance to the
WRSB parking lot along PCH.
V. Community & Regional Impacts – Danger/Public Safety Risks
The siting of homeless housing at the WRSB parking lot would constitute a direct threat to public safety.
A. Government Responsibilities:
• Article XIII, Sec. 35(a) of the California Constitution provides:
“(1) Public safety services are critically important to the security and well-being of the State's citizens and to
the growth and revitalization of the State's economic base.
“(2) The protection of the public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local
officials have an obligation to give priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.”
[Emphasis added.]
The siting of homeless housing at the WRSB parking lot would violate the City’s “first responsibility,” as a
local government, under the California Constitution.
• The City also expressly assumed responsibility under the JPA for “fire suppression, police protection and law
enforcement” at WRSB (see Sec. I.D above). The proposed use of the WRSB parking lot for homeless
housing would constitute an abrogation of the City’s specific responsibility under the JPA.
11 For more information contact Jay Rosenthal, CCM: Air, Weather & Sea Conditions, Inc., AirWeather@aol.com,
www.weatherman.org.
11

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
B. Wildfires/Use of WRSB Parking Lot for Emergency Response:
• As explained in Sec. IV.B above, Pacific Palisades is under constant, serious threat of wildfires; the risk can
be expected to increase if homeless housing is sanctioned at the WRSB parking lot, which, based on the
experience of other communities such as Venice, will likely attract more homeless individuals to WRSB
and/or nearby bluffs and canyon areas, with an attendant increase in fire hazards.
• The WRSB parking lot – particularly the entire lot area near the County Lifeguard headquarters, where the
site for homeless housing is suggested – is routinely used by City, County and State officials during wildfire
events for critical command, staging and evacuation. In recent years, it has been used for some or all of these
purposes during the 2019 fire in the Palisades Highlands; during the catastrophic Woolsey Fire in 2019; and
during the recent massive Palisades Fire. http://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WRSB-Command.pdf. At
one point during the May 2021 Palisades Fire, the entire southeastern portion of the WRSB lot, stretching for
more than six-tenths of a mile from the Temescal Canyon entrance to the Lifeguard headquarters, was taken
up with critically-necessary emergency vehicles and firefighting equipment.
• More recently, the WRSB lot was used for command purposes by the multi-jurisdictional encampment task
force, organized by LAPD and also planned to be used in the future for regular, periodic task force efforts.
(See Sec. IV.B and fn. 9 above.)
• The use of the WRSB lot for this purpose is needed not only for protection of Pacific Palisades, but for the
protection of communities and State and federal parkland in the nearby Santa Monica Mountains region
which are all under serious wildfire threat, including Calabasas, Malibu, Topanga Canyon, the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and multiple State parks within the MRCA.
• Siting homeless housing at the WRSB lot would effectively result in loss of this vital resource for first
responders and thus violate the City’s responsibilities for fire suppression under the JPA and public safety
protection under the California Constitution.
C. Mental Illness, Addiction, Violent Behavior, Illegal Drugs:
• It is well-documented that there are substantial numbers of homeless individuals with mental health and/or
drug or alcohol addiction problems who would benefit from appropriate services and treatment. Given the
City’s track record, there is little reason to believe that the proposal will actually enhance efforts to provide
needed services.
• Visitors to WRSB are often families with children as well as youth participants in camps and other programs
(see Section VI below). The presence of homeless individuals with untreated mental health or addiction
issues endangers the health, safety and welfare of everyone who uses the beach. The problems include:
o Homeless persons suffering with untreated mental health and/or addiction issues often act erratically,
in a threatening manner or even dangerously. Our PPTFH volunteers have observed a disturbing and
growing trend of methamphetamine use among the unhoused population at WRSB, often leading to
violent and dangerous behavior.
o As widely-reported, homicides have recently occurred in or near homeless encampments in
Brentwood and Beverly Grove, as have incidents of fighting, beating, tent fires, property damage and
other acts of violence among the homeless in Venice and elsewhere.
o Illegal drug use and sale occurs in and/or near homeless encampments throughout the City, including
in Pacific Palisades. Dangerous/makeshift methamphetamine “labs” – constituting severe
12

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
fire hazards – have been discovered in the brush in our bluffs across from WRSB and dismantled by
LAPD officers and PPTFH volunteers. http://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WRSB-Meth.pdf.
• Our LAPD beach detail, working in tandem with PPTFH volunteers and outreach workers, has been effective
to date in efforts to mitigate these threats to public safety. The Palisades community is grateful for their
service and the protection they offer. But the beach detail and our volunteers are already overworked; an
influx of more homeless individuals would only exacerbate existing problems and increase threats to public
safety. Moreover, there are no guarantees that sufficient funding will be available to support retention of the
LAPD beach detail beyond Summer 2021.
• Loss of the beach detail – combined with the inevitable increase in more homeless individuals via potentially
sanctioned housing at the WRSB parking lot – would also violate the City’s specific responsibility under the
JPA for “police protection and law enforcement” at WRSB.
D. Traffic Impacts:
• Traffic is heavy on PCH (see Sec. IV above) and collisions occur with some frequency. We have learned that
between 2010-2020, there was a total of 205 reported fatal or injury collisions with 14 pedestrian deaths or
significant injuries within the stretch of PCH bordering WRSB. Homeless individuals jaywalking and
wandering onto the six lanes of traffic will only increase if homeless housing is sited at the WRSB parking
lot, resulting in additional risk of collisions, possible injuries and even deaths for motorists as well as the
homeless; these actions by the homeless can also snarl traffic for commuters and commercial vehicles, and
discourage tourist visits.
• These conditions are known to public officials. Failure to protect motorists as well as the homeless by
allowing an exacerbation of these conditions via homeless housing at the WRSB lot would violate the City’s
responsibility for public safety protection under the California Constitution.
E. Bike Bath/Impact on Cyclists:
• The popular beach bike path, used by thousands of bicyclists daily, literally runs through the WRSB parking
lot at the Lifeguard headquarters; siting homeless housing where inhabitants are likely to wander near or in
the middle of speeding cyclists on the bike path would be a recipe for disaster, and again, a violation of the
City’s responsibility to protect public safety.
• Moreover, under the JPA Amendment, the City is responsible for “all liability” arising from the bike path at
WRSB (see Sec. I.D above). Liability concerns alone should dictate a finding that the WRSB parking lot is
infeasible for use for homeless housing.
VI. Other Impacts & Concerns
Placing homeless housing on the WRSB parking lot would have additional negative impacts on many beach users
as well as nearby residents and would make the site an exceptionally poor choice for this purpose.
A. Confluence of Beach Users:
• Numerous organized activities take place on WRSB near the Lifeguard headquarters and organizers have
used the parking lot at that location for many years for beach access and administration purposes: the popular
13

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
County Junior Lifeguards program; numerous summer camps; volleyball groups; and Palisades Charter
High School surfing classes – all of which are open to all eligible residents of Los Angeles.
• Siting homeless housing at that location would unacceptably and unreasonably interfere with all of these
valuable and widely-attended programs, many of which would be forced to end operations due to lack of
reasonable alternative locations and likely low participation if homeless housing were placed nearby (Junior
Lifeguards is run by lifeguards at the headquarters; volleyball groups play at the 20 beach volleyball courts
located to the southeast of the headquarters; several volleyball tournaments are held during summer months,
when the parking lot is packed with attendees from throughout the region).
B. Lifeguards:
• Allowing homeless individuals to dwell in the parking lot at the County Lifeguard headquarters may have an
impact on lifeguard operations and consequent implications for the safety of beach visitors.
• Lifeguards would likely be called upon, as the nearest first responders, to address problems with the
homeless at that location; this would place an undue burden on lifeguards and may in turn compromise their
ability to conduct ocean rescues or other lifesaving efforts necessary to protect the safety of the general
public.
C. Nearby Residential Neighborhoods:
• The Santa Monica Canyon community is located directly across from WRSB at the parking lot at Santa
Monica Canyon. Residents and business owners of the Canyon currently experience negative impacts from
homeless individuals who travel into the neighborhood from WRSB, either dangerously crossing over PCH
or using the tunnels under PCH from the parking lot, to visit the liquor store located on PCH at that location
or to access other areas of the Canyon.
• The tunnels under PCH at Santa Monica Canyon – intended as a safe route to the beach for pedestrians – are
routinely littered with trash, needles and human feces deposited by mentally ill and addicted homeless
individuals. Volunteers attempt to clean the tunnels on a regular basis but the effort is an uphill battle;
beachgoers are discouraged from using the tunnels as a result of the deplorable conditions. Santa Monica
Canyon residents and business owners reasonably fear that mentally ill and addicted homeless individuals
will only increase in their neighborhood if homeless housing were sanctioned at the WRSB parking lot.
• Two mobile home communities, Pacific Palisades Bowl and Tahitian Terrace, are located directly across
from WRSB to the northwest of the Temescal Canyon entrance to the parking lot. The Palisades Bowl
entrance is at street (ground) level and both entrances can be accessed by pedestrians from the inland side of
PCH or via a crosswalk from the beach/parking lot side of PCH. Residents at Palisades Bowl include many
elderly, low-income women who have expressed concern to PPCC that homeless housing at the WRSB lot
will attract more mentally unbalanced or addicted homeless people, who in turn may wander into the mobile
home park and disturb or frighten residents.
VII. No Overriding Immediate Emergency
Councilmember Bonin asserts that there is an “urgent crisis” or an “immediate emergency” that necessitates
consideration of the WRSB parking lot, despite all of the factors showing the infeasibility as well as the danger of
using this site for homeless housing. We agree that housing and services are urgently needed for the homeless in Los
14

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
Angeles – and have been needed for decades. We strongly disagree, however, that there is an overriding sudden or
immediate emergency which requires public recreational spaces, such as State Parks and State Beaches, to be
removed from public use for the purpose of homeless housing – a result that would be completely contrary to Judge
Carter’s express goals (see Sec. III.A above).
A. LAHSA: LAHSA itself was formed almost 20 years ago to address then then-increasing problem of
homelessness; the Homeless Count has been rising steadily year after year; last year, when she was selected as
Executive Director, Heidi Marston stated publicly (press release posted on LAHSA website): “Homelessness in Los
Angeles County is a crisis every day.” [Emphasis added.]
B. Mayor: In a letter filed in federal court in the Alliance case, Mayor Garcetti stated that the City of Los
Angeles has not issued an emergency declaration regarding homelessness, describing the situation instead as a
“decades-long crisis involving multiple jurisdictions.” [Emphasis added.]
C. County:
• County counsel represented, in a submission in the Alliance case, that the County had issued an emergency
homeless declaration in 2016, five years ago. We were unaware until recently of this declaration.
• In the years since, Supervisor Kuehl’s representatives have advised us about progress in funding and
constructing homeless housing, but PPCC was never told that an immediate emergency situation exists such
that the WRSB parking lot (or any particular site) is actually needed for this purpose.
• We have also learned that almost a year ago, staff for Supervisor Kuehl, CM Bonin, County Beaches &
Harbors and other agencies began discussing plans to use the WRSB parking lot for homeless housing.
These discussions and plans were never revealed to constituents or PPCC and only became known to us
recently through responses to Public Records Act requests.
D. Councilmember Bonin:
• In 2016, CM Bonin stated at a PPCC meeting that homelessness was then a “crisis.”
• In 2018, he described the situation at the time as an “emergency,” and explained that he was asking all
communities in CD 11 to try and find sites for homeless housing. According to PPCC’s approved online
minutes, an effort was made by past PPCC Chairs to find suitable sites; none were found at the time.12
• In the years since, nothing more was communicated to PPCC about a need to find sites in Pacific Palisades
because of a sudden immediate homeless emergency or crisis, or for any other reason.
• At PPCC’s public board meeting on April 8, 2021, as confirmed by PPCC’s approved online minutes, during
discussion about this new proposal to use the WRSB parking lot, CM Bonin repeated the statement that
12 There is currently no order or other requirement that each and every neighborhood in CD 11 “contribute” sites for homeless
housing. PPCC officers have nonetheless individually searched in good faith for possible other suitable sites for homeless
housing in the Palisades area; none have been found to date. This information is or should be available to our elected officials.
City Controller Ron Galperin has advised PPCC that he is also conducting an independent evaluation of all City properties for
suitability for homeless housing (not including beaches). Of course, whether alternate suitable sites are available in Pacific
Palisades or anywhere else in the City is irrelevant to the issue of the infeasibility of the WRSB lot.
15

Pacific Palisades Community Council
Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., and Matt Szabo
June 10, 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
homelessness is an emergency in Los Angeles, yet he also acknowledged that the required “Coastal approval
process can take months.”
• We have now learned that almost a year ago, CM Bonin and/or his staff began discussing plans with
Supervisors Kuehl and Hahn and/or their staff, with staff from other agencies (including Beaches &
Harbors, the CAO and City Bureau of Engineering), and as early as November 2020 with Coastal
Commission staff and later with Executive Director Jack Ainsworth, about using the WRSB parking
lot for homeless housing. These discussions and plans were never revealed to constituents or PPCC and
only became known to us recently through responses to Public Records Act requests.
• To our knowledge, despite planning almost a year ago for this use and despite the current assertions of an
immediate emergency or urgent crisis, CM Bonin and other officials have not sought official approval to use
the WRSB parking lot from the Coastal Commission or any other agency on an expedited, emergency basis.
E. PPCC:
• PPCC’s approved online minutes show that since 2002, and every year after that for 19 years, issues
involving homelessness in Pacific Palisades were publicly discussed, often with City, County and State
government representatives in attendance.
• Our public officials were and are fully aware of the constant, ongoing problems involving homeless
individuals camped in or inhabiting our public areas, bluffs, canyons and at WRSB. Representatives of our
public officials and government agencies have even actively participated with PPTFH in efforts to address
problems associated with illegal homeless activities on or near WRSB.
• For the last five years, with the knowledge and express support of our elected officials, including CM Bonin,
Supervisor Kuehl and Assemblymember Richard Bloom, an LAPD beach detail has been assigned to WRSB
and nearby bluffs and canyons areas to work with PPTFH in dealing with these problems. LAPD’s presence
and assistance has been critical to the safety of the community.
• At no time during the last 19 years, until this sudden, surprising proposal, has any government representative
suggested to PPCC that homeless housing should be allowed at the WRSB parking lot. Such a suggestion
would have been – and still is – contrary to law and to efforts to protect against dangerous, unsafe conditions
on the ground which have been known to public officials for almost two decades.
PPCC Executive Committee
June 10, 2021
16