PPCC Library Integration Test
Browse Library
134 documents found.
Active browse filters: Topic: topic:l1:land_use; Document type: Letter
-
PPCC Letter Re Sober Living Density
Letter | February 19, 2026
-
Supervisor Horvath Letter to PPCC _Gladstone Redevelopment Project -merged (1)
Letter | February 15, 2026
-
PPCC Letter Village Streetscape Improvements
Letter | January 23, 2026
-
PPCC EC Ltr ACE Yard #2
Letter | December 31, 2025
-
CD11 Letter - Coastal Dev Permit App (1)
Letter | October 7, 2025
-
PPCC EC Letter PSA Gladstones
Letter | October 7, 2025
-
PPCC EC Letter Gladstones
Letter | October 5, 2025
-
PPCC Letter CF 25-1083 (Park)
Letter | September 29, 2025
-
PPCC Letter Gov. Veto SB 79
Letter | September 14, 2025
-
Message to Legislators re SB 79
Letter | September 4, 2025
Library Search
Land Use
Browse all topics
Advanced Filters
-
Land UseMotionsWracVHFHSZ
The Pacific Palisades Community Council unanimously supports CF 24-1128, a proposal requesting a Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety report on abandoned and unfinished construction sites in the city, citing fire hazards, public safety risks, and blight concerns particularly relevant to their Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone community. The council urges the Planning and Land Use Management Committee to take up the measure promptly.
-
Land UseMotionsWracVHFHSZ
The Pacific Palisades Community Council unanimously passed a motion on September 26, 2024, supporting HR 8340, the Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act, and urges Los Angeles City Council members to submit a resolution adding this bill to the city's federal legislative priorities for 2024-2025.
-
Land UseMotionsWracVHFHSZ
The Pacific Palisades Community Council voted to support the Castellammare Mesa and Paseo Miramar neighborhoods' request to initiate the process for Hillside Construction Regulation District designation, contingent on robust outreach and education to residents and opportunities for community feedback. The council emphasizes the importance of comprehensive awareness regarding the impact of such designation on these hillside areas.
-
Land UseMinutesPlanning & Density
The Castellammare Home Owners Association and Miramar Homeowners' Association request that Councilmember Traci Park initiate a City Council request to apply Hillside Construction Regulations to their neighborhoods, citing concerns about overscale development projects, steep topography, substandard roadways, and fire risk. Both associations report overwhelming resident support for the HCR designation, representing over 400 homes in the district.
-
Land UseCoastalPlanning & Density
The Pacific Palisades Community Council opposes AB 2560, legislation that would allow state Density Bonus Laws to override the California Coastal Act in coastal development projects. The Council argues that removing protections for coastal areas sets a dangerous precedent and urges the Senate Natural Resources & Water Committee to vote against the bill, citing the California Coastal Commission's concerns about exempting coastal development from Coastal Act requirements.
-
Land UseCoastalPlanning & Density
The Pacific Palisades Community Council opposes AB 2560, which would allow state Density Bonus Laws to override the California Coastal Act in coastal development projects. The council argues that removing protections for coastal areas is not an appropriate solution to California's housing shortage and urges the Senate Housing Committee to vote against the bill.
-
Land UseMotionsWracVHFHSZ
The Pacific Palisades Community Council urges strict application of Zoning Information Bulletin No. 2422 and Coastal Act provisions to a proposed development at 351 N. Alma Real Drive, requesting that any rim construction overlooking Potrero Canyon be sufficiently set back to protect natural landforms and views from the park.
-
Land UseMotionsWracVHFHSZ
The Pacific Palisades Community Council opposes the Department of City Planning's proposed changes to construction noise thresholds, arguing the proposal violates CEQA requirements, lacks substantial evidence, contradicts the City's General Plan Noise Element, and would disproportionately harm residents in quiet residential areas and those who work night shifts or from home. The Council contends the proposal fails to demonstrate that weakening noise protections will result in additional affordable housing construction.