PPCC Library Integration Test

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 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 the entire village. David Kaplan reiterated the thoughts of the committee and encouraged that the fund would allow for the refreshing of areas next to the project that may not be owned by Caruso. (3) Diane Bleak expressed concern about the Disneyland unifying aspect of the project and if there would be piped in music. Rick stated that the design goal is very organic and something that fits with the community which is why Caruso is working with the DRB, residents and four architects. The buildings do not match and there is no ongoing theme. This is a street, a downtown in a coastal community and Rick Caruso wants it to look like a real street and not a theme park. Music is up to the community. (4) Rick Mills spoke to the Specific Plan as to the compatibility of development with the surrounding neighborhood. That would include the streets surrounding and adjacent but the motion attempts to address off-site areas as well which would benefit the community. Rick encouraged the developer and community to think about the benefit of this fund. (5) Richard Cohen questioned the legal argument about vacating the alley but that may be solved by a fund and wondered also about the BID. Richard noted that since the BID exists and there are other voices on the BID perhaps the money could be channeled through that because the idea of Caruso becoming responsible for fixing up other property owner’s store fronts doesn’t really work. Rick Mills suggested that PRIDE or the BID could advise. (6) Gil Dembo asked that funds be used to upgrade Sunset. Gil spoke in favor of Caruso giving us an organized structure and not what happens when there is fractured land ownership. _Public Comment_ : (1) Lou Kamer supported the motion. How much? Is it appropriate to take an incoming development and apply those standards to the others? Can the requirement to upgrade other property be done by the BID? (2) Mark Grinblatt objected to taking away the asphalt by the Mobil Station and alleged that boundaries for the gas station had been misrepresented. Mark suggested to the council that those with conflicts of interest recuse themselves or ask someone else to vote on the motions. Rick Caruso said that the City is the one who asked Caruso to eliminate the asphalt and they are following the LADOT rules. (3) Kelly Comras asked Rick Caruso to repeat his statements about the LADOT process. Rick stated that there are concerns about people crossing Sunset so the idea is to narrow the sidewalks and to have a shorter distance to cross. Caruso thinks it makes sense to have crossings on Sunset be safer given the length of the crossing and the speed at which cars travel. The changes are consistent with improvements throughout the City including the safe streets program. (4) Frances Tibbits asked about how the amount would be set and asked again about the vacating of the alley. Rick stated that they are burdened by the cost of maintaining the land and there is no entitlement benefit/density from owning the alley land. The square footage is being taken out of their developable land area and Caruso is making the alley wider and widening the sidewalk to increase pedestrian safety. (5) Ted Weitz supports the concept of attempting to unify the Village and suggested that the DRB should oversee anything in the streets and PROW. (6) Rena Repetti doesn’t think that the asphalt should be taken away because it makes the street safer when there is a back up of traffic and because traffic patterns particularly with regard to Bashford would be negatively impacted. Rick Caruso stated that the roadway was in the original application and LADOT wanted it out with their rationale being set forth in the Traffic Study. 9.**Old Business.** 9.1. Southern California Gas Company Advanced Meter Project Update. Presenting: Ray Verches, SoCalGas. [verchescom@aol.com](mailto:verchescom@aol.com). Presentation: this is the third year this topic has been presented. Two phases are updating the meters and updating the data network. There are two data collection areas left, 16969 Sunset Blvd (Sunset and Marquez) and the other at Sunset and Blue Sail. Approval from the Coastal Commission and the Bureau of Engineering for the final two phases was obtained yesterday. 10.**New Business --** None. 11.**General Public Comment.** 11.1. Steve Lantz said there will be a meeting at 4 PM next Tuesday at Gilbert Hall, Palisades Charter High School. The topic is transportation options for Seniors. What is not being done in terms of transportation in the Palisades will also be addressed. Everyone from the public is encouraged to attend. 11.2. Bicycling on Sunset is very dangerous and having bikes on Sunset slows down traffic. 12.**Adjournment.** Chris Spitz adjourned the meeting at 8:56 PM. **ATTACHMENTS** **ITEM 7.1.4 – PPCC LETTER RE VILLAGE STARBUCKS CUB** February 13, 2016 Development Services & Zoning Administration Division City Planning Department Los Angeles City Hall 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attn: Roxanne Wiles Via email: rocky.wiles@lacity.org Re: ZA 2015-4233-CUB/15300 Sunset Blvd, Pacific Palisades (proposed Village Starbucks CUB for onsite beer and wine consumption); file open for comment until February 16, 2016; SUPPORT application (subject to modification of operating hours). Dear Ms. Wiles: Pacific Palisades Community Council (PPCC) is the most broad-based community organization and the voice of the Palisades since 1973. The PPCC board heard presentations by the applicant’s representatives and held public discussion of this matter at two regularly scheduled board meetings, on January 14 and February 11, 2016. The PPCC board also considered (1) the applicant’s written responses (dated January 22, 2016) to a series of questions posed by PPCC in its January 19, 2016 letter to Ms. Wiles, and (2) a survey of Starbucks stores with the “Evenings Program” conducted by PPCC’s President (dated February 4, 2016). After extensive discussion at its meeting on February 11, 2016, the PPCC board passed a motion to **support the CUB application,** subject t _o_ modification of the operating hours for the proposed “Evenings Program” (onsite beer and wine sales) from **4pm until the close of business, daily.** Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christina Spitz President Pacific Palisades Community Counci cc (via email): Hon. Councilmember Mike Bonin, CD11 mike.bonin@lacity.org Ezra Gale, Planning Deputy, CD11 ezra.gale@lacity.org Joann Lim, Planning Case Manager, City Planning Dept. joann.lim@lacity.org Spencer Regnery, Glassman Associates spencer@gpan.com **ITEM 8.2 – VPLUC (David Kaplan, Chair). VPLUC supplemental report / recommendations re Village Project/Caruso Affiliated land use application and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Additional information distributed prior to the meeting.** To view the existing Specific Plan: <http://planning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/pdf/pacpalsp.pdf>. [http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/lead_agency/EIR-ND.html ](http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/lead_agency/EIR-ND.html)[http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/EIR_or_ND.html ](http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/EIR_or_ND.html)From:<http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/stat/chap2_6.html#21082.2>. **§ 21082.2. Significant effect on environment; determination; environmental impact report preparation** (a) The lead agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (b) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of an environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (c) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. (d) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared. (e) Statements in an environmental impact report and comments with respect to an environmental impact report shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. VPLUC SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 2/25/16 The Committee has previously reported its analysis of the applicant’s submission. The Committee had indicated it was waiting for the applicant’s traffic study to become available for review before it would be in position to recommend any action that the Board should take with respect to the Caruso Village Project. Several weeks ago the Committee reported that the applicant, subsequent to its initial DRB hearing, had submitted revised plans reflecting changes in design or style and a withdrawal of its previous requests to deviate from Specific Plan setback requirements and Specific Plan height restrictions, in addition to removal of certain uses such as a Pilates studio, a reduction in the total amount of restaurant space and a removal of a request for shared parking plan. On February 18 the City released its MND (mitigated negative declaration) that included the City’s sign-off and approval of the applicant’s traffic study. This traffic study concluded that there were no unmitigatable traffic impacts occasioned by the development. The Committee engaged the services of Patti Post, PPCC Transportation Advisor. She reviewed the MND as well as the underlying documents reviewed by LADOT and City Planning and found that the conclusions of the MND were substantiated. It should be understood that the MND is not suggesting that there will be no increase in traffic but that the increase in traffic does not create, based on the standards that the City requires developers to comply with, any increase which cannot be mitigated. As further due diligence, Ms. Post spoke with two separate community leaders who were initially opposed or skeptical of the impact of Caruso projects in their areas (Glendale and Thousand Oaks). She learned that although there were similar concerns to those which our community has voiced, the Caruso assertions proved to be correct. These community leaders were extremely satisfied with the Caruso team during construction and after opening. They were unanimous in their belief that since Caruso does not sell his properties that these properties are managed well for the long term. Consequently, it is the Village Project Land Use Committee’s opinion that the proposed project will on balance offer residents a thoughtfully and responsibly managed shopping, restaurant and theater district that will be approved and enjoyed by the vast majority of residents. In that regard we offer the three motions which are set forth in the 2/25/16 PPCC Board meeting agenda. **_List of Entitlements – Village Project_**