Draft  for November 14, 2002

Board Members Present (including Alternates and Advisors)

- George Wolfberg  - Arthur Mortell  - Patti Post  - Maurizio Vecchione  - Harry Sondheim
- Gilbert Dembo  - Larry Jacobs   - Stuart Muller  - Marguerite Perkins Mautner
- Lorraine Oshins  - Norman Kulla  - Jennifer Cron  - Carl Mellinger    - Kurt Toppel
- Bob Jacobson

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 adopted as corrected.. A correction is noted as received by email from Barbara Kohn. Stuart Muller moved and Marguerite Perkins Mautner seconded. Motion was accepted unanimously.

3.0                Announcements and Concerns:

3.1  Treasurer’s Report

There is $8,309.49 in the PPCC checking account and $4,774.77 in the savings account.  Printing costs for the Newsletter have yet to be paid.

3.2  Selection of Area Representatives Alternates

There continue to be vacancies in areas 6 & 7

3.3   Status of Organizational Representative designations

Alternate vacancies continue for Chamber of Commerce and Education

3.4 Final Call for Community Service Award Nominations

Nominations must be received by this evening to committee: Stuart Muller, Marguerite Perkins Mautner and Peter Partain.

3.5 Cancellation of DOT Pacific Palisades to Downtown Commuter Express (Route 430)

Over a year ago DOT begun discussion about canceling route with the Councilwoman Miscikowski’s office. The current proposal is to abandon service altogether –because the estimated 11 average riders are too low to justify the route. DOT has claimed that ridership did not increase despite advertising programs. Mr. John Redmond, representing the riders challenges that the City ever embarked in any kind of community promotion, and that the low ridership is due to lack of information about the route. He indicates that there are at least 11 Revere students that ride the bus regularly and challenges the estimate of 11 riders on average. Additionally DOT was criticized for having taken a decision without community feedback or riders’ feedback, and without offering any kind of notice period.. A suggestion was also offered as an alternative that DOT consider consolidate the two daily buses into one – leaving at least one daily service to the Palisades.

A question was asked by the Council on the exact route, to which the DOT representative Mr. David Rapinski explained that route starts at Sunset and PCH follows Sunset to Church lane – under freeway, to Sepulveda, UCLA and to the DOT park & ride, then on to the 405 Freeway, the SM Freeway to downtown along Grand, through the financial district to Union Station.. He then added that LADOT buses sit 43 people and that this route has averaged 6-12 people according to DOT surveys. LADOT is canceling this service to reallocate resources to other routes – LADOT operates 350 vehicles across 50 routes. He reminded everyone that the RTD used to run the 430 service – and found it to be an underperformer, and they proposed to cancel the route – city decided to step forward and LADOT took over the route. The 430 route has been a weak performer – Never reached triple digit ridership – in 1994 DOT introduced another park & ride lot and added two more buses to attempt to increase ridership – but route is still not performing. With the Councilwoman it was decided that significant ridership begins at the park & ride route --- and the DOT proposal offers a rerouted 431 to pick up service. This will add 27 minutes to commute time.

The Council asked if LADOT has available any commuter vans that could be used instead of the bus, to which Mr. Rapinski replied that LADOT does not.

Larry Jacobs inquired if the MTA routes to downtown can offer an alternative, to which representatives from the riders indicated that the route take 1:45hrs along surface streets. The Council asked if at least one bus could be kept, as proposed by the rider representatives. LADOT replied that one bus would not be cost effective based on how DOT contracts for driver services.  A question was asked about the 38 school buses that are sitting idle at the high school most of the day – and how feasible could be to use them in support of this route. LADOT indicates that the charter does not allow it.

Harry Sondheim asked why LADOT would make a decision without asking the passenger or try to find ridership?  LADOT indicated that they did survey the passengers.

The audience asked about the load factor of a median route in system, to which the LADOT representative answered that the route is 13% lower than average– based on a system  median of 38-40% seat utilization (with this not being its best performance). It was then pointed out that if all riders where combined on one bus rather than two, we would be average.  LADOT indicated that cost would still be the same due to the way services are contracted. 

The Council asked what initiatives were taken by LADOT to increase ridership. LADOT indicated that they did destination marketing, advertising the route in downtown circulars and billboards, as well as with downtown-based employers. Mitchell Lorenzo the PM for LADOT – pointed out again that 50% of riders are boarding at the Park & Ride stop – the reroute will still offer those passengers their service. The audience pointed out that a 27 minutes addition to the commute time is not an alternative.  Phil Ackers– also of DOT explained that LADOT’s mission is to reduce long-distance commuting, and therefore they do not consider short-distance riders, such as the Revere students. He added that DOT would discourage short-distance riding of its bus, as there are MTA alternatives for short distance.. The Council took objection to the statements, and encouraged DOT to listen to the wishes of its riders, and that their attitude does not seem to foster good will with the Community and the DOT’s own customers.

A member of the audience, who is also a rider criticized the marketing effort of LADOT, and indicated that the City provided no notice to allow any kind of community grassroots effort to attempt increasing ridership. He asked that the City delays implementing the cancellation for a period of at least six months to allow him and his fellow riders to help increase ridership.  The Council asked the representative of the Councilwoman when was this matter first considered – to which Craig Bullock replied that the matter was under review for a year. The Council expressed its dissatisfaction that the Community was not involved in providing either feedback or assistance to resolve this vital issue.

Arthur Mortell moved that the Council adopt  the following resolution:

The PPCC requests that the City of Los Angeles fund line 430 through June 2003. We ask that the City of Los Angeles fund a community-based marketing plan, developed with input from riders of line 430, with the purpose of increasing ridership. We request that both the LADOT and the ridership of the 430 deliver a progress report  to the PPCC by April of 2003.

Motion was seconded by Gilbert  Dembo. Motion was adopted unanimously.

3.6 Pot Luck Dinner

A sign up sheet is being circulated.

3.7 City of Los Angeles Street Furniture Project

A package was received from Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski describing various bus shelters, kiosks, and other street furniture to be installed by Viacom Decaux at bus stops at various intersections on Temescal, PCH and Sunset from the beach to Capri.

3.8 Coastal Commission de novo hearing re: 17633 Castellamare Drive

Tthe West LA Planning Commission decision approving Ben Leeds’ project was thrown out by the Coastal Commission which will hold a new hearing starting from scratch in the future.

3.9 Getty

Mr. Murdoch, Attorney. for plaintiffs confirmed that they have excluded the PPCC from the appeal filing.

4. Old Business

                4.1 Adoption of new Articles of Incorporation

This completes the merger of the PPC Foundation into PPCC as new Federal law allows a small amount of lobbying by tax exempt organizations without harming our tax exempt status. Arthur Mortell moved that the articles be accepted, Barry Kurtz seconded and the motion was accepted unanimously.

4.2 Alternatives for sidewalk repair

The Board of Public Works was requested to send experts to discuss sidewalk trees and the City’s strategies for sidewalk maintenance. City representatives in attendance included Thomas Thomas, Acting Assistant. Director, Dennis Weber, Superintendent for Special Projects, (tel. 213-485-6632, email: dweber@bss.lacity.org), and Greg Monfette from Special Projects.  The City provided a presentation relating to the City’s sidewalk policies. They discussed the creation of a new City wide program for sidewalk repair, in effect since the 2000-2001 budget. Current buidget allows repair to approx. 46 miles of the city’s worst sidewalks. In the 2001-2002 budget an additional 98 miles was approved.. In 2002-2003 the total was brought to 118 miles. This should be compared with the City having 6,000 miles of sidewalks. The program has pioneered a number of cutting edge repair techniques, including Grind Sidewalks, Meander Sidewalks, Enlarge Tree Well, Reduce Sidewalk Width, Rubberized pavers, Sidewalk Ramping and Rubberized Sidewalk.

Stuart Muller asked why, in light of the program, sidewalks are in still in such state of disrepair. City Representatives indicate that despite effort, overall budget is still minimal given the total citywide sidewalk network.

The Council inquired about the City’s policy for tree trimming – City indicated that there is a cycle based on the type of tree that is generally a 7-year cycle – again budget is an issue. Member of the audience commented on trees in the Palisades not having been trimmed for 20 years. 

Members of the audience asked about tree removal. The City indicates reluctance to remove trees unless special circumstances exist. Overall the City will try to preserve trees and sidewalks. Tree removal is only one element of a program that includes lots of other options. Additionally the City is encouraging homeowners to perform maintenance by issuing no-fee “A” permits.

Members of the audience flagged that Galloway has a severe problem.

Harry Sondehim asked how to report problems to the City and Dennis Webber suggested that people use the hotline number, 800-966 CITY to request service.

Larry Jacobs inquired on the effectiveness of the asphalt ramps, expressing the opinion that they had limited usefulness. City representatives indicated that for some types of damage these can be effective. They are also using grinding as an alternative.

A representative from Palisades Beautiful indicated that their organization planted 1,500 trees – but the City has lack of budget for pruning – a question was asked about pruning being performed on a more timely schedule. City representatives suggested that there is a request for budget for structural pruning – which would involve species-specific cycle – but budget and staffing are significant issues – he asks that the Community be an advocate to the Councilwoman for funding.

Stuart Muller asked what is budget for all sidewalks and what is the liability costs. City indicates that 118 miles at $21M is annual budget.

Alex Man a resident, commented that there is never any estimate from the City on replacement value for taking out a tree – should consider value to property. Should look at environmental and energy factors as well. It has been estimated that 10,000 trees will be removed – this is a huge value. And other benefits should be considered because there is a 20-year catch up time for new trees, as they represent a very important resource on which our own survival is important. He expressed the opinion that trees are a public resource and should be treated as such.

Carl Mellinger moved that the PPCC should send a letter to the Councilwoman to support increased funding for tree trimming and repair and decry lack funding to date and express concern.  Norm Kulla seconded. Motion was passed unanimously.

4.3 Planned construction at 216 Amalfi Drive

The homeowner and Mr. Mo Blorfroshan representing the DOT were present. DOT reports that they are responding to letters sent out – as well as concern from Coastal Commission. The homeowner is present and pledged support to any DOT traffic mitigation requests.  Representative of DOT has investigated site and has required a flagman – and the homeowner has agreed to the requirement. Marguerite Perkins Mautner expressed concern that, with parking, Amalfi is a one-lane street. Flagman would cause cars to backedup on three curves.  In response, the homeowner suggested that she can use walkie-talkie – will have signage – and blockage will be minimized and coordinated with LAUSD. The Council asked if parking could be restricted during work? DOT expressed the opinion that this would take away parking from residents. Arthur Mortell asks that a heavy equipment stationing point should be established to avoid a build-up with trucks waiting. He asks if the owner is willing to commit to establish a staging area. Arthur Mortell recommended that the Council recommend establishing a requirement for the homeowner to implement traffic mitigation measures including requiring a staging area.

5. New Business

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.  The next meeting of the PPCC Board will be held at Temescal Canyon Park Dining Hall on December 12, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.

Return to Top

George Wolfberg

Arthur Mortell

Patti Post

Norman Kulla

Kurt Toppel

Stuart Muller

Tipi Weiner

Bob Jacobson

Lorraine Oshins

Larry Jacobs

Barbara Kohn

Marguerite Perkins Mautner

Todd Ferrier.

Katy Lain

Peter Partain

Alice Karl

Ted Mackie

Richard Blumenberg

Gilbert Dembo

Jean Gold Friedman

Mark Elswick

Sam Stigler

Larry Jacobs

T.R. Gregory

Minutes of October 10, 2002

Board Members Present (including Alternates and Advisors):

1.0             Introduction of Board and Audience:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. with the reading of the purpose of the PPCC as stated in its Bylaws.  Members of the Board and audience introduced themselves.  The Chair led the Board and audience in a moment of silence for Mort Farberow.

2.0               Adoption of Minutes:

The Minutes of the prior meeting were not completed and not adopted.

3.0            Announcements and Concerns:

3.1  Treasurer’s Report

There is $7,634.23 in the PPCC checking account and $4,773.25 in the savings account.  Mailing costs for the Newsletter have been paid in the amount of $4,796.  Receipts since the Newsletter was mailed have covered costs of the Newsletter.

3.2  Identifying Area Reps Alternates

Frank Wilson, speaking for the committee appointed per our bylaws to identify and recommend area alternates, announced the decisions of Harry Sondheim, Frank Wilson, and Shirley Haggstrom:  First, that Todd Ferrier be approved as Area 5 Alternate, and then per the bylaws be designated Area 5 Representative and second that the following alternates be approved:

The Committee also recommended that Paul Glasgall be appointed as Traffic Advisor and that both Scott Wagenseller and Larry Niles are given responsibilities that will keep them involved with the Council. 

Barbara Kohn moved to adopt the committee report and Arthur Mortell seconded.  The board passed the motion unanimously.

Areas 6,7, and 8 do not currently have Alternates and the committee will continue its search.

3.3  Status of Organizational Representative Designations and others

The Chair will e-mail, to the Board, the newly revised list of Organizations to be represented on the board for the year beginning October 1, 2002.

3.4 Community Service Guidelines

The Chair distributed, to the Board, copies of the Community Service Award Guidelines.  The chair asked that persons willing to serve on the nomination committee contact him.  There was no discussion.

3.5  LA County Sand Replenishment Project

Stan Wisniewski, Director of the Department of Beaches and Harbors for the County of Los Angeles and Joseph Chesler, Chief Planning Director of the same, addressed the Board regarding concerns that the community has expressed over the quality of the infill.  Maria Chong Castillo, Deputy to Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky also spoke.

Stan:  300 truck loads of sand were taken from a new development at Dockweiler Beach.  For 6 days crews observed the offloading of the sand just north of Sunset Blvd.  The crews found no evidence of metals or glass and followed the protocols established to assure the highest quality sand.  One element of the protocol is to sift the sand down to a depth of approx., 18", thus reducing the size of any remaining debris to about a dime.  Soil testing is ongoing and follows the guidelines set by the EPA, and the Coastal Regional Quality Board.  Stan expressed his concern that some unwanted debris may have inadvertently been placed on the beach.  He assured the Board that measures are being taken to remove any debris that the community might be concerned about.  He assured the Board that concerns over the color of the sand will be allayed due to a natural bleaching process that by virtue of exposure to sunlight, will bleach the sand to the same color as the native sand.  He assured the Board that his department has learned from this experience and will, in the future, sift the sand at its source and then cordon off the area that it is being dumped in to protect people from any inadvertent pollution.  He also told the Board that the monitors did not find any evidence of glass and that he believed that any metal found on the beach could be attributed to offshore groins that occasionally wash up on the shore.  Only about 5,000 of the anticipated 20,000 cubic yards of sand material was placed on the beach before the dumping was stopped.  The Chair asked what depth the sand was spread over the beach: Stan:  4'-6' on an angular basis.  Barbara Kohn asked who is doing the soil testing:  Stan:  An independent contractor from public works.  Barbara:  What is the name of the contractor that the Dockweiler Developer hired to haul the sand?  Stan:  Salter Construction.  Lorraine Oshin:  Is this Construction Dirt?  Stan:  No, it tests as sand and it will be bleached-out by the sun.

Joseph Chesler added that there is more silt in the sand than is usual for replenishment.   The Officials then left, after promising to report back to the Board on test results and to continue their efforts at assuring the community a clean beach.

Three residents appeared at the meeting and asked to be heard on the subject.  The Chair granted their request, though there were board members who expressed dissatisfaction with having to revisit the issue.  The residents told the Board that the material dumped is not sand, but dirt; that truck loads of debris, including rocks, rebar, metal spikes, cement caissons, glass, rocks, etc., pollute this dirt and that the sifting process is inadequate in that it only penetrates 6-8", thus leaving concentrated debris below the dirt.  The residents then showed the Board both pictures and a video of the evidence, including footage taken from the source at Dockweiler Beach.  Some members of the Board voiced their outrage. Some Board members felt that representation by Stan Wisniewski and Joseph Chesler adequately addressed the expressed concern while other Board members voiced their opinion that they had been deceived. Gilbert Dembo made a motion that was seconded by Norman Kulla and was amended, with Gil's approval, by Barbara Kohn, that: "The Chair of the Pacific Palisades Community Council draft and send a letter to all appropriate officials expressing our concerns (to be listed by the Chair based on the Board's discussion).  That the video (to be updated by the residents) provided by the residents of the work on the beach, be included with the above letter.  That the 5,000 cubic yards of earth dumped on the beach be removed in its entirety and replaced with sand of the same quality found on the beach prior to the replenishment."

The Motion passed with 13 in favor, 1 opposed and no abstentions.

3.6  Agenda Items for West LA APC

The Chair announced two October 16th Agenda Items for the Area Planning Commission that may impact our Community: 1) 15441 Sunset.  Specific Plan Exception - Perpendicular Sign.  and 2)  17325 Castellammare.  Applicant appealing ZA Conditions - (staff recommends denial of appeal).

3.7 Patrol Signs

Paul Glasgall expressed his frustration over a new city inspector who wants to see the Bel Air Patrol signage removed from the Highlands, and wants to see the patrol cars removed from the center of the street parking spots. The Chair committed to working with Paul on this issue.

3.8 Announcement from the Mayor's new West LA Representative

Viet N. Tran (WLA 310-410-1749 / Downtown 213-978-0739    Vtran@mayor.lacity.org ) told the Board about the Mayor's efforts to reach out to LA communities with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Advocacy.  Viet is the West LA Director.  He told us about the $3,000,000 Indemnification Insurance that will be provided to neighborhood groups that contract with the City for neighborhood improvement projects and he told us about the new 311 information and guidance service being established by the City.  He was well received by the Board.

4.1 Traffic Impact of Temescal Storm Drain Diversion Project Update

City Engineer Carl Mills, (213) 847-6516 updated the Board on the planned traffic impact of, and mitigation plans for the work associated with the diversion project. He was accompanied by project coordinator Andy Flores (Bureau of Engineering).  The majority of the work is still expected to involve the curb area, bike and parking lane and Eastern most traffic lane of Temescal Canyon Road.  It is still expected that these areas will be closed to all traffic, including pedestrians, for approximately 8 weeks with the barricaded area to extend approximately 150 ft North of PCH.  The work will be ongoing between 9AM and 4PM each workday.  No work is expected on holidays or weekends though they may attempt to utilize the Christmas Holidays for the most intrusive closures impacting school bus departures. 

As per Arthur Mortell's suggestion that the straight only lane might need to be temporarily re-assigned to be a left turn lane as well, to retain two left turning lanes onto the highway, Carl Mills told the Board that LADOT will work with Cal Trans to accommodate this request.

As per Arthur Mortell's request that signs be placed up Temescal and or on PCH to provide adequate warning of any delays, Carl detailed plans for 2 signs; one located on Northbound Sunset and one located on Southbound Sunset.  Two additional signs will be placed on PCH, one in advance of Sunset Boulevard [the Castellammare Bridge was suggested by Barbara Kohn] and one East of Chautauqua.

Both Andy Flores and Carl Mills outlined the detour route that Pali High officials have agreed to for the School Bus afternoon departure (Sunset to Allenford in Brentwood).  The work that will impact all lanes but one left and one right turn lane will last for 3 weeks.  Byron Brooks asked how much additional commute time will result for the students.  Mssrs Flores and Mills thought it would be a wash considering the expected delay taking the PCH route.

As per the original request by Harry Sondheim requesting advance notification of future projects that would impact the community, Carl informed us that his department is working on establishing new policy guidelines that would do just that.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.  The next meeting of the PPCC Board will be held at Mort’s Oak Room on October 24^th, 2002 at 7:00 P.M.

Minutes taken by Vice Chair, Arthur Mortell, sitting in for the Secretary, .

Return to Top